JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Hottest July in 4000 years? Not even the hottest July since *2014* according to satellites

NOAA has a press release out being picked up around the world. For example, the DailyMail, UK, is saying July was the hottest month since records began in 1880 as heatwaves swept the Earth’s countries and oceans. Other silly tabloids have headlines about this being the hottest July in 4,000 years, as if we have even the remotest idea what the average July global temperature was in the days of Plato.

Better data shows July this year is the hottest since way back in…  2014. It’s not 4,000 years, not 135 years, it’s the hottest July since the last one.

We only have 30 years of good climate data: the satellites tell us the pause is real, and last month’s summer temperatures is not a record anything. According to the UAH and RSS global satellites, lower troposphere averages for July 2014 were 0.30C and 0.34C, compared to July 2015 of 0.28C. Even, June 2015 was hotter (UAH, 0.35C; RSS, 0.39C).
July 2015 is not even the hottest month since June.
UAH, Hottest July Temperature, 2015,

But some journalists will believe anything. Anthony Sharman, sports journalist, News.com, Australia, thinks we know the global temperature of the July that Jesus was born. Who’s a gullible journalist then? (And who was that gullible editor?) We have estimates of the temperature of whole years circa one AD, but we don’t have “monthly” data. Not too many thermometers. How good are those tree-rings? Check out this fantasy headline:

Yes July could have been the hottest month in 4,000 years, and it could have been the first month Earth was visited by aliens — there is no evidence for that either.

Anthony Sharman read one press release and thinks he knows more than what he got from the cereal box:

CLIMATE change is real. Climate change is happening. The world is getting warmer. There was no global pause. This thing is not slowing down.

These are the inescapable conclusions for anyone who sources their information beyond cereal boxes, internet forums and oil industry spokespeople…

It’s no-holds-barred, pure agitprop. (I’ll bet he feels smug today, eh? ;-) ). Do leave a comment to help them get past their fawning commitment to publish chumpy unresearched propaganda.

We know the world was hotter 8000 years ago, and 130,000 year ago, and for millions of years while life on Earth evolved.

Greenland temperatures, ice cores, holocene period, paleoclimate

Current temperatures “might” be around the -31 line. What we know for sure is that current temperatures are not unusual.

Yes, the graph above is “only Greenland” but the holocene was hotter all over the world. (6,000  boreholes were drilled all over the world — Huang and Pollack, 2008). Go on, deny this.

Borehole temperatures last 20,000 years
Huang and Pollack 2008

 

The further back we go the more climate variability there is. Today’s temperatures are balmy, mild, good, and nice for humans.

 

Vostok Ice Core, Eemian, paleoclimate, history, Temperature, global

Present temperatures are around the red flat line at 0C.

There’s more information on the Vostok Ice Cores here.

Most of the last 65 million years was hotter. Go on, Panic Now!

Poor Sharman. Gullible.

About Anthony Sharman

Ant covers a mixture of sport, news, weather and everything in between. A Walkley-award winner and author, Ant has worked in magazines, papers and digital and loves writing everything from in-depth features to quick, fun stories with a quirky edge. A husband and father of two, Ant farms chickens in his backyard, a practice which requires almost exactly the same skillset as working in a digital newsroom. Every week he joins the Fox Sports news team to discuss the unique news.com.au take on sport.

h/t Steve W, Colin, Mal.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (151 votes cast)
Hottest July in 4000 years? Not even the hottest July since *2014* according to satellites, 9.3 out of 10 based on 151 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/nw5xgpc

364 comments to Hottest July in 4000 years? Not even the hottest July since *2014* according to satellites

  • #
    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well thank goodness – here comes the Carbon Lone-Ranger with 100% renewables pledge for canberra by 2025……

      Still laughing hard….

      http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-chief-minister-andrew-barr-pledges-100-per-cent-renewables-by-2025-20150820-gj4bm0.html

      “ACT Labor will commit to a target of 100 per cent renewable energy by 2025, Chief Minister Andrew Barr will tell the party faithful at its annual conference on Saturday, making Canberra the first Australian capital to be powered entirely by wind, solar and other renewable sources.

      Labor’s current target is 90 per cent renewables by 2020 and to get there, it is buying power from five or six wind farms, three solar farms within the territory borders, and a big-dish-style solar project whose details have yet to be settled.

      Mr Barr will tell 327 delegates at the party’s conference that the 100 per cent target is achievable, putting the ACT at the global forefront in its response to climate change.”

      “We can do this. We have shown it’s possible – now we have one small step left,” he said. “Canberra can and should be a beacon for everyone who realises the world must act decisively now to stave off a future of catastrophic climate change.”

      The government is buying the bulk of its renewable energy through auctions, where companies compete for 20 year contracts at a guaranteed price. One solar farm began operation last year, with a second being built and a third in planning. The first three wind farms have begun or are preparing to begin construction, between them producing sufficient energy for one-quarter of Canberra’s needs. And the government has called bids for its second wind auction this month.

      Environment Minister Simon Corbell has said the initiatives to date, including the new auction, would bring the city close to its 90 per cent target. The renewables will add an average $240 a year to the average electricity bill for Canberra households by 2020, he has said.

      The government is yet to announce details of how it will fill the final 10 per cent of the target, but it has the advantage of being able to move to renewable energy without threatening any other energy-generating industries, a factor that makes it more difficult for states like NSW to go nearly so far.”

      Funny how the music from “The 3 Stooges” keeps coming to mind…..

      190

      • #
        Angry

        Does this character “Andrew Barr” perform at some Sit Down Comedy venue perchance ??

        If he doesn’t he sure has missed his true calling !

        61

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          In the article announcing the 100% renwables nonsense, the person in question was photographed at the Mad Hatters Ball….

          Thoughts about life and imitation and art come to mind…..

          Life is never dull.

          30

      • #
        Leigh

        The renewables will add an average $240 a year to the average electricity bill for Canberra households by 2020, he has said.

        $240 for what exactly?
        Does anybody really believe this rubbish or that figure?
        Without subsidys you could conservitivly quadruple that.
        Where do these snake oil salesman pluck these figures from?

        Seems he must have solved that little problem of how to keep the lights on when the sun goes down and the wind don’t blow.
        Start stock piling your candles Canberrians.

        And last I read hydro don’t count.

        70

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Castles in the air…paid for..w.ait for it….the punters who cant say no……

          Now all we need is a fancy bug dacha on the black sea and the picture is complete….

          30

      • #
        Lawrie Ayres

        If I read this correctly the ACT will disconnect any coal derived power and I’m interested to know how that will be achieved and how the ACT will be prevented from sneaking a bit when there is a lack of wind and sunlight. I’d love nothing better than to see the lights go out during Question Time as the renewables failed yet again.

        80

      • #

        Shh! Don’t tell anyone!

        The ACT consumes around 2.8TWH of power each year. Now, while the overall population of the whole ACT is larger than Newcastle, the ACT consumes less power, because while Newcastle has a lot of industry, large consumers of electricity, the ACT doesn’t.

        So, we’re not talking very much power here, in fact barely 1.3% of the total power consumption of the whole of Australia.

        1.3%, a little more than a fart in a windstorm.

        So, 2.8TWH of power is still a lot of power to generate.

        Hmm!

        Let me see now.

        How about those Snowy Mountains nearby and all that lovely Hydro power. I wonder how much Snowy Hydro is consumed by the ACT.

        Snowy Hydro is owned by NSW (58%) Victoria, (29%) and Australia, (13%) umm, read ACT here.

        So, umm, lets’ see now. What’s 13% of the yearly output of the Snowy Hydro.

        Why, that’s 2.5TWH no less.

        So, with Hydro classified as renewable, you know, as much as they don’t ever mention how the only reason the renewables percentage is so high is solely due to Hydro, (everywhere) the ACT now only has to find around 300GWH of power to make 100% from Renewables.

        Hey how easy is that, eh.

        They can say 100% from renewables and everyone thinks wind and solar, and how this is a wonderful aspiration, and say, hey, we can do this, aren’t we great. We can show the World.

        Shh! Don’t mention Hydro.

        300GWH, the remainder, all from wind and solar. Not too hard a task that, with all that hydro to take up the slack.

        300GWH, you know the output from Bayswater in, umm, 4 days and 16 hours.

        What they have oh so artfully not mentioned to anyone is that they are already 88% of the way there with all that lovely Snowy Hydro.

        Tony.

        240

        • #

          Tony looking not far back in time to when the ACT was smaller then, it could be said that it once did run 100% off renewables but as CO2 became the greatest moral delusion of our time it promptly ceased to do so.

          50

        • #
          Bobl

          Don’t forget Tony, that 100% will be nameplate. I am sure that even the snowy mountain scheme doesn’t have 100% capacity factor all the time. The wivenhoe hydro plant was mothballed for most of the last drought, 6 of the last 10 years. Where is the energy coming from when renewable generation is low – why, NSW coal power of course.

          70

          • #

            Bobl,

            you’ll note I didn’t use Nameplate here, but actual power consumed, 2.8TWH.

            That 2.5TWH I used as the ACT’s 13% allocation of Snowy Hydro is also based on actual power generated, and that was calculated at (around) the average Capacity Factor of 55% for most Hydro power.

            I’m willing to bet that the First Minister of the ACT will not be all that willing to go around with an axe and chop off the power interconnect from NSW which supplies all the power coming into the ACT.

            So, umm, in manner similar to how South Australia makes its claims about renewables, they will just go on the yearly totals, because there will be days when the wind does not blow enough to generate all that much power, so no one will ever know with certainty that ALL the power ALL the time is definitely coming from renewable sources.

            Tony.

            80

            • #
              bobl

              That’s not the point Tony, while you or I might understand that actual generation is only a fraction of theoretical nameplate capacity, politicians will spin it. Rather than use actual they will base there claims on nameplate. So when Shorten says 50% by 2030 what he means is nameplate of 50% of total nameplate. That as you or I know only 10% in terms of actual power delivery.

              Abbotts 26% will be on a nameplate basis too, so he only has to acheive about 5% in actual terms to have 26% in nameplate terms.

              Such is politics.

              Oddly this means that the ACT can acheive 100% of their consumption in nameplate terms from a system which delivers only 20% of their consumption!

              Political math 101.

              Bob

              40

          • #

            Bobl “I am sure that even the snowy mountain scheme doesn’t have 100% capacity factor all the time.”
            While you are inevitably correct in the very extreme situation, the ACT does not have 100% demand all the time and water can be pumped uphill from dam to dam. This means that the supply can track demand until demand exceeds supply.
            Australia needs more dams both big and small. There is a very small hydro generator at Mt Stromlo. About 750KW from memory (I have been there and climbed on it). Is listed as 700KW here. It was inserted into an exisiting pipeline from Bendora dam to use energy that was previously just wasted. While 700KW is small many more like these should be installed all over the place to help reduce transmission loss in the grid. Much of that 700KW would be used by the Stromlo water plant itself.
            Another local one https://youtu.be/5TDwPJLSR8o

            40

          • #

            The ACT also has two 3MW (I think) methane generators at Mugga lane and West Belconnen rubish dumps. These help to turn stink into lovely life giving CO2. Sadly the ACT is cluttering up the place with solar junk too. Complete with websites that do not work. http://royallasolarfarm.com.au/cgi-sys/defaultwebpage.cgi

            20

        • #
          Gee Aye

          Umm. Everyone here knows that so, umm, no need for whispers.

          14

        • #
          Wayne Job

          Perhaps it is time for our national parliament to seriously consider passing a law that by the first of january 2025 the capital territory will man datedly be disconnected from the national grid. This would show the people in the ACT on that particular day what stupid folly their local government is following. Parliament would be OK they have their own back up power. The real people of the ACT would be very peeved and demand a very quick change of mind from their local government. Problem solved and idiots removed.

          10

      • #
        Reed Coray

        We can do this. We have shown it’s possible – now we have one small step left,” he said. “Canberra can and should be a beacon for everyone who realises the world must act decisively now to stave off a future of catastrophic climate change.”

        ACT labor should start stockpiling candles to illuminate its beacon for those windless nights, otherwise the rest of the world and even the Pope might get lost on their holy pilgrimages to Canberra.

        40

  • #
    Andrew

    So if you asked him point blank, “I don’t source my info from oil companies or d@n!@r blogs but directly from the RSS satellite which shows XYZ, how do you account for the apparent contradiction?” what would he actually say?

    230

    • #
      • #
        Manfred

        ‘Fudging’ is supremely generous.
        May I suggest The Smart Axiom for Discourse and Intellectual Engagement (SADIE):
        “Do unto others as they would unto you”

        90

      • #
        Dave in the states

        I never knew my one grandfather. He passed away when my father was just a 15 years. However, one of the things my father told me about his father was that he was absolutely honest. I try to live up to that standard.

        In my work I check and recheck every point of data. Even when it goes against what I expect or is inconclusive I have to be honest about it. Do I make mistakes? Of course. But I try to correct them.

        I’m just really amazed at the duplicity I see in the climate science field and how scientists who make honest observations and comments are ignored and sometimes attacked by the science is settled crowd. What a silly notion, that science can be settled…….

        270

    • #
      Peter Miller

      You have to ask the question why alarmists only believe satellite figures about sea level and ground figures about temperature.

      The answer is you cannot homogenise/torture direct sea level readings, also satellite readings on global temperature are totally unbiased, unlike the land based data sets.

      250

      • #
        Mike

        Perhaps a clue can be found in ‘economic-climate-science’.

        As you know, economic climate science relies on satellites to transmit data like the data for high frequency trading at mind boggling speeds, to and fro, so that the economic climate can be understood on earth. For example, the economic climate scientist was using satellites to obtain economic data well before terrestrial climate scientists started using satellites to obtain temperature etc data..

        Economic climate scientist’s already understand that an under-performing economic climate results in poverty, austerity and thus emissions of CO2 will plummet in this scenario. If people cannot buy petrol, the price of petrol plummets and oil rigs are shut down. Terrestrial climate scientists are jealous the economic climate scientist are able to determine CO2 emissions using economic data alone and so they generally keep quiet about this achievement of economic climate science. Sad they cannot work together harmoniously.

        So there’s the clue. terrestrial climate scientist’s have always envied economic climate scientists toy’s like their high frequency trading algo’s and the ability to create a climate like an economic climate out of thin air by merely knowing when to start and stop printing fiat currency. And of course the satellites. Terrestrial climate scientists have always wanted to be able to torture data like a real economic climate scientist.

        The terrestrial climate scientist are learning fast from the economic climate scientists for example, how to manipulate public thinking, create new markets like cap and trade, knowing when to go public during hot temperature events, and remain silent during the cold weather events and so forth. It is a sad truth however that economic climate science is vastly more mature when it comes to using satellites to obtain tortured economic data compared to the recent increase in the use of satellites for the purposes of terrestrial climate science.

        Enjoy. Mike

        40

  • #
    David Maddison

    The world is too cool. I wish it were warming and not cooling. Cooling is harmful for civilisation.

    453

    • #

      It’s been the coldest bloody winter that I can remember. Our neighbour, who’s been living next door for 17 + years and in the locality much longer, can’t remember such a cold and protracted winter. Where the hell is this global warming?

      604

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        At the bottom of the oceans, biding it’s time until Thermogeddon is declared. Do keep up!

        461

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        At the bottom of the oceans, biding it’s time until Thermogeddon is declared. Do keep up!

        214

      • #
        • #
          David-of-Cooyal in Oz

          I agree with your assessment, and even to the Abbott terminology. I was actually overwhelmed when I first read the item. I felt only a long book would be adequate to refute it all, but what’s the use when our lovely ABC won’t accept criticism?
          So I’ll just make one comment: no mention of the Little Ice Age in the latest attempt at a hockey stick.
          Cheers,
          Dave B

          00

          • #

            The very first thing that hit me was the headline: ‘Climate Change Sceptics vs The Scientists’.

            That was intended to send a message that sceptics are not qualified scientists, or anyone else worthy of note.

            Then it goes into the usual crap to try and defend The Scientists.

            30

            • #
              gnome

              That hit me first too, and then reading it, what hit me was that “the scientists” consisted of Matthew England.

              You know, the one who sat in the audience of Q&A and denied that there was a “pause” in global warming, then came up with a reason for the pause, then decided to start denying it again. Our very own Michael Mann.

              Strawmen, be afraid – be very afraid – the ABC is coming to get you!

              20

          • #
            Russ Wood

            That ‘hiding the REAL climate’ was the first thing I noted. A couple of years ago, I was in the Te Papa museum in Wellington, NZ. Looking at the climate display, with of course the ‘hockey stick’ I wondered “so where is the Little Climatic Optimum (hadn’t heard about the MWP then) and the Little Ice Age?” At that point, I started to become the sceptic I am today. Jo, thanks to you and all the other climate commenters for keeping me on the TRUE pathway!

            10

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        A single month’s observations and some anecdotal testimony are not an adequate substitute for 100 years of instrumental measurements. One subjectively cold winter doesn’t inform about the global trend. In south east Australia the average monthly minimums have been increasing since 1972.
        Solar activity does not explain this because the minimums are from night time and the Svensmark hypothesis says the global warming trend is from reduced cloud cover, but reduced clouds would cool overnight minimums not warm them.
        The AMO/”60 year cycle” doesn’t really explain it either because there was no noticeable downtrend in minimums from 1945 to 1972, they were roughly trendless there.
        So an enhanced greenhouse effect is the only other candidate explanation we know of for this increase of 0.22°/decade in overnight temperature minimums. Whether that is from water vapour or CO2 can’t be determined from this weather data alone.

        27

        • #
          • #
            gai

            And here I thought it was the termites!

            According to Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.

            Now we know why cities have such a high UHI effect. It is all those termites munching away and passing gas.

            51

            • #
              Bobl

              There’s the answer then, wipe out the termites, one has to wonder what effect on CO2 emissions termite management has over preindustrial termites. Perhaps modern termites emit more CO2, all those termite SUVs you know

              41

        • #
          gai

          “….So an enhanced greenhouse effect is the only other candidate explanation we know of for this increase of 0.22°/decade in overnight temperature minimums….”

          WRONG!

          The obvious explanation is Urban Heat Island Effect.

          Dr. Roy Spencer noted that even rural stations are effected. “… While the rate of warming with population increase is the greatest at the lowest population densities, some warming continues with population increases even for densely populated cities…”
          (wwwDOT)drroyspencer.com/2010/03/the-global-average-urban-heat-island-effect-in-2000-estimated-from-station-temperatures-and-population-density-data/

          This is especially true since The Great Dying of Thermometers wiped out a lot of rural temperatures.

          …The biggest Urban Heat Island effect is concrete and asphalt absorbing heat all day and radiating it back at night. As we would expect the maximums are not as affected… (Melbourne AUS.)

          Dr. Roy Spencer, who has done a lot of work on UHI backs this up with a city in the USA. Las Vegas: Poster Child for the Urban Heat Island Effect

          It is a good example because it is in the desert and there is not much water vapor or clouds.

          …What is notable about the “official” surface temperature record there is the strong urban heat island (UHI) effect which still remains in the USHCN data.

          This can been seen from the raw temperature data, which shows that daytime warming has been modest and nighttime warming has been strong (over 3 deg. F since 1973), whereas the official, adjusted USHCN Tmax and Tmin trends are even warmer than the raw temperature trends, even at night, and are equal to each other….

          No matter what instrumentation changes occurred in the raw temperature record, there is no way they cause a nighttime bias that large compared to the daytime (speaking as a former certified aviation weather observer). The USHCN plot provided by Anthony shows 10 deg. F (!) of nighttime warming since the late 1930s, which is simply not a credible representation of the non-urban environment.

          The most logical explanation for the raw 3-hourly temperature differences between day and night is related to the dramatic growth Las Vegas has experienced in the last 40 years. The number of visitors has skyrocketed from 8 million in 1973 to about 40 million today, a factor of 5 increase. The population has increased by a factor of about 6 or 7.

          All of this translates into more waste heat from air conditioning, plus more artificial surfaces which warm faster than natural surfaces….

          know about how urban environments retain heat at night, the exact opposite should have happened. In fact, given that there should also be an urban warming signal during the day, it might well be there has been no real climate-related warming in Las Vegas in the last 40 years.

          The net result is that the official (adjusted USHCN) Las Vegas warming trends appear to be dominated by local urban heat island effects.

          101

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Wow, I’d actually forgotten about UHI when I wrote that. Must be these late nights I’ve been having.
            Fair enough.

            Last I heard, separating the the UHI from the GHE is still one of those unsolved problems. In the area I selected most of it is rural, but no idea which stations got used in the mean, I just asked for a minimum 0.25° spatial separation between stations in the Climate Explorer form.

            If I could edit my comment above I would remove the last two sentences, as they are false.

            30

            • #
              RB

              Here is the average minimum temperatures for Mildura airport.

              The nearest long temperature record in a town (for some reason, the data for Wentworth is not available) is 100km south at Ouyen PO.

              These are in rural Victoria. Ouyen is a small town of 1000 people.

              20

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Ah okay, so in this data the minimums are warming at 0.05°C per decade. Almost nothing. Thanks for that.

                Still shows minimums have been going up, not down, so any recent cold winters are just freak events and not representative of a trend to date, which was the point I was trying to make.
                There’s always the chance that the trend has changed and we’re in the early stages of cooling, but it will be another 6 years to see that in the world average.

                20

              • #
                RB

                For the Ouyen PO in town, its 0.13°C/decade while the Airport one (well away from the terminal) is negligible.

                20

              • #
                RB

                If you loo kat the individual months at Ouyen, there is no discernible trend in the winter months.

                I’ll also add that my ex home town had three days in row of -2.3°C, stubbornly refusing to break the August record. I thought that the 1st morning was colder than the fourth at -3.1. I guess four in a row of 2.3 would have been a stretch.

                10

            • #
              AndyG55

              “If I could edit my comment above I would remove the last two sentences, as they are false”

              As anyone who is not a “climate scientist™” would do. ( please note the ™ ! ;-)

              41

      • #
        Angry

        Indeed!

        I want more global warming because I hate being cold !!

        50

    • #

      I want my cold and snow back. I miss 10 foot snow drifts and −40F temps. (I’m serious.)

      60

      • #
        gai

        And not being able to see a car coming around the corner because of the snow drifts. Not seeing the road surface until next spring. The dog sitting on top of the garage roof because she could walk up the snow drift to get there. Stepping over the telephone lines to get to the field across the street to play. Not being able to go outside unless wearing X-country skis. (I sank over my head)

        Was I living in Maine? Montana? No, I was living 250 miles / 400 km north west of New York City (We were south of Buffalo)

        80

      • #

        Bugger the cold, we’re running out of dry wood and now burning our timber dunny seats to keep the fire going. Next we’ll be looking for some houses built from recycled timber, that should burn really well.

        20

        • #
          Manfred

          City parks, neighbourhood fences and decks should go some way, at least for a while. Save the dunny seats. They should come a desperate last. The chilly adherence of skin to porcelain could result in the grand irony of calling the fire brigade.

          10

      • #
        Mark Hladik

        Just FYI;

        When you write, ” – 40 [degrees] ” it is unnecessary to put either Fahrenheit or Celsius on it, as this is the single temperature where they are equal ( -40 F = -40 C).

        10

        • #

          Good point, Mark H. I get used to putting the C’s and F’s and just do it on everything. I’ll try to watch that in the future.

          10

  • #
    Grant

    I’ll have to admit… I just took their data and used that to have fun with “the believers”. How can they argue when it’s their data I used? The Japanese graph stated “Trend =.067 degrees”, the slop showed no runaway temps, the heating started 150 years ago… I had no intelligent response to the fact I used their won graph against them. To me … it was an own goal.

    I encourage all to respond to the article, facebook shares, etc and go for broke… maybe SOMEONE will see they’ve been duped.

    REf: http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/july-could-have-been-the-hottest-month-in-4000-years-climate-scientists-say/story-fnjwvztl-1227493098122

    My responses:
    “Has anyone seen the graph presented that shows temperatures have changed by ONE degree in the last 150 years? (Hint : It’s in the article above – even has a label “trend =0.67 degrees / century). Climate change is real, but the alarmist scenarios are NOT as those panicking would have you believe. Remember – the alarmist position – with their models – was between 2 degrees and 4 degrees per century.”

    “for the rate of change… look at the same graph in the news article and compare 1910 ->1940 with 1970 -> today…. the rates are similar. A very simple read of the graph shows a few things….1. over 150 years, the temperature has changed by about 1 degree. 2. this warming started before “catastrophic” amounts of C02 were pumped into the atmosphere (circa 1970) 3. the current rate of change is nothing new. 4. warming is still on track to be around 2/3 of a degree a century. ALL – THIS IS FROM THE GRAPH IN THE NEWS ARTICLE. This is the DATA we are presented and it is showing that catastrophic warming IS NOT HAPPENING. Now, warming IS happening, but geologic evidence shows the temperature changes, and sometimes quite suddenly.”

    Have fun

    353

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Climate change is real”

      Always has been..

      There is no anthropogenic CO2 signal in the whole of the satellite record.

      The only warming was from the solar forced 1997-2001 El Nino. (about 0.26C)

      The slight warming before that has been almost exactly cancelled by the slight cooling after.

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/offset:-.26

      The satellite record, backed by the balloon and other data, totally destroys the lies of the AGW hypothesis.

      334

    • #

      And, in any case, there is a huge logical problem about claiming that this-or-that month or year, or whatever, is the hottest in 4000 years. As soon as you specify a time – in this instance 4000 years – then the logical conclusion is that there must have been a HOTTER month or year 4000 years ago.

      If there was NOT a hotter month/year 4000 years ago, then the claim would be that ‘this is the hottest month/year for 5000, 6000, 7000 (or whatever) years ago.

      The claim that ‘this is the hottest for 4000 years’ means it was hotter back then and the world temperature has been in a trough since then. It has taken 4000 years for the temperature to get back to where it was 4000 years ago.

      Each time someone specifies that ‘this is the hottest period since (insert number) years ago, they are actually agreeing that there were hotter periods in the past. They are actually validating the proposition that there were such things as the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm period and the Medieval Warm period.

      250

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      Good blog Grant! Like the way you turn their own evidence around to show the truth
      Simple observation of the facts shows there is no serious change taking place.
      Hope some of them are smart enough to see this.
      Yes! people should be alarmed . . . .
      But alarmed by the untruths they are being asked to believe in the name of ‘climate change’
      Geoffrey Williams

      20

    • #
      Bobl

      Also, trend of 0.67 deg per century is below the unity level of 1.2 deg per doubling for CO2, Implying that feedbacks are NEGATIVE and runaway warming is IMPOSSIBLE. On their own numbers!

      20

  • #
  • #
    el gordo

    Technically speaking, 30 years is climate and the rest is just weather.

    Sharman has done a great disservice to the profession, but I’m more concerned with the Murdocracy leaning towards the looney left on climate change.

    Their fair and balanced credentials maybe under pressure.

    140

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Technically speaking, 30 years is climate ”

      Sorry but, NO !!

      In fact 30 years is probably the stupidest period to use, because it is half the major 60 year cycle.

      That mean that if you just happen to start at the low point in the 60 year cycle you will only get warming..

      Now think about who came up with the 30 year meme and when they want to start that 30 years.

      Hint.. he also draws little child-like 2D visualisations of atmospheric transfers for the climate change followers to drool over.

      41

  • #
    Dave

    .

    Anthony Has defected today

    “News Corp’s Anthony Sharwood latest journalist to join newly launched Huffington Post”

    Amazing
    Fairfax Launch Partner????

    Just a Sports Reporter who wants to go to Paris on the new gig

    Before it goes broke!

    160

  • #
    PeterFitzoy

    So I just love they way you distort what was said, add extraneous data and then ‘”prove” that black is white.

    337

    • #
      Mark D.

      PeterFizoy, why don’t you elaborate? What is the distortion? Your comment is hollow.

      290

      • #
        PeterFitzroy

        Simple really Mark, How did they get the July temperature records from those Vostok and Greenland ice cores? After all we are talking about July measured in a particular way over the entire globe, not a proxy for one or two sites where the smallest interval is a year. Now for the distortion. Lower troposphere compared to ground based records? You do not think that is a distortion?

        015

        • #
          AndyG55

          The real distortion of reality is the NOAA/GISS data.

          UAH US48 matches the USCRN and ClimDiv COOLING TREND and also matches the warmista run RSS data. UAH has July in 10th place even in the very short satellite record.

          The divergence between GISS and reality is well past a joke.

          It is very obvious that the NOAA/GISS data is highly fabricated and manipulated to CREATE a totally unrealistic trend for political purposes and certainly totally unfit for anything except base level propaganda for the warmista monkeys to feed on.

          133

    • #
      James Murphy

      Yeah, go on PeterFitzroy, elaborate, teach us ‘filthy deniers’ how wrong we are by showing us some facts.

      That is, if you understand enough about it to do so…?

      210

    • #
      el gordo

      Black is white, global cooling is about to begin and Peter is oblivious.

      110

    • #
      Ross

      These are aspects of the weather around the world in July 2015. it doesn’t show a picture of a very hot world to me.
      Cut and pasted from a post on Real Climate

      richard says:

      August 21, 2015 at 11:56 am

      July worldwide-

      N. Ireland – Coolest July since 1993
      Coldest Jan-July on record at Bangor, Maine
      Beluga whale spotted off Northern Ireland
      Normally found 2,000 miles away, it’s the first time this Arctic species has been recorded in Northern Irish waters.
      Melbourne – Coldest July in 20 years
      Abnormal summer snow in Iceland
      Scottish farmers suffering worst summer in four decades
      Scotland – “Hats, scarves and gloves – in July?”
      Freak cold wave hits Papua – Thousands go hungry
      “Anomalous” July snowfall in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho
      Finland – Summer 2015 poised to be coldest on record
      Freak July cold front brings snow to Northern Rockies
      Australia – Cold kills abnormally high number of lambs
      Peru – Cold kills 42 people
      Chile – Heavy snowfalls force 14 municipalities to declare state of emergency
      Snowing in Montana!
      Peru – Coldest winter in decades
      Heavy snowfall isolates more than 700 people in Lonquimay, Chili
      Ice refusing to melt in east Hudson Bay and Frobisher Bay
      Arctic global warming research expedition put on hold – Too much ice
      Snowfall in Hawaii – In mid-July
      South Africa – Mountain passes on two national roads closed indefinitely due to snow
      Australian animals struggle to cope with Antarctic blast
      JULY 18, 2015
      Arctic sea ice at highest extent for the date in last five years

      Chile – Up to 80 cm of snowfall in Cape Horn
      South Dakota city calls out snowplows in the middle of summer
      New South Wales snow shuts down highways
      Heavy snow and possible record cold in central Argentina
      Queensland, Australia – Biggest snowstorm in 31 years
      Auckland – Coldest morning in 64 years
      Unusual cold hits northern Vietnam
      JULY 13, 2015

      Snow in Papua, Indonesia – Food crisis for 10,150 inhabitants
      Northeast US – Coldest Year Since 1917
      Unseasonably cool in Japan
      JULY 12, 2015
      Snow-white fields in Germany
      Heaviest snow in New Zealand in 35 years
      Bolivia – At least 75,000 head of cattle may starve
      Australia – Coldest and snowiest in 15 years
      Record cold in Wisconsin
      Peru – Heaviest snowfall in years kills 171,850 alpacas
      Triple-digit snowfall forecast for Chile
      Heavy snow causes chaos in Gisborne, New Zealand

      Mid-summer snow in California

      Bolivia – Snowfall isolates 30 communities and threatens livestock

      Heavy snowfall in Vorkuta, Russia – In July!
      Shanghai – Lowest temperature in 145 years
      Norwegian meterologist recognizes that it has been unusually cold in Norway
      Severe freezing forecast for High Andes in Peru
      More summer snow in Kimmirut

      230

      • #
        gai

        Actually Ross it is worse than that.

        If you look at a map of the Wisconsin Ice Age, only some areas were glaciated. The eastern part of the USA and Scotland for instance.
        It is not cold but SNOW that is the start of glaciation.

        So what are we seeing happening?
        I will start with a classic, remember the MSM is busy saying Greenland is MELTINGgggg!

        “April 24, 2015 — I believe in one of my first blog posts I mentioned that we were working in an area of high accumulation (snowfall) on the Greenland Ice Sheet. I would like to change that to an area of VERY HIGH accumulation! Actually Southeast Greenland does receive the largest amount of snowfall on the entire ice sheet. In previous years we have experienced storms dumping over a meter of snow. This year we had one of those storms bringing well over a meter of snow and then 3 hours after the first storm ended we got a second, bigger storm, pushing our 5 days snow total to nearly 3 meters of snow.
        The amount of snow is best summed up by a dinner conversation in our cook tent where Olivia, being on the ice sheet for the first time, asked Clem, Josh and I, ice sheet veterans, what the biggest storm we had ever been in was like. We all responded, in unison,” this is the biggest storm we have ever been in!” While the weather was not particularly cold or windy, it just kept snowing. The low wind made it possible for us to continue science measurements through the storm in a special tent, with no floor, providing both shelter and access to the snow.”
        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/fromthefield/2015/04/25/wow-that-was-a-lot-of-snow/

        SCOTLAND
        February 2010 — Scotland records coldest winter
        , The past two months have entered the record books
        . Scotland has suffered some of the coldest winter months in almost 100 years, the Met Office has confirmed.

        Aug 27, 2014 … Almost 300 “snow patches” remain in Highland mountains and are forming neve. Neve is the first stage in the formation of glaciers

        Aug 14, 2015 … Scotland’s winter snow STILL hasn’t melted: Incredible … – Daily Mail
        ……………….

        Norway – Forced to remove excessive snow from ski slopes
        “During the last two days we’ve got more snow than we had in the last two years together,” says Vegar Sårheim. “I had never believed we would experience this.”
        (wwwDOT)irda.no/Dette_skisenteret_m__fjerne_sn_-5-15-15714.html

        Here is one about the chairlift being destroyed by an avalanche
        (wwwDOT)thenewstribune.com/2014/03/10/3090045/crystal-mountain-chairlift-destroyed.html

        Here is another about a resort roof collapse.
        news(DOT)yahoo.com/south-korea-resort-roof-collapses-8-students-dead-163956297.html

        2014 — The great lakes have been up to 6 DEGREES COLDER with only three months ice free.

        22 Feb 2015: Daily Mail: Wills Robinson: Siberian Express shows no signs of slowing as record-breaking deep freeze to continue for most of next week as death toll climbs to 20
        Toll includes nine in Tennessee, six in Pennsylvania, two in Illinois and one each in Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky
        They all succumbed to hypothermia in the plummeting temperatures. Several other deaths are being investigated
        Forecasters predict another round of ice snow and freezing rain will sweep from Missouri to the mid-Atlantic….
        At least 500 daily record lows have been broken from Cincinnati to Washington to New York…
        Bitter cold temperatures have shattered at least 500 decades-old records from Cincinnati to Washington to New York…
        In western Pennsylvania, temperatures dipped to minus 18 in New Castle, minus 15 in Butler and 6 below zero in Pittsburgh – all records… etc
        (wwwDOT)dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2962635/Siberian-Express-shows-no-signs-slowing-record-breaking-deep-freeze-continue-week-death-toll-climbs-20.html

        November 21, 2014 — Buffalo NY – 30 major roof collapses, 100 minor collapses, More collapses expected… the historic storm that dumped more than 7 feet (2.13 m) of snow on the area in only three days. Buffalo normally gets around 8 feet of snow during an entire winter season.

        2009 — In Canada, several all-time snowfall records were set during winter, reaching more than 550 centimetres (cm) in many locations, including Quebec City. In Toronto, it was the third snowiest winter on record for the past 70 years. At the end of January, Prince Edward Island was struck by one of the worst ice storms in decades.

        As of the beginning of December Chicago had the Coldest Year in 110 Years and Michigan ski area opens with record snow. Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan shatters 125-year-old November snowfall record.

        The west coast of the USA has not been spared either.
        Eight-and-half inches of snow fell at Juneau International Airport on Sunday Nov. 30, breaking the previous record of 6.3 inches set back in 1946. A record low temperature of 24 degrees was set at Seattle Washington WFO sunday Nov 30. This obliterated the old record of 32 set in 1991. A record low temperature of 19 degrees was set at Quillayute WA Airport today. This breaks the old record of 23 set in 1976. A record low temperature of 18 degrees was set at Bellingham WA Airport today. This ties the old record of 18 set in 1952.

        Nor has that bastille of Political Correctness Quebec been spared.
        Winter storm warning in effect Tuesday 09 December 2014… A major low pressure system is tracking up the east American seaboard today. A total of 20 to 30 centimetres (7.9″ to 11.8″) of snow with gusts between 70 and 80 km/h (43.5 to 49.7 mph) are expected. The combination of heavy snow and winds will significantly reduce visibilities during several hours. Snow could become mixed with ice pellets…

        2014 (Last winter)
        Record snowfall (almost 7 ft) in northern Iran
        Slovenia paralyzed by snow and ice
        Serbia – 1,000 evacuated from cars, buses and trains – Snow drifts 3.5 meters high
        Poland – Heavy snowfall and blizzards
        Heavy snowfalls and blizzard hammer southern Romania

        NOVEMBER 2014
        Iran – Snow and ice storm traps 2,000 people around November 5 followed by snow in 16 provinces by the end of the month.
        Turkey – Heavy snowfall knocks out power for 4 days

        DECEMBER 2014
        Algeria – Heavy snowfall brings complete paralysis of most educational institutions
        Libya – Snow covered the streets of Tripoli and Duahyaha
        Kazakhstan – 530 people rescued from snowdrifts since the beginning of winter
        Bulgaria – Heavy snow knocks out power to 10 municipalities in Bulgaria
        Turkey – Heavy snowfall traps people on the road in Mersin
        Serbia – Ice storm and deep snow – People experiencing mental breakdown after 48 hours without electricity, water and heating
        100,000 Czech travelers stranded due to freezing arctic weather
        Romania – More than 1,000 people stuck in snow
        Eastern Turkey – Heavy snowfall reduces visibility to 16 feet (5 m)
        Turkey – Heavy snowfall and extreme cold including the port city İzmir
        Sicily – Snow in Palermo
        Greece – Roads closed on the Greek island of Euboea
        JANUARY 2015
        Greek islands in the Mediterranean buried under 6½ ft (2 m) of snow

        >>>>>>>>>>>>>

        If they wanted to switch to screaming about Global Cooling again, there has certainly been plenty of new on that subject over the last five year or so. Poor Japan has been repeatedly plastered for example and so has South America and China.

        Only by the MSM NOT reporting the news of cold events worldwide can the Paris-ites continue the charade.

        H/T to IceAgeNow for publishing the news hidden by the MSM.

        130

  • #
    William Astley

    I found the problem. The cult of CAGW is moving to climate science fiction, ‘cli-fi’ as it is obvious that normal science does not support CAGW.

    “In recent years the term climate fiction, or cli-fi, has emerged to refer to works dealing explicitly with climate change. Margaret Atwood has championed the term, which has since been applied broadly, and even retroactively, to writers like JG Ballard and Jules Verne.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/20/climate-change-science-fiction

    224

    • #
      Manfred

      Okay then. Let’s see who has the cojones to make the film, “State of Fear,” that may lay this eco-marxism bare?

      201

    • #
      Cal

      The cult of denial now likes to attach a “C” to AGW, so that as it becomes ever more obvious even to the least educated that AGW is real you can still have a fallback position of denying that the warming is “catastrophic”.

      [And your evidence is???] AZ

      229

      • #

        If it’s not catastrophic, then why do we need to act now? If it’s just a gentle warming, we can adapt. Actually, without the C many people would not care at all about the warming. So, if your contention is there is no c, we thank you and will react accordingly.

        210

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        It wasn’t the deniers who attached the C to AGW. That was the original message. We’re just reminding everyone that the message has changed (the goal posts have been moved).

        You and we, and most every climate scientist now knows that AGW isn’t going to be catastrophic, but they dare not make it well known that they HAVE taken the C away, else their lies would be laid bare.

        200

      • #
        Glenn999

        Cult of Denial
        Cool. Never belonged to a cult before. Are there meetings? Any kind of secret handshake I should know about? Any hats, pins, stickers or tee-shirts?

        150

      • #
        gai

        Looks Like Cal missed Al Gore’s film.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkDK2mZlOo

        Of course to get that chart they had to get rid of all the ice core data derived from the entire sample and use only the ‘Air bubble’

        It was believed that snow accumulating on ice sheets would preserve the contemporaneous atmosphere trapped between snowflakes during snowfalls, so that the CO2 content of air inclusions in cores from ice sheets should reveal paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) compiled all such CO2 data available, finding that CO2 levels ranged from 140 to 7,400 ppmv. However, such paleoatmospheric CO2 levels published after 1985 were never reported to be higher than 330 ppmv. Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 — Dr Segalstad

        The Errors in Measurements of Gas Trapped in Ancient Ice Cores

        The author has published about 280 scientific papers.

        Validation by other scientists
        recently,….. glaciologists start to study the fractionation of gases in snow and ice (for example, Killawee et al. 1998), and the structure of snow and firn which might play a first-order role in changing gas chemistry and isotopic profiles in the ice sheets (Albert 2004, Leeman and Albert 2002, and Severinghaus et al. 2001). Recently, Brooks Hurd, a high-purity-gas analyst, confirmed the previous criticism of ice core CO2 studies. He noted that the Knudsen diffusion effect, combined with inward diffusion, is depleting CO2 in ice cores exposed to drastic pressure changes (up to 320 bars—more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure), and that it minimizes variations and reduces the maximums (Hurd 2006)…

        However I am sure Cal is not interested in actual science only mudslinging.

        90

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          In the first quote above, Segalstad is just repeating Jaworowski’s findings. The next two linked papers are also from Jaworowski. They are all the opinion of one person.
          Do you know of any work testing the reliability of ice core proxies of pCO2 that are independent of Jaworowski?

          Also, just for laughs, while I was googling for “improvements in ice core drilling and analysis” I also found this choice quote from the NEEM project:

          The research published this week shows that during the Eemian interglacial, the climate in North Greenland was about 8 degrees Celsius warmer than at present. Despite this strong warming signal during the Eemian–a period when the seas were roughly four to eight meters higher than they are today–the surface in the vicinity of NEEM was only a few hundred meters lower than its present level, which indicates that the Greenland ice sheet may have contributed less than half of the total sea rise at the time.

          “The new findings reveal higher temperatures in Northern Greenland during the Eemian than paleo-climate models have estimated,” said Dahl-Jensen.

          When climate models can’t predict the past there’s little hope for predicting the future.
          NEEM’s published results have no past pCO2 estimates visible. Amazing they would go to so much effort to collect the ice and then not put it through every kind of analysis possible. What’s up with that?

          40

          • #
            gai

            One of the references given is Killawee et al. 1998 that leads to this 2014 paper:
            First ‘‘in situ’’ determination of gas transport coefficients
            (DO2 , DAr , and DN2 ) from bulk gas concentration measurements (O2, N2, Ar) in natural sea ice

            It is dealing with landfast sea ice but does look at the diffusion and transport coefficients.

            Abstract
            We report bulk gas concentrations of O2, N2, and Ar, as well as their transport coefficients, in natural landfast subarctic sea ice in southwest Greenland. The observed bulk ice gas composition was 27.5% O2, 71.4% N2, and 1.09% Ar. Most previous studies suggest that convective transport is the main driver of gas displacement in sea ice and have neglected diffusion processes. According to our data, brines were stratified within the ice, so that no convective transport could occur within the brine system. Therefore, diffusive transport was the main driver of gas migration. By analyzing the temporal evolution of an internal gas peak within the ice, we deduced the bulk gas transport coefficients for oxygen (DO2), argon (DAr), and nitrogen (DN2). The values fit to the few existing estimates from experimental work, and are close to the diffusivity values in water (1025 cm2 s21)…

            The relative proportion of O2, Ar, and N2 in bulk sea ice in this study are intermediate between the relative gas composition in dissolved seawater and the atmospheric gas composition (Table 1 and Figure 6). These results are in agreement with the past studies of Matsuo and Miyake [1966] and Tison et al. [2002] and reflect the mixed contribution of the dissolved and gaseous fractions of each gas, with the dominance of the gase ous (bubble) fraction (as also shown by the regression line in Figure 6 being closer to the atmospheric ratio and the fB values in Table 3). Each gas species in the bottom ice layers was close to, or below, atmospheric saturation (Figure 5), confirming the results of Zhou et al. [2013] that the gas incorporation at the ice-water interface occurs close to the atmospheric solubility value.

            The ice was enriched in N2 (i.e., highest saturation factor) compared to O2 and Ar (Table 2). The gas composition is a function of a chemical separation of gases diffusing across the boundary layer at the ice-water interface during the ice growth [Carte, 1961; Killawee et al., 1998; Loose et al., 2009, 2011; Tison et al., 2002]. Because the N2 diffusion coefficient is lower than the O2 and Ar diffusion coefficients, the flux of N2 from sea ice to the water is slower and, hence, the incorporation rate of N2 is larger than O2 and Ar, leading to N2 enrichment within sea ice. Moreover, solubility of N2 is only half the solubility of O2 if nucleation process occurs at the ice-water interface. This results in relatively more N2 in the gas phase as compared with the other gases. The growing ice will therefore be enriched in nitrogen bubbles that would otherwise have diffused as a solute toward the water reservoir…

            There is page 54 of this book: Exploration of Antarctic Subglacial Aquatic Environments: Environmental and Scientific Stewardship ( 2007 )

            Also this paper
            The hydrochemistry of Lake Vostok and the potential for life in Antarctic subglacial lakes

            …. Solutes are rejected from the ice lattice during refreezing (Killawee et al., 1998), and hence there should be an accumulation of nutrients, gases, and solutes in the lake water over time. The isotopic and major ion composition of Lake Vostok has been inferred from the composition of the accreted basal ice in the Vostok ice core. The accreted ice is enriched in 18 O and 2 H compared with the Vostok precipitation line (Jouzel et al., 1999; Priscu et al. 1999a). This is because there is isotopic fractionation during water freezing, but none during melting (Souchez et al., 1988, 2000). The accreted ice has values of υ18 O and υD that differ from the time-averaged melting ice by only 60% of the theoretical fractionation, and it has been suggested that 30–58% of unfractionated lake water is entrained in the accreted ice during freezing, so helping to maintain less extreme values of υD and υ18 O (Souchez et al., 2000). The total capture of significant quantities of lake water and solute confounds existing calculations of the chemical composition of the lake water based on accreted ice chemistry (Jouzel et al., 1999, Souchez et al., 2000), as we detail below.

            The first estimate of the chemical composition of Lake Vostok (Priscu et al., 1999a) was derived from the chemical composition of the accreted ice (Table I) from above 3608 m, using ice–water partition coefficients (the ratio of the concentration of a particular solute in ice relative to that in water) obtained from surface lake ice and the underlying waters of perennially ice-covered Lake Hoare, a surface water body located in the southern Victoria Land Dry Valleys of Antarctica. Unfortunately, the inferred water chemistry has a significant charge imbalance (Table I), which may relate to the differences in both accretion rate (30 cm year 1 in Lake Hoare and up to 4 cm year 1 in Lake Vostok) and in ice crystal structure. A second estimate (Souchez et al., 2000) has been derived from knowledge of typical partition coefficients between ice and water, which are assumed to be 0Ð0008 and 0Ð0028 (Gross et al., 1977; Eicken, 1998).

            (Jo only lets us have three links) There are plenty of others papers having to do with diffusion in ice. I never even questioned what was written having worked with gas and liquid chromatographs.

            Also try leaving a 2 liter bottle of pepsi in the closet unopened for a year and see just how fast the CO2 migrates through the plastic!

            30

          • #
            gai

            I was a bit brain-dead last night and thinking linearly. Here is more information.

            NEEDED BACKGROUND
            If you are not familiar with column ,gas, liquid or paper chromatography, see Wiki or Chemwiki. Understanding the chemistry behind these methods is crucial for understanding what Jaworowski is saying. They are methods “most commonly used to separate organic compounds” Jaworowski is describing a similar process of separation with water as the liquid and ice as the solid. The Chemwiki on Gas Chromatography even has Figure 13. a chromatogram showing the separation of a mixture of gases: hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and carbon dioxide, with hydrogen having the shortest retention time in the liquid and carbon dioxide the longest. The diameter of methane is 3.988 Å while CO2 has a collision diameter of 3.9Å and a kinetic diameter of 3.3Å yet CO2 is retained the longest.

            This paper gets into “Separation of Carbon Dioxide and Methane over Rb- and Cs-ZK-5 Zeolites”
            aiche(DOT)confex.com/aiche/2014/webprogram/Paper374326.html

            …..

            The paper I was looking for last night is now back on line at Greenworldtrust. As Lucy Skywalker says “This may well be Jaworowski’s best paper. It is pure detailed science – whereas the science in his later papers becomes a little diluted “ The paper is actually by Z Jaworowski, T V Segalstad, & N Ono. It gives the earlier ice core data by location, age, ppm and authors. It discusses the different methods used for analysis.

            …Two important observations were made in these early studies. It was found that the CO2 content of the air trapped in pre-industrial and ancient ice is rather high, and has a very wide concentration range of about 100-7400 ppm (Table 1). Even more important was the finding that several physical and chemical processes (such as melting, the presence of liquid brines in the capillary-like interstitial voids, the presence of carbonates, over-pressure in the air bubbles, and solid deposition of super-cooled fog, combined with large differences in the solubility of different gases in cold water, and mobility of CO2 in ice) lead to differentiation of the original atmospheric ratios of N2, O2, Ar, and CO2, and to depletion or enrichment of CO2 in the ice (Coachman et al 1958; Hemmingsen 1959; Scholander et al 1961; Matsuo and Miyake 1966; Raynaud and Delmas 1977).

            In these early studies it was recognized that the liquid water in glaciers may be the most important factor in this differentiation, because the composition of atmospheric air (78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and approximately 350 ppm by volume, carbon dioxide) is different from the composition of air dissolved in cold water. It was known at that time that, in such air, at 0ºC and ambient pressure, the concentration of oxygen is 67% higher than in the atmosphere (Scholander et al 1961; Hodgman et al 1962). This is because the solubility of oxygen in cold water is 2.1 times higher than that of nitrogen. Argon has 2.4 times higher solubility than nitrogen, and CO2 73.5 times higher (Weast et al 1989). This explains why the air extracted from melt layers in polar firn has extremely high concentrations of about 12,000 ppm CO2 (Stauffer et al 1985). This is also why the air bubbles contain much lower concentrations of CO2 than the ice which encompasses them.

            Three different methods of gas extraction were used, and they produced different results. This is illustrated in Fig 2. It can be seen that in air from the same section of a pre-industrial ice core, after 7 hrs “wet” extraction of melted ice, the CO2 concentration was up to about 1000 ppm, and it was 1.5 – 4.5 times higher than after [just] 15 min “wet” extraction. The “dry” extraction, consisting in crushing or shaving the ice samples at about -20ºC, produced results similar to the 15 min “wet” extraction. The short “wet” and “dry” extractions recovered about a half or less of the total CO2 present in the ice.

            Later papers showing the recent increase in CO2 atmospheric level ignored or played down these early findings. It was tacitly assumed in these papers that no exchange exists between the ice matrix rich in CO2 and the gas occluded in the air bubbles….
            (WWWDOT)greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm

            Note this is not Jaworowski ‘opinion’ rather it is a survey of the field. With a good library it would be possible to dig out all the papers referenced.

            I ran across a reference recently where it was stated: ” ” .. Air bubbles trapped in polar ice sheets reveal the composition of the atmosphere of the past….” The idea of using the whole sample and not just the air bubble had vanished. (I can possible dig out the paper… maybe.)

            You want other ‘opinions’/papers and that is what this blogger does. He not only goes into detail on Fractionation of Carbon Dioxide from Air “trapped” in Ice but looks at outside information from other scientists.

            …There have been extensive discussions about this [fractionation] with numerous scientists and others, including those who give their full support to the CACC doctrine (Appendix A, Note 4), initially in Dec. 2009 on the blog of science student Chris Colose following his article “Richard Alley at AGU 2009: The Biggest Control Knob”. These discussions focused on the preferential fractionation of CO2 due to its smaller kinetic diameter….

            ******
            [Near the bottom of the article]
            I have asked this question of numerous high-profile “disciples“ of the doctrine such as James Annan, Michael Tobis, William Connolley, etc. but no attempt was made by any of them to answer this other than to claim that Jaworowski had been refuted years before, which appears not to be so. One of the pioneers of ice core research, Professor Claude Lorius, one of his followers and prominent IPCC supporter, Professor Richard Alley, prominent sceptics Professor Hans Oerlemans and Dr. Roy Spencer were asked if they would like to help clear up the remaining significant uncertainties when attempting to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 concentrations from air allegedly “trapped” in ice virtually unchanged for millenia. Professor Alley was good enough to respond within a matter of hours with helpful comments and several references….

            Back near the top the article says:

            …. In 2006 Severinghaus and Battle (see sub-section 4.3) reported that air withdrawn from polar firn showed systematic enrichment in the firn–ice transition region of Ne, O2 and Ar compared with N2 (a larger molecule than the other three) with air from the bubbles being correspondingly depleted. Those gases appear to be preferentially excluded from the shrinking and occluding bubbles, progressively depleting the air in the bubbles and enriching the firn air over time and depth. In simple terms, the smaller molecules are squeezed out of the older (deeper) into younger (higher) levels of the ice.

            They concluded that the close-off fractionation was primarily size-dependent and that a threshold diameter of 3.6Å existed, with no fractionation taking place for molecules larger than this. Note that they focussed their attention on collision diameter although they did acknowledge ” .. that effective diameter depends on the nature of both molecules in a collision. In our case, the relevant collisions are between a gas and a water molecule in the ice lattice, so the values given here (which were measured in pure gases) may have limited relevance .. “. As mentioned in sub-section 1.2, CO2 has a collision diameter of 3.9Å but a kinetic diameter of 3.3Å!….

            WHOA! Wait a second don’t these people understand the principles involved in chromatography?

            Any decent organic/analytical chemist know that the CHEMISTRY/polarity of the liquid placed on the susbrate is critical for good separation. Retention is not only a function of molecular size but also affinity with the liquid. Choose the wrong liquid and you get rotten separation or none at all — BTDT with unknowns. In the case of CO2 there is a major affinity for water so it is going to move out of air and ‘dissolve’ in water and stay there if it can (long retention time). This means the air bubbles will be depleted in CO2 but the ice will be enriched.

            So it seems they do not understand this part of analytical chemistry or related fields AND they even say so!

            Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski, who has repeatedly challenged the validity of the ice core record since 1992, said in an E-mail in June 2010 that “I am also not versatile in diffusion, and writing my paper in 1994 I was advised and enlightened by a geologist from the Norwegian oil industry, who was specializing in diffusion, a subject of great importance for oil industry. This is a highly specialized field of science. My impression is that it is a terra incognita for glaciologists” (see Appendix C).

            …. On 2nd May 2011 Professor Wolff said “ .. I think that none of us has a definite molecular level understanding of the physical process occurring at close-off, and it would be great if someone can do the experiments in the lab to understand that better. But it won’t alter the empirical facts .. ” (Appendix A, Note 12)…

            Professor Wolff then goes on to opine ” .. that when the bubbles are broken open to analyse the air, one is actually measuring the concentration of CO2 in the air sample just as if it was from a flask collected from air today .. “!! He then presented his “evidence” that CO2 in ice is a good representation of CO2 in the air when the bubbles closed, based upon the research reported in the 1996 paper “Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn” by Etheridge et al.

            This is where the critical bit of dancing around the subject of CO2 concentration in air bubbles remaining unchanged is documented.

            It should be noted that the Etheridge et al. paper makes no mention of size-dependent fractionation of atmospheric gases during the long period when the firn is being compacted into “solid” ice. 10 years later the paper “Evidence for molecular size dependent gas fractionation in firn air derived from noble gases, oxygen, and nitrogen measurements” (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Huber_closeoff_EPSL2006.pdf) by Huber et al. presented evidence of significant preferential fractionation taking place for the smaller gases He, Ne and even O2 (see Figure 8 of the paper).

            In their 2006 paper “Fractionation of gases in polar ice during bubble close-off: New constraints from firn air Ne, Kr and Xe observations” (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/closeoff_EPSL.pdf) Severinghaus and Battle discussed the size-dependent fractionation of Ne, Ar and O2. Severinghaus and Battle chose to simply infer that such fractionation did not take place for CO2 (see Table 1 in the paper) despite CO2 having a smaller diameter than O2. That inference was based upon the arguments in the Etheridge et al. paper that firn air CO2 concentration was the same as air extracted from bubbles at the same depth, the assumption being made that the air pockets were completely sealed at the chosen depth.

            A real pretty bit of dancing around to protect the sacred air bubble isn’t it?

            The article is long so please go there to read it all and you will find your papers that support fractionation. However Professor Wolff made another statement quoted by this blogger that I want to go into in more detail in my next comment.

            20

          • #
            gai

            I wanted to pay special attention to this second quote from ” ice-core specialist and CACC-supporter Professor Eric Wolff”

            Professor Wolff …Included as the second of his two most important pieces of “evidence” was that 1000-year “hockey stick” reconstruction shown at the start of this article. He opined that ” .. This slide shows that CO2 rose out of what had been a very small variability in about 1830 .. It always remained in the range 170‐300 ppmv (compare the graph on the right and values in 2013 of about 395 ppmv) .. “

            What in Hades? “It always remained in the range 170‐300 ppmv” If that was true we wouldn’t be here discussing this.

            That 170 ppm CO2 number alone is enough to make anyone sane question the results and according to Barnola et al (1987) the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere during many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to 110,000 BP were below 200ppm.

            THIS is what the Warmists and others miss entirely. –

            …While [CO2] does not vary with elevation, CO2 partial pressure decreases in proportion to total atmospheric pressure. Under modern conditions, partial pressures of CO2 at high-elevation sites are 10–30% lower than at low-elevation sites, producing an even more conservative comparison between glacial and modern conditions….
            (wwwDOT)k-state.edu/ecophyslab/pdf’s/GerhartEtAl2012.pdf

            I have another paper that says tree lines can not be used to determine temperature because of this lack of reasonable partial pressures of CO2 at high-elevation sites. The trees die due to lack of CO2 and not because of other reasons.
            Impact of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide on tropical mountain ecosystems
            (wwwDOT)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9367947

            That means if the CO2 level is around 210 ppm you can kiss trees and other C3 plants growth above sea level good by and that is most of the earth. Further more about 85% of plant species are C3 plants. They include the cereal grains: wheat, rice, barley, oats. Peanuts, cotton, sugar beets, tobacco, spinach, soybeans, and most trees. Moore, et al. say that only about 0.4% of the 260,000 known species of plants are C4 plants.

            So why didn’t they all die out during the Wisconsin Ice Age and the other 10 glaciations?

            The PPM when trees and C3 plants are no longer viable was revised and the biology paper I used to link to (– 200 pm CO2 trees starve — http://biblioteca.universia.net/ficha.do?id=912067 ) was removed from the net. All newer papers rely on the ice core data for revising the number down to 180 ppm. A nice bit of circular reasoning there isn’t it, however it does make the ‘storyline’ neat and tidy.

            However the censors can not stamp out all the information. (These are old so they may be gone too.)

            Hydroponic Shop

            …Plants use all of the CO2 around their leaves within a few minutes leaving the air around them CO2 deficient, so air circulation is important. As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels of below 200 ppm will generally cease to grow or produce… (wwwDOT)thehydroponicsshop.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id=27

            As I said, they might not die at 200ppm but they are not going to grow and produce seed.

            This, an open air experiment is even more interesting since the draw down stops at ~310 ppm.
            Carbon dioxide measurements above a wheat crop. Observations of vertical gradients and concentrations

            The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.

            CO2 depletion

            Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the Co2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) [Well mixed? What well mixed?]

            …Slack (1986) states that ‘low atmospheric CO2 content in many greenhouses is indeed a major contributor to lower than expected yields, and the enriching with co2 to bring levels back to at least ambient will have a major effect on plant yields.”…

            ……..Relative Fruit Yields (5)
            CO2 Conc… 4 weeks…. 20 weeks
            Ambient…….100……….100
            600 ppm…….179……….129
            1,000 ppm ….235……….137
            1,400 ppm ….254……….139

            Tomato Plant Culture: In the Field, Greenhouse, and Home Garden, Second Edition

            Finally stomata data from fossil plants by Wagner, Aaby and Visscher prove conclusively that the ice core data is seriously in error.
            (wwwDOT)pnas.org/content/99/19/12011.full.pdf

            30

      • #
        Manfred

        Cal @ 9.2…you can still have a fallback position of denying that the warming is “catastrophic”

        Funny you should mention ‘denial’. Is this the same ‘denial’ that ignores or resorts to adjusting the unpredicted ‘pause’ out of existence, that denies the science is not settled, that denies the historical warm periods, that denies the absence of any meaningful association between rising CO2 and global mean temperature, that denies a rebounding Arctic and record breaking Antarctic ice cover, that denies a decline in RSS global mean lower trophosphere temperature of 0.03C (Jan 1997 – June 2015) (in spite of rising atmospheric CO2 level), that denies the meaning of the words ‘climate change’ in favour of the UN defined polemic that absurdly incorporates atmospheric composition and land usage and fails the principle of non-contradiction, that denies the opportunity of cheap energy and the chance to flourish and develop to those less fortunate, and finally, denies that the eco-marxist ideological agenda is a destructive, impoverishing and dehumanising imposition on civil society?

        Is that the denial you’re prattling about or do you have another definition for denial that we’re as yet unaware of?

        160

      • #
        AndyG55

        ” that AGW is real ‘

        There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO a-CO2 warming signal in the whole of the satellite data.

        The AGW assumption is totally destroyed by 36 years of real data. see #4.1

        112

      • #
        AndyG55

        Cal, go and move to northern Canada or somewhere like that.. become an Inuit.

        Or would you rather we hadn’t had the absolutely beneficial warming since the Little Ice Age.

        That warming has unfortunately ceased, and even worse, looks like reversing.

        92

    • #
      Dave in the states

      “Cli -Fi” Love it!

      50

  • #
    William Astley

    It is all in fun until the planet starts to cool.

    http://yle.fi/uutiset/summer_2015_poised_to_be_chilliest_in_50_years/8188502
    “Summer 2015 poised to be chilliest in 50 years
    In Finland, this summer is set to go down in the history books as perhaps the coldest on record – bucking the worldwide trend whereby this year brought the hottest June ever.”

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/february-coldest-month-on-record-for-quebec-parts-of-ontario-1.2259091
    “Quebec experienced the coldest February since at least 1889 — for example, Montreal recorded an average temperature of -14.9 C, compared to an average of -8.5 C.”
    “Other parts of the province fared even worse, with Quebec City reporting a temperature of -17.8 C.”

    “Ottawa recorded its coldest-ever February, with an average temperature of -16.8 C, shattering the former record set in 1979.”

    “In Toronto, it was the first February in 75 years where the temperature did not climb above the freezing mark.”
    “Many Maritimers spent most of the month digging out after record snowfalls. Both Halifax and Moncton recorded more than double the average amount of snow for the month.
    Charlottetown was buried under more than seven feet of snow (222.8 cm), including nearly 90 cm in a single storm that hit PEI’s capital on February 16th”

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ccgs-amundsen-re-routed-to-hudson-bay-to-help-with-heavy-ice-1.3162900
    CCGS Amundsen re-routed to Hudson Bay to help with heavy ice
    Worst ice conditions in 20 years force change of plans to icebreaker research program

    204

    • #
      el gordo

      While in the UK July unusually cool, had its coldest night since July 1965.

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/record-breaking-cold-in-the-uk/

      162

    • #
      Cal

      And yet, in reality 2015 is on pace to be the warmest year ever recorded, and by a significant margin.

      [And your evidence is???] AZ

      231

      • #

        Statistics are a wonderful thing, aren’t they Cal? You can prove virtually anything. Maybe we should just look at the actual temperatures—Ross at 8.4 has an interesting list that does not look like warming. Sure, I could work some statitical magic and probably get warming out it. The only point to that would be to maintain a theory that is veering further and further from reality annually. Just look at the actual temperatures.

        191

      • #
        Winston

        Nice unicorn there, Cal. The only reason that vindicates the proscriptive yet completely nebulous “action” on Global Warming was the C, “catastrophic” warming that was going to occur (which hasn’t), due to water vapour amplification (which isn’t) enhancing the effect of rising CO2.

        Due to the logarithmic nature of the effect of atmospheric CO2 rise on global temperature, AGW is not sufficiently urgent to justify such drastic economic sabotage. Now that catastrophic rise is clearly off the table, you attempt (disingenuously, and dare I say dishonestly) to shift the goal posts and try to pretend (unsuccessfully) that AGW was all that was claimed. You have adopted the Lukewarmer position, and hope people don’t notice.

        Well, guess what, we did.

        282

      • #
        Glenn999

        yeah Cal
        in your shorts

        50

      • #
        Manfred

        Cal @ 10.2
        Reliance upon politically required ‘adjustment’ is a troublesome inconvenience, particularly in an established trendless interval of 18 year, and when the RSS lower troposphere temp anomaly actually indicates a small decline of 0.03C in global mean temperature in the period Jan 1997 – June 2015.

        91

      • #
        AndyG55

        No it is NOT.

        The only data that says so is the massively manipulated data from GISS/NOAA

        All other data sets show it to be a pretty ordinary year.

        SG presents that real, UNTAINTED data here.

        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/one-climate-prediction-that-came-true/

        And here are the current year to date anomalies from UAH Global (in reverse hottest order in degree C)

        1998…..0.563
        2010…..0.407
        2002…..0.234
        2007…..0.193
        2005…..0.191
        2015…..0.191

        In the USA where this particular piece of NOAA nonsense comes from, it was the 51st warmest July since 1895.

        You have been CONNED because you are incapable of delving further behind the alarmist propaganda headlines and finding the actual reality..

        162

        • #
          AndyG55

          I should also note that the UAH data USA48 actually runs a bit warmer than USCRN and ClimDiv, and all of them show COOLING in the USA since USCRN was established in 2015.

          They are however, close enough to be a good verification of the systems used to derive UAH and RSS temperature series.

          It is the Schmidt-Karl NOAA-GISS fabrication that is massively deviating from reality.

          So please Cal, stop mindlessly regurgitating stupid headlines from the far-left press, and do at least try to find the real facts before posting stupid comments.

          102

      • #
        Angry

        Oh look there’s a flying unicorn !

        30

    • #
      gai

      William,
      I have no doubt the Paris-ites are going to try and rush something through before we have another disaster like the 1969-1972 food shortages due to cold weather crop failures. Notice the ‘Landgrab’ going on as China, George Soros, Rothschild, hedge funds universities… buy up farms in Africa, South America, and even Australia and the USA.

      “…THE $53 billion First State Super has made its first agricultural investment in Australia buying more than $150 million worth of almond plantations across three states….”

      USA: Feds buying up farmland after they flooded then sell to Soros CHEAP

      Betting the farm: As world population expands, the demand for arable land should soar. At least that’s what George Soros, Lord Rothschild, and other investors believe.

      And from the Groiniad: US universities in Africa ‘land grab’

      50

  • #
    Michael Spencer

    And here’s the ‘Steve Goddard’ blog on the same subject: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/one-climate-prediction-that-came-true/

    Something tells me that there’s a lot of money riding on this! (Gravy train money, that is!) :)

    284

    • #
      handjive

      Australia had snow in every state & territory except the Northern Territory during the hottest year evah.

      Unprecedented? Try and find another example of that happening, Doomsday Global Warming or not.

      news.com.au:
      - Melbourne’s average maximum temperature was just 13.1 in July. This was only 0.2 below the July average, but in an age of warming climate, it is many years since a southern Australian capital was below average for a whole month.

      - Brisbane’s average monthly maximum in July was 18.1, considerably cooler than the usual 18.9.

      - Adelaide’s July average maximum was also well down. It was 14.7 compared to the usual 15.3.

      - Sydney’s average max of 17.4 was well up on the long term average of 16.3, though this figure was distorted slightly by a run of five days in the low 20s in the last week of July.

      - Hobart’s average daily maximum of 12.1 was also slightly up on the usual 11.7, but the city more than made up for it with a bitterly cold spell in early August.

      - Canberra’s average maximum temperature was 11.5 in July compared to the usual 11.4. But at night the average minimum was minus 0.7, considerably colder than the usual minus 0.1.
      This stat is all the more remarkable considering it rained on 14 days in July in Canberra, and the coldest nights tend to happen when it’s clear.

      - Perth was slightly above average with an average maximum of 18.7 as against the usual 18.4

      - Meanwhile in Darwin, the average daily maximum was 31.3 in July compared to the usual 30.6. And to think, the wimps had a big sook about how cold it was.

      But raw temperature measurements don’t on their own convey just how brutal this winter has been.
      Some locations in the central west of NSW have now seen five snowfalls in five weeks.

      These are places that are lucky to see one snowfall a year.
      ~ ~ ~
      No summer this year in northern Sweden (iceagenow.com)

      223

  • #
    warcroft

    You should read through the responses to the article on Reddit. Most of the people responding probably haven’t been alive long enough to experience any warming. But, hey, kids know everything.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3hq3l6/july_2015_was_warmest_month_ever_recorded_for_the/

    183

  • #
    warcroft

    Whens the big Paris climate party shindig? These “hottest evaaar” reports always start churning out in the lead up to Climate Cancun so the general public don’t mind the ‘leaders’ spending billions to get together and get wasted in the name of climate change.

    Once again, they will get together, talk a load of crap and promise to think about doing something (but only if that other country does too) in time for the next Fiesta.

    For how many years has this been going on? How do we get an invite?

    213

    • #
      handjive

      Q: “For how many years has this been going on?”
      ~ ~ ~
      June 30, 1989, San Jose Mercury News (CA):

      GRIM FORECAST
      A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.

      He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human…
      . . .
      A: For “too long.”

      110

  • #
  • #
    cedarhill

    Just to put a marker:

    Only 100 Scare-Mongering days left until:

    November 30, 2015, the start of United Nations Climate Change Conference, Paris, FR.

    163

  • #
    ROM

    I am now reaching a point where I strongly suspect that the CAUSE, the great sweeping green, radical marxist reconstruction of global society and its future governance by an elite of self elected chosen ones to oversee the green marxist run planet, using the CAGW ideology as a tool to achieve that goal, has about reached a point where it could be said “with friends like they now have, why would they need any more enemies?”

    224

  • #
    AndyG55

    Here are the year to date average anomalies from UAH in order. (degrees C)

    1998……0.563
    2010……0.407
    2002……0.234
    2007……0.193
    2005……0.191
    2015……0.191

    And the July only global anomalies

    1998……0.47
    2010……0.35
    2002……0.23
    2009……0.23
    2005……0.22
    2011……0.22
    2014……0.21
    2007……0.18
    2015……0.18

    Also the Australia, July only anomalies..

    2009……1.10
    2002……1.05
    1999……0.94
    2005……0.93
    2003……0.81
    2014……0.75
    2015……0.75
    2013……0.69

    214

    • #
      AndyG55

      ps.. UAH is verified by its cooling trend closeness to RSS, and also its cooling trend closeness of USA48 to USCRN and ClimDiv
      (USA48 UAH has slightly LESS cooling than USCRN and ClimDiv.)

      53

    • #
      AndyG55

      Dear little red thumber..

      Do you dispute my data ??

      … or are you just very unhappy about the truth.

      63

  • #
    AndyG55

    Also massive evidence of a change in the global lapse rate between the surface and the lower troposphere. ;-)

    https://i0.wp.com/realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ScreenHunter_10120-Aug.-20-23.40.gif

    185

  • #
    cheshirered

    It’s ALL about Paris. Does anyone think this is a coincidence, where EVERY month is now offered up as some sort of record-breaking scorchathon? I’d use the F-word but Jo has edited that out in the past, so out of respect I won’t use it again, but imo it’s as plain as day.

    202

  • #
    Jeff Id

    I’ve spent a lot of time in paleoclimate data. We have NO estimate of past temperatures that I’m aware of.

    None whatsoever.

    172

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Jeff Id.

      The hockeystick chart reconstructions, plus others.

      There is even a temperature reconstruction in the original post.

      423

      • #

        “The hockeystick chart reconstructions, plus others.”
        Here is a good book on that subject.
        http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html

        162

        • #
          gai

          Speaking of that book, perhaps we should get Mark to sign a copy

          To …. [warmist journalist]
          from one journalist to another

          And send it off to a propagandist at the Groniad, Huff n’ Puff, NY times…..

          I am sending it to my two favorite journalists.

          82

      • #
        AndyG55

        “hockeystick chart reconstructions”

        using rotten wood… from one tree that a yeti did a wee on. !!

        The hockeystick cracked the second it hit reality.

        Everybody, except you apparently, knows that is a farce and a statistical nonsense.

        93

  • #
    Jeff Id

    Just to be really clear. The only thing even somewhat reasonable seems to be long term ice core data. Tree ring temperature trends are 100% meaningless.

    233

    • #

      I have wondered about this. When the tree rings and the ice core studies were being done in the past, it was to get a feel for the climate. I don’t remember it being a thermometer into the past, as it now seems to be. It seems these reconstructions are interesting in a general way, but the wrong tool for estimating global average temperature.

      111

    • #
      gai

      Stalagmite?Quantitative temperature reconstruction based on growth rate of annually-layered stalagmite: a case study from central China

      ….The result shows good coherence with a tree-ring-based temperature reconstruction…..

      HMMMmmm, My first guess would be both are recording rainfall not temperature.

      This bit was amusing

      …. the cooling between the 1980s and the early 1990s seen in the stalagmite record, which interrupted the warming trend that began in the 1960s, is not observed in the mean conditions found in China…

      30

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Yes Jeff, there is usually a stronger relationship between tree rings and precipitation than temperature. At least in the temperate areas approx 30 deg N & 30 deg S.

      20

  • #

    [...] regarding that doomy warmth (Jo Nova) NOAA has a press release out being picked up around the world. For example, the DailyMail, UK, is [...]

    90

  • #
    Manfred

    The green clapper-trap machine is in high rpm. Paris looms and the brain-dead MSM slavishly echo the meme.

    But the reality disconnect grows wider by the moment. Some of the lowest average temperatures for the summer months have been recorded for several decades in Europe, and in NZ the coldest, most miserable winter has been the unpleasant flavour de jour accompanied by snow in Australia’s Queensland. Altogether with the deprivation of escalating power prices this melange of ideological driven climate nonsense is reaching a telling crescendo.

    The thread of lies, adjustments and causality are stretched to breaking point. The breaking detonation should be impressive, particularly when one considers the real background of an incipient major global economic recession and the obvious reluctance that this will engender in shutting down industry in the name of UNFCCC secretary Christiana Figures and her chanting cohorts.

    183

  • #
    Sonny

    Ok. I am seriously PISSED OFF!
    Here we are in Melbourne suffering the coldest protracted July in my living memory, (probably due to a general cooling trend in the Southern Hemisphere as witnessed by record antarctic sea ice growth, and then we have the Newspeak peddlers telling us “the cold we get is not as cold as the cold we used to get” and somewhere (although never where we are) the world is hotter than it has ever been before! Forget the absolute lack of scientific integrity in this pack of condescending lies, the standard of english and logical reasoning shamefully on display, would see a student fail year 9!

    LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!
    How can they get away with this???!!!

    383

    • #
      Manfred

      The disconnect between the eco-noise and reality isn’t too far away. As global temps sag the screeching rhetoric and adjusted data will suggest the opposite. It gets tricky when the sheeple realise they are being ruthlessly taxed to stay cold and stay put.

      101

    • #

      It’s all those pants on fire that’s the problem! ;)

      110

  • #
    Ruairi

    A claim for the warmist endeavour,
    That July was the hottest one ever,
    Since the Bronze Age of man,
    Before records began,
    From a journalist isn’t too clever.

    380

  • #
    pat

    yes to those saying jo means Anthony Sharwood. jo’s own link:

    http://www.news.com.au/more-information/the-team/anthony-sharwood

    dave posted the mumbrella link on Sharwood’s move to HuffPo Oz, which lists other sign-ups for Huffpo, & it’s amusing that former News Corp’s Tory Maguire, is their choice for Editor-in-Chief.

    News Corp’s Tory Maguire named HuffPost Australia editor-in-chief
    Maguire has worked with News Corp Australia for 15 years, holding roles as national opinion editor and deputy editor of opinion website The Punch…
    HuffPost Australia is a joint venture between The Huffington Post and Fairfax Media.
    MOST COMMENTS ALONG THE LINES: Awesome, great, fabulous hire but Hmmm says:
    I thought Huff Post was pretty central? Does this mean that Tory Maguire has scrapped her previous beliefs and is no longer a right wing PR brigade pen pusher then?
    http://mumbrella.com.au/news-corps-tory-maguire-named-huffpost-australia-editor-in-chief-290583

    the awesome, great, fabulous, HuffPo Australia front page:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/australia/

    which includes:

    Climate Change This Week: Hillary’s Climate Action Plan, a Wind Power Sheet, and More!
    Today, the Earth got a little hotter, and a little more crowded. When Forests Disappear, So Do Beautiful Insects. Pinterest.com …
    Mary Ellen Harte, biologist & author

    Sharwood at news.com.au – a hotbed of CAGW – will fit right in with the HuffPo/Fairfax crowd. how tragic it is to be an MSM journalist in the 21st Century.

    101

  • #
    pat

    typos are easy!

    final line should begin: Sharwood OF news.com.au (not AT)

    50

  • #

    “The earth could slip into an ice age in 10 years, with glaciers spreading over Britain, most of North America and northern Europe, Sir Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer,
    believes.”
    The diamond dust theory 1981.
    “Sir Fred has no doubt about such an occurrence. It is not whether it will happen, but when.”

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/125639674

    133

  • #
    rah

    So where are those climate refugees scrambling to cooler climes? The only ones I see are the snow birds from the northern US and Canada that migrate to Florida and the Gulf Coast for the winter.

    103

    • #
      Richard Ilfeld

      That’s the good “green”.
      They bring money.
      Florida has no state income tax.
      We just hope the snowbirds don’t get incinerated by solar plants, or macerated by windmills while migrating south.

      80

  • #
    Phantom Dago

    Climate Change: Lysenkoism and ‘Weather Cooking’ Revisited –

    See more at: http://www.therightplanet.com/2015/08/climate-change-lysenkoism-and-weather-cooking-revisited/#sthash.k0OYv0UL.dpuf

    Good read,

    10

  • #

    Wasn’t Jesus born in December? Another problem with this whole “July” business is it’s northern-hemisphere-centric. Don’t they know it’s colder in July in Australia?

    174

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Cherry-picking the satellite temperature data sets to make a point is not very convincing.

    The JMA, NASA and NOAA surface data sets do say July 2015 was the hottest month on record. Wait for HadCRUT, it is sometimes cooler.

    For the chart watchers: keep your eye on the satellite data sets for the rest of the year. The satellite data set is know to be sensitive to El Nino events so there is a good chance of a bigger temperature spike than the 1997/98 El Nino.

    533

    • #
    • #

      The BoM declared El Nino conditions to be present in the Pacific since May. So if your sensitivity theory is correct Harry then the previous July was even hotter by comparison. Was that a deliberate own goal?
      http://media.bom.gov.au/releases/169/enso-update-bureau-confirms-tropical-pacific-now-at-el-nio-levels/

      163

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Siliggy.

        1997/98 and 2010.

        The hypothesis is the El Nino changes take a while to couple with the earth’s atmosphere. It will be interesting to see if it happens this time.

        17

    • #
      handjive

      “Cherry-picking the satellite temperature data sets to make a point is not very convincing.”
      ~ ~ ~
      Would an honest journalist write propaganda like this without even mentioning satellite data?

      Aug 20, 2015: Feeling the Heat: Earth in July Was Hottest Month on Record by SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer

      “This shows that despite what climate change doubters say, there is no pause in warming since 1998, Blunden said.”
      ~ ~ ~
      Wait. What?

      Trenberth on the hiatus claims “The upward trend has resumed in 2014”

      Has there been a hiatus?
      Kevin E. Trenberth (sciencemag.org)
      Science 14 August 2015:
      Vol. 349 no. 6249 pp. 691-692
      DOI: 10.1126/science.aac9225

      WaPo says Trenberth “once again making case that there really was a global warming “hiatus” from about 1998 to 2013″
      . . .
      97% Settled science. Who’s a “denier” now?

      222

    • #
      Ian George

      Just check the GISS map for July. Note that the UK is shown as well above average.
      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=6&type=anoms&mean_gen=07&year1=2015&year2=2015&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob
      Yet CET is recorded as below average.
      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html

      So where does that show up on the GISS map. Go figure.

      182

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Even the State of California, not exactly a bastion of straight thinking, has a taskforce looking at how to avoid flooding if el Niño should strike this coming winter. And bring it on say I. We can use the water, even in spite of possible trouble. Continued drought will be even worse in the long run. But I fail to see how this ubiquitous weather event that’s been happening over many thousands of years has anything to do with climate change.

      Maybe Harry can explain that to us???

      163

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        It’s all just weather, Harry. Just weather.

        133

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Roy Hogue.

        I never said El Nino did have anything to do with climate change.

        But I did say to watch for spikes in the satellite data set caused by the El Nino event. If the spike ends up being bigger than 1997/98, it will be interesting for fans of the satellite data set.

        16

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Cherry-picking the satellite temperature data sets to make a point is not very convincing.’

      Harry the trend is flat, a calendar month is irrelevant unless it illustrates a changing pattern.

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image002.png

      172

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        El Gordo.

        “Harry the trend is flat, a calendar month is irrelevant unless it illustrates a changing pattern.”

        Try looking at the UAH satellite data set.

        08

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Harry Twinotter,

          You wrote:

          Try looking at the UAH satellite data set.

          So you want us to look at the satellite data? But Harry, you just finished saying that looking at the sattelite data is tantamount to cherry-picking!

          You also wrote:

          Cherry-picking the satellite temperature data sets to make a point is not very convincing.

          And you wrote both of these self-contradictory statements within three hours of each other on the same sub-thread that you yourself started to object to looking at the satellite data. :o

          Abe

          94

    • #
      gai

      OH GOODY! Harry Twitter steps into the Cherry picking trap!

      Well Harry, it is all about the statements made by Warmists on when CAGW would be DEAD.

      1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones

      2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link

      3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate

      ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, [Maybe THAT is the 95% the IPCC is now talking about.] suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

      4. we are looking at no changes in temperature over a period longer than the 10 years that James Hansen once said would show the models wrong;

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.

      204

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        gai,

        Although you’ve pointed this out previously, I was happy to see you bring it up again.

        The fact that according to the same people who’ve been promoting CAGW ™, a ‘hiatus’ in rising temperatures for a period of ~15 years would mean the climate models simulations were wrong, is probably the most pertinent piece of information in the Global Warming ® debate debacle.

        This needs to be brought up on a regular basis so that newcomers to this website can be made aware how shakey the ground really is underneath the ‘Man Can Change The Weather By Controlling CO2′ hypothesis really is.

        Abe

        54

    • #
      gai

      Here is the reall cherry picking Harry.

      The land temperature data sets are what contain ‘cherry picking’.

      There is the station dropout problem – GRAPH

      [Verity Jones] produced a series of colour coded maps showing the warming/cooling trends in the NOAA/GISS GHCN data for three distinct time periods i.e. 1880 to 1939, 1940 to 1969 and 1970 to 2010 (as well as for the whole 1880 to 2010 period), I’ve noticed that a number people commenting on the ‘Mapping global warming’ thread here are unaware of the NOAA/GISS station ‘drop out’ issue and how it may affect the warming/cooling trends.
      diggingintheclay(DOT)wordpress.com/2010/01/21/the-station-drop-out-problem/

      Followed by E.M Smith’s “Thermometer Zombie Walk”

      E.M. Smith found “…When the GHCN data set is reduced to the 3000 thermometers with the longest records (cut off at about 64 years worth of data for the station), the “global warming” signal is not present…
      chiefio(DOT)wordpress.com/2009/08/05/agw-is-a-thermometer-count-artifact/

      This is not surprising since the ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s.

      …the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years….
      onlinelibrary(DOT)wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901095/full

      In other words E.M. Smith’s work is validated by another method entirely showing there has been NO WARMING since the mid 1800s!

      And then you get into the adjustments where you run into the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book. and all the other dodging and weaving. Such as Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU reply to Warwick Hughes “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”.

      Now where did I put that garlic and steak. Drat I ate it…

      135

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        gai,

        You quoted Phil Jones:

        “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”.

        And therein lies the heart of the matter when scientists, engineers, and other academics point to the flaw in reasoning that the climastrologists fall into every time they make some proclamation.

        The whole point of of doing science in the first place is to figure out if something’s wrong with the hypothesis. :o That’s what falsifiability means and that’s why there’s a null-hypothesis.

        And even if we look at Phil’s words from a purely practical position. If something is wrong, don’t you, Phil, want to know? And if you, Phil, are so confident that you’re right, why should you care if other people examine you’re work?

        Abe

        31

    • #
      gai

      But that is not the worst of it Harry,

      NOAA? You know the group responsible for this post?

      Well guess what, NOAA doesn’t even bother to cherry pick THEY JUST MAKE IT UP!!!

      And no I am not kidding.
      Mind-Blowing Temperature F…d At NOAA

      The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.
      [GRAPH]
      They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.
      [GRAPH]
      The biggest component of this f…d is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.
      [GRAPH]
      [Jo would censor the rest of this]

      And it is not just some of the USA temperatures that are made up.

      The Majority Of NOAA Land Temperature Data Is Fake

      The animation below flashes between the land portion of NOAA’s global temperature map, and their actual measured regions of temperature. Missing areas (like most of Africa, Greenland, Antarctica and Canada) are gray. As you can see, most of their land data is missing…

      145

    • #
      Ian George

      The GISS anomaly for July 2015 was 0.72C. This beat July 1998 by 0.01C (0.71C).

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=6&type=anoms&mean_gen=07&year1=1998&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob

      So the temp for July has risen 0.01C in 17 years. That’s an 0.06C linear rise over the next century. So where is the ‘significant warming’, Harry?

      125

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Ian George.

        “The GISS anomaly for July 2015 was 0.72C. This beat July 1998 by 0.01C (0.71C).”

        The GISTEMP anomaly for July 2015 is 0.75C. This beat the previous record July 2011 of 0.74C.

        July 1998 was 0.71C

        010

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Harry Twinotter,

          You wrote:

          The GISTEMP anomaly for July 2015 is 0.75C. This beat the previous record July 2011 of 0.74C.

          So . . .
          July 2015 = 0.75°C
          July 2011 = 0.74°C
          ______________________
          A difference of 0.01°C

          So you agree that Ian George is right about the completely insignificant rise in temperatures of only 0.01°C.

          It’s good to see you’re finally catching on to the facts.

          By the way Harry, 0.01°C is well within the margin of error inherent in the thermometers doing the measurements.

          Abe

          74

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Just-A-Guy.

            “So you agree that Ian George is right about the completely insignificant rise in temperatures of only 0.01°C.”

            Not my problem if you cannot count.

            “By the way Harry, 0.01°C is well within the margin of error inherent in the thermometers doing the measurements.”

            Ignorance of statistical averages.

            35

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Harry Twinotter,

              You wrore:

              Not my problem if you cannot count.

              They’re your numbers Harry. You posted them.

              You wrote:

              The GISTEMP anomaly for July 2015 is 0.75C. This beat the previous record July 2011 of 0.74C.

              The difference is exactly 0.01°C.

              You wrote:

              Ignorance of statistical averages.

              Who said anything about statistical averages?

              What I wrote was:

              By the way Harry, 0.01°C is well within the margin of error inherent in the thermometers doing the measurements.

              What this means is that even if you accept an increase of 0.01°C, that amount could just as easily be attributed to measurement error because all the thermometers aren’t able to accurately measure temperature to within hundreths of a degree.

              Please try to keep up.

              Abe

              63

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Harry Twinotter,

              You constantly complain about other peoples’ ad homs directed at you and yet . . .

              You wrote:

              Not my problem if you cannot count.

              . . . rather than address my point about the insignificant difference of 0.01°C in temperatures, you resort to an ad hom. :o

              Abe

              43

              • #
                AndyG55

                He complained yesterday because I referred to his post as being from an “above average CAGW believer”

                I mean.. everything is relative. The average CAGW believer is a pretty low bar, so I thought I was being polite. !! :-)

                43

    • #
      AndyG55

      Poor Harry..

      http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ScreenHunter_10120-Aug.-20-23.40.gif

      Thing is, the UAH and RSS COOLING TRENDS in the USA match pretty closely to USCRN and ClimDiv COOLING TRENDS, thus verifying the data collection systems of UAH and RSS. They cannot be so close to the untainted surface temperatures in the USA and not be close to REALITY elsewhere.

      (UAH actually has a slightly smaller COOLING TREND than USCRN or ClimDiv)

      Obviously anyone using the massively manipulated GISS/NOAA data is not doing due diligence.

      How un-scientific of them , hey Harry ;-)

      126

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        AndyG55.

        The USA is not the world.

        How unscientific of you.

        16

        • #
          AndyG55

          Poor Harry, again your lack of basic understanding of anything, shines through. :-)

          A very good way of testing is to use sampling.

          It is a very scientific way of verification of data sets.

          USA has the only surface station system that is evenly spread and untainted, USCRN.

          ClimDiv combines balloons etc and gets as much data as possible.

          Both these show a very close trend coincidence with USA48 from UAH and thus with RSS.

          This shows that the methodologies behind UAH and RSS are producing REALISTIC temperature series…

          … as opposed to the rampantly adjusted and fabricated GISS rubbish.

          63

    • #
      AndyG55

      They all use Gavin’s GHCN temperature fabrications.

      They are not even close to reality !

      95

    • #
      AndyG55

      I like you Harry..

      Your postings here epitomise all the ignorance and lack of intelligence of the above average CAGW believer.

      Please keep posting :-)

      136

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        AndyG55.

        “Your postings here epitomise all the ignorance and lack of intelligence of the above average CAGW believer.”

        Name calling.

        210

        • #
          AndyG55

          Sorry, I guess you are not an above average CAGW believer…

          Rather, on the bottom rung.

          I apologise.

          96

  • #
    handjive

    If July 2015 was the hottest “evah,”, wouldn’t New York be under water?

    FLASHBACK: ABC’s ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015 (newsbusters.org)

    216

  • #

    “The satellite data set is know to be sensitive to El Nino events ”
    What exactly do you mean by KNOW?
    Are you saying that dodgy data sets are not going to be sensitive to large global events?
    If so well spotted!

    205

    • #
      Andrew

      Hahahahaha hahahahaha

      Is that their excuse now? Maybe satellites are sensitive to en Niño releasing ocean heat because 70% of the world IS ocean, not airport tarmac!

      185

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    Can current BoM temperature figures be trusted? Or are they too being homogenised and pasteurised to prove “warming” despite some of the coldest weather in memory? How would we know?

    155

  • #
    Ross Stacey

    Quite a convincing article in ABC NewsMail this morning on Talkabout. “Scientists discuss Skeptics most common claims on CAGW”

    82

    • #

      “Claim 4: Scientists are creating panic in order to get funding”
      “If they could disprove the physics of the greenhouse effect … they’d be up for a Nobel prize.”
      Tuff choice there!
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-21/talkaboutit-climate-change-sceptics-versus-the-scientists/6711084

      92

      • #
        David Maddison

        For “balance” they should have offered an evidence-based scientific point of view from a non-warmist scientist.

        92

    • #
      el gordo

      “We must take action because humanity does make a contribution,” Prime Minister Tony Abbott told the Liberal Party last week.’

      Pathetic.

      72

      • #
        Manfred

        Someone got to him and advised him of the korrekt UN definition of climate change, which includes direct and indirect anthropogenic influences upon atmospheric composition and land usage. Nothing short of the complete eradication of humanity from Gaia would test that particular hypothesis, and then regrettably there wouldn’t be anyone around to evaluate the results…which means it’s unfalsifiable and therefore a belief that should be discarded.

        I wonder who got to him, and the nature of the personal and national threat potentially used.

        32

  • #
    Margaret Smith

    “NOAA has a press release out being picked up around the world. For example, the DailyMail, UK, is saying July was the hottest month since records began in 1880 as heatwaves swept the Earth’s countries and oceans. Other silly tabloids have headlines about this being the hottest July in 4,000 years, as if we have even the remotest idea what the average July global temperature was in the days of Plato.”

    A tad unfair to the Daily Mail as it regularly prints sceptical articles and it’s general position is sceptical. This is one reason it is so hated by the left.

    91

  • #
    TdeF

    You do not need to be a professional sports journalist to make amazing statements.

    Today is the warmest day since .. yesterday. This is proof of Warming and if this continues, my place will be 30C warmer by the end of the year. It is a great worry. Rapid Climate Change. A tipping point.

    Of course this is all due to massive overpopulation since 1900. 7 billion people breathing out 3 tons of CO2 each per year, so 21 billion new tons of CO2 a year. You see, 5.5 billion were not around in 1900, so this is not carbon neutral. Compounded over 115 years, this is say one trillion tons of CO2 in the air which were simply not there in 1900 and according the IPCC, it stays there for thousands of years.

    So of the 3 trillion tons of CO2 in the air today, the 50% of the increase was due to new people simply breathing. Mainly the Chinese and Indians but everyone has a responsibility. Plus the extra animals for McDonalds burgers, many of which produce Methane, a far worse greenhouse gas.

    What we have to do is move slowly, eat less or more hamburgers, and generate far less CO2 by putting as many people in large cars as possible. People movers or large 4WDs with trailers. Most importantly, we need to keep those heart rates and respiration down by watching a lot of TV and blogging. Humans are the problem. Without humans, the planet would be saved. For whom?

    122

    • #
      TdeF

      50% of the increase. An extra 1 trillion tons in 100 years, so the entire increase in CO2 since 1900.

      91

  • #
    pat

    with the “Hottest Ever” declaration getting maximum MSM coverage worldwide, it’s not surprising BBC’s Science In Action progr – which gets repeated…& repeated – is absolute FULL of CAGW:

    AUDIO: 27 mins: BBC Science in Action: Lessons from Katrina
    Could low lying coastal zones around the world learn from the Louisiana coastal protection plan and start planning for disaster now?…
    Islamic Climate Declaration
    Islamic environmental and religious leaders have drafted a declaration on climate change. The Declaration calls for “all people, leaders and businesses, to commit to 100% renewable energy” and focusses on “well-off nations and oil-producing states,” to lead the way in phasing out greenhouse gases, no later than the middle of this century. We discuss the significance of this latest involvement of a world religion in the climate change debate.
    West Antarctic Ice Sheet
    New research published in the journal The Cryosphere this week suggests that the west Antarctic Ice Sheet could contribute up to 6cm to global sea level rise by the end of the century. The work adds to the growing body of evidence that the west Antarctic ice sheet will play a role in rising sea levels.
    Deep Sea Coral
    By the end of the century, rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could weaken the foundations of deep sea corals, according to a new study. The weakened structures could impact on other life in the ocean according to research from Heriot-Watt University in Scotland…
    American Chemical Society
    Jonathan Webb brings us the latest news from the 250th national meeting of the American Chemical Society…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02yxbtw

    my summary:

    Katrina/Coastal sea level rise: brought home the potential damage of CAGW.

    Islamic Climate Declaration: unusual to be talking about religion on the Science prog, but we’ve had the Pope & Now the Islamic Declaration. no it’s not the Gulf States, etc etc Matt McGrath: many churches pulling money out of coal & oil. it’s a moral argument that has been gaining ground. just some environmentalists, but never mind, it’s a start.

    Antarctica: group has used sophisticated computer models; Dr. Stephen Cornford Uni of Bristol, looks 100, 200, 300 years ahead.

    Corals: ocean acidification, deep sea corals have osteoporosis; sharks will starve.

    Chemical Society: talks with Theresa Dankovich about her Drinkable Book. 600 million people around the world without access to clean drinking water will be able to tear pages out of the book and filter their water!

    more info:

    18 Aug: Uni of Bristol: Most comprehensive projections for West Antarctica’s future revealed
    A new international study, led by the University of Bristol, is the first to use a high-resolution, large-scale computer model to estimate how much ice the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could lose over the next couple of centuries, and how much that could add to sea-level rise.
    The study, which paints a clearer picture of West Antarctica’s future than was previously possible, is published today in The Cryosphere, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU)…
    heir high-resolution, computationally demanding simulations capture future changes in West Antarctica with increased accuracy compared to previous models…
    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2015/august/antarctica-projections.html

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Red Thumb Troll, please do try to read and learn something. If you disagree with a point, explain why.

    142

    • #
      Another Ian

      David

      Is HTO on duty?

      103

    • #
      AndyG55

      You have to realise that the red thumb troll has absolutely nothing to add to the demise of the AGW farce.

      It is twitter and bisted, and without someone to guide it, cannot put forward even the most basic argument to support its irrational belief in the totalitarian far-left “climate change™” agenda.

      The red thumb is a low IQ, low knowledge non-entity who is way too cowardly to even say a word, because it knows that the CAGW meme is a total and absolute farce. :-)

      84

  • #

    Just you wait till August in Paris 2015. That will be the hottest month EVER.
    The festival of the Paris-ites will blow your mind and the thermometers too.

    101

    • #
      gnome

      No- the hottest months always happen in the northern hemisphere summer. It’s a statistical nonsense, but that’s where the most alarmists are.

      41

  • #
    Glenn999

    It’s been really hot here in florida.
    how hot you say?
    hotter than two goats in a pepper patch?
    nope, hotter than that.
    more like
    hotter than a firecracker lit at both ends.
    still haven’t set any records yet this year…

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      This measurement of temperature and endless worrying is entirely new. The thermometer is a very new thing, invented basically to make better beer. Even temperature is new, a revolutionary concept. In the time of the genius Isaac Newton around 1700, he proposed that 100 degrees should be defined as water which was so hot you could not keep your elbow in it.

      So now we have people predicting the end of civilization based on a tiny change of 0.5C in an average over 100 years. It seems there is no technology which cannot be turned to the ends of doomsayers.

      What is really unnerving is when people write serious articles with just a bit of data, a spreadsheet with graphics or a commercial maths program and talk science as if what they say is convincingly true, a statement of fact, that say 20% of all CO2 will simply remain in the air for thousands of years. Their evidence for this is non existent but who cares? A least squares fit does not lie.

      While no scientist, in Australia Prime Minister John Howard was brilliantly quick and logical. When asked on the steps of parliament about the Age headline “worst drought in a thousand years” and what he was going to do about it, he looked at the reporter and asked “how do you know that”? The next day the headline was “worst drought in a hundred years”. Sometimes that’s all it takes.

      150

  • #
    MudCrab

    News.com.au?

    Click bait. I wouldn’t bother.

    The difference between a drunk at the pub and news.com.au is that the drunk will eventually confess it is only ‘his own opinion’.

    80

  • #
    Mike of NQ

    In 2014 we had ‘Snowmageddon’, in 2015 we had the ‘Antarctica Vortex’ and now we have ‘Fry July’. Around the world, until 2013 we had to IPCC denying the pause. Than the IPCC finally admitted there was / is a pause and finally the IPCC moved recently to “”explaining the pause”". With Fry July, I think the goal posts have moved again and we are back to where we were 3 years ago – NO PAUSE. What is wrong with these people???????????

    100

    • #
      gai

      What drives ClimAstrologists?? A bad case of grantitis, caused by fear of losing the grants that pay them so well.

      All Aboard the Climate Gravy Train

      ….an hour over a 1,600-hour work year, for a total salary of about $80,000. In the public sector, “atmospheric, earth, marine, and space sciences teachers, postsecondary” earn considerably more than the average university teacher ($70.61 per hour). They also work much less (1,471 hours each year), and despite their lower workload, they pull down about $104,000 a year….

      So climate scientists are very well compensated, out-earning all other faculty outside of law in hourly-wage terms. What about the rest of the public sector? Astonishingly, only one other public-sector profession — psychiatrist — pays better than climate science, at just over $73 an hour. In other words, climate scientists have the third-highest-paid public-sector job, ranking above judges

      What about the private sector? That’s led by airline pilots, who earn about $112 an hour, but work for only 1,100 hours a year, followed by company CEOs at an average of $91 an hour. Physicians and surgeons earn almost as much as CEOs, at $89.51 an hour. Private-sector law-school professors, interestingly enough, earn far less than their public-school counterparts, at $82 an hour. After that come professor-level jobs in engineering, at $76.11, and dentists, at $73.19. These are the only private-sector professions that pay more than climate science. Taking the public and private sectors together, by my reckoning, climate scientist is the tenth-highest-paid profession in the nation.

      Bear in mind that these averages are statistical means, and are therefore inflated by extremely high salaries at the top end, particularly in the case of CEOs and physicians. If we look at median earnings — what the earner right in the middle of the pack gets — we see that climate scientists get $75.29 an hour, compared with private-sector CEOs at $75.48 and physicians at $81.73….

      80

    • #
      Manfred

      What is wrong with these people???????????

      Paroxysmal climatiform dysknesia

      30

  • #
    pat

    the state of journalism in Australia today is dire:

    21 Aug: Newcastle Herald: JOANNE McCARTHY: Change in the weather
    It’s National Science Week, when Australians, for a brief period, forget who their Prime Minister is and acknowledge the need for objective, critically assessed, evidence-based decision-making in society.
    (Evidence for making the crack about Tony Abbott? I give you exhibit A – his considered opinion on wind turbines after riding past one, once, on a pushbike: ‘‘Up close, they’re ugly, they’re noisy and they may have all sorts of other impacts,’’ he said, while also keeping an open mind about whether Elvis is actually dead.)
    But back to science.
    A helpful website told me that National Science Week is an Australian government initiative, established in 1997, that provides us with an opportunity to ‘‘acknowledge the contributions of Australian scientists to the world of knowledge’’, unless they’re climate-change scientists in which we defer to Tony Abbott’s assessment that climate change is absolute crap.
    (Evidence for making another crack about Tony Abbott? I give you exhibit B – his statement in 2009 that climate change is ‘‘absolute crap’’, and just about anything he’s said and done about coal, carbon, fossil fuels and renewable energy since then.)
    Across Australia this week more than one million people, according to the National Science Week website, have taken part in science-related activities, including Tony Abbott, who announced the winners of the Prime Minister’s Science Awards…
    The Australian Academy of Science website has an excellent document, updated in February this year, called ‘‘The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers’’, which covers answers to nine key questions that are regularly raised in public debates…etc
    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3293729/joanne-mccarthy-change-in-the-weather/

    there are 9 key CAGW questions regularly raised in public debates??? where? when? do tell us, Joanne. don’t just believe it cos it’s on a website:

    Walkleys: Joanne McCarthy from the Newcastle Herald is the winner of the 2013 Gold Walkley.
    In the last seven years, she has written more than 350 articles about the sexual abuse of children, primarily by Catholic clergy in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. It was her relentless campaign for a royal commission that prompted a letter from Julia Gillard…
    McCarthy’s editor at the Newcastle Herald, Chad Watson, describes her as “a beacon for Australian journalism.”…

    “Joanne, you are a truly remarkable person. Thousands of Australians share your passion for justice. I am one of them.”
    – Julia Gillard’s letter to Joanne McCarthy, signed as one of her final acts as prime minister and on the night she lost the leadership vote.
    http://www.walkleys.com/walkleys-winners/2013_gold_walkley_joanne_mccarthy/

    40

  • #
    William

    Just a bit of a tangent here:

    Five years ago I installed a weather station on my deck in the Dandenongs in Melbourne.
    It shows that the past four summers, and past four winters have each been successively colder than the previous one.

    Similalrly, I have several friends who are farmers. They have long since abandoned any reference to the “official” weather data sources and have all installed their own weather stations, just like mine.

    Nobody I know takes any “offical” weather/climate pronouncements seriously.

    This has some larger implications. Pretty much everybody I know also questions the credibility of “scientists” in general; this cynicism is not limited to “climate scientists” (the ultimate oxymoron)

    This has relevance in the current uproar with respect to mining here is Australia. While most people I know are supportive of industrial development, they are taking the view that we have no way of knowing the credibility of the “scientists” who developed the environmental impact statements for the proposed mines.

    Is their analysis credible, or are they just another variation on “climate scientists” who produce whatever they are paid to produce? Twenty years ago, nobody would have thought to ask the question.

    The damage done by “climate scientists” has had very far reaching effects.

    180

    • #
      gai

      William,
      You are correct. I have lost all respect for the science profession but it goes even further. I have no respect for my government and I have even lost respect for my University.

      I recently found out that the “cow College” I went to has a prof who is one of the ones on the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). That committee came up with the recommendation that America Should Adopt a ‘Plant-Based’ Diet. It recommends taxes on dessert, trained obesity “interventionists” at schools and worksites, and electronic monitoring of how long Americans sit in front of the television or computer. Doctors in my state are even data mining grocery lists to see what you eat!

      This load of Bovine Feces is straight out of the mouth of Maurice Strong who quit school at 14:

      In 1992, As Chairman, Strong told the UN conference at Kyoto…

      “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

      The same propaganda was repeated by WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy…

      “climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared… Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? “

      It is being ‘presented as a health issue by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee as the excuse to ram radical changes down the throats of Americans. However it has nothing to do with health.

      There is certainly a lot of information in the scientific literature that shows humans need meat especially early in life if the brain is to develop fully. For example: Role of red meat in the diet for children and adolescents

      The US governments concern for the health of Americans does not play given the FDA has routinely over looked

      …significant departures from good clinical practice, such as underreporting of adverse events, violations of protocol, violations of recruitment guidelines, and various forms of scientific misconduct…. or submission of false information… The FDA does not typically notify journals …nor make any announcement intended to alert the public about the research misconduct that it finds. The documents the agency discloses [FOIA] tend to be heavily redacted. As a result, it is usually very difficult, or even impossible, to determine which published clinical trials are implicated by the FDA’s allegations of research misconduct.” — Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration

      In an article for Slate, study author Charles Seife said the FDA repeatedly hides evidence of fraud from both the public and trusted scientific advisers. In at least one case, falsified data in a trial comparing chemotherapies led to a patient’s death. They can add two more, my mother and my boy friend’s mother. The Doctor hid data about chemo causing heart attacks and so they died of heart instead of cancer and therefore were considered a ‘success’.(There was an article in Chem Eng. News about the problem the year before.) This was back in the 1970s during the human trials of Chemo.

      The rot has spread throughout government and the university system.

      90

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    I hope Paris is buried under ten metres of snow this December.

    140

  • #
    pat

    more on the Drinkable Book featured in BBC’s Science in Action:

    16 Aug: Eureka Alert: Public Release: American Chemical Society: Eliminating water-borne bacteria with pages from The Drinkable Book could save lives
    While studying the material properties of paper as a graduate student, Theresa Dankovich, Ph.D., discovered and developed an inexpensive, simple and easily transportable nanotechnology-based method to purify drinking water. She calls it The Drinkable Book, and each page is impregnated with bacteria-killing metal nanoparticles…
    Printed on each page is information on water safety both in English and the language spoken by those living where the filter is to be used. Each page can be removed from the book and slid into a special holding device in which water is poured through and filtered. A page can clean up to 26 gallons (100 liters) of drinking water; a book can filter one person’s water needs for four years…
    Dankovich acknowledges funding from iDE-Bangladesh, Carnegie Mellon University, WATERisLIFE, NIH Fogarty International Center and Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada…
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/acs-ewb071615.php

    30

  • #
    pat

    read all, looks like reality is kicking in:

    20 Aug: Yahoo: Reuters: Susanna Twidale: UK may use EU small print to swerve impact of green cuts
    Britain is thinking of using an EU loophole to dodge the impact of its own subsidy cuts on renewable energy and escape fines for missing 2020 European renewable targets.
    Under EU rules Britain could use the loophole, termed statistical transfer, which would see it pay other, greener, EU countries overshooting their targets, to make up the difference…
    Britain’s new Energy and Climate Change secretary Amber Rudd has announced changes to subsides for biomas, solar and onshore wind projects to trim spiraling costs, which she said in June were likely to result in around 250 projects not being built…
    Analysis from consultants PWC showed Britain would need to generate more than 50 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 to meet the goal, up from around 20 percent in 2014…
    Latest data from the European Commission shows several countries, including the Netherlands and France, are also at risk of missing their targets, meaning there could be competition for the statistical transfers…
    Richard Slark, Director at Poyry Management Consulting said it could end up being cheaper for Britain to not comply and face fines…
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/29311444/uk-may-use-eu-small-print-to-swerve-impact-of-green-cuts/

    20 Aug: LocalDenmark: Denmark looks to lower its climate goals
    Saying that the previous government’s goal to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent in 2020 compared to 1990 levels will be too expensive for Danish businesses, Climate Minister Lars Christian Lilleholt said on Wednesday that he will not push to meet the benchmark.
    Instead, Lilleholt said it is enough to stick to already-approved climate initiatives that the Danish Energy Agency (Energistyrelsen) estimates will result in a 37 percent carbon dioxide reduction.
    “It will be very expensive for the Danish society to reach those last percentage points and will therefore impose extra costs on our business community. That is not what Denmark needs right now,” Lilleholt told Altinget…
    FOLLOWED BY ALL THE CRITICS…INCL WWF….
    http://www.thelocal.dk/20150820/denmark-looks-to-lower-its-climate-goals

    20

  • #
    pat

    wind & solar thrown under the bus!

    20 Aug: Guardian: Arthur Neslen: BP lobbied against EU support for clean energy to favour gas, documents reveal
    BP was part of oil and gas lobby that successfully undermined EU renewable energy targets and subsidies in favour of gas as a climate fix in 2011
    The fossil fuel giant BP helped spur a concerted industry push to curb EU policy support for renewable energies such as wind and solar in favour of gas, the Guardian has learned.
    The European commission last year outlawed most subsidies for clean energy from 2017, and ended nationally-binding renewable targets after 2020, despite opposition from environmentalists and clean energy firms.
    The policy decisions were however requested by BP, Shell, Statoil and Total, and by trade associations representing a plethora of oil and gas majors…
    In October 2011, the Dutch oil and gas firm Shell first proposed that a sole greenhouse gas target take the place of policies that also supported renewables…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/20/bp-lobbied-against-eu-support-clean-energy-favour-gas-documents-reveal

    of course, killing coal remains on the agenda, tho Financial Times did publish the following reality-based industry piece; unfortunately behind a paywall:

    20 Aug: Financial Times Blog: Developing economies need power from coal
    by Benjamin Sporton, Wold Coal Association
    Over recent weeks, World Bank climate change envoy Rachel Kyte has made a number of comments claiming …
    http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/08/20/developing-economies-need-power-from-coal/

    40

    • #

      Just 4 small excerpts from pat’s last link there:

      Some 1.3 billion people live in energy poverty. 2.7bn people do not have clean cooking facilities and rely on dung and wood.
      ….
      The World Bank estimates that in the last three decades 600 million people have been lifted out of poverty – almost all of those in China.
      ….
      In some Sub-Saharan African countries as much as 80 per cent of households are without any access to utility-based electricity. But it gets worse. Even if you are fortunate enough to be connected to the grid you will suffer from regular power outages, often for hours and sometimes days.
      ….
      CCS, which is currently deployed at a coal-fired power station at Boundary Dam in Canada, captures 90 per cent of the plants CO2 emissions.

      It seems that coal fired power is not the boogeyman it’s made out to be.

      Also, where they say access to electricity, that means that perhaps somewhere nearby, and maybe even connected to where people live there may be some sporadic amount of electricity. Electricity to power one light bulb, even on an occasional basis is considered the standard for access to electricity, not the somewhat vague inference that access to electricity means what we think it to mean, reliable constant electricity to power our every need.

      Love that last excerpt, a flat out lie umm, misunderstanding. CCS only captures CO2 emissions from just one of it’s five units, 110MW out of a total of 820MW Nameplate, and it doesn’t store it, only achieving the partial Capture part of the whole CCS process.

      Tony.

      111

  • #
    Angry

    The real agenda behind these so called “green groups”…….

    No but yes. Green groups really do want deindustrialisation
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_but_yes_green_groups_really_do_want_deindustrialisation/

    COMMUNISTS !

    61

    • #
      Dennis

      It is worth noting that during submissions to the Royal Commissioner, Trade Union Royal Commission into trade union governance and corruption, a lawyer said that the ALP and the Union Movement are “organically connected”. Many of us knew that but to now have it on the public record with no retraction we can rely on this admission.

      Which begs the question why ALP state and federal governments have been allowed to get away with approving grant applications from the unions for taxpayer’s monies. Laundering of our monies from ALP governments to their union controllers which is “donated” directly or indirectly as election campaigning assistance.

      81

  • #
    TedM

    “But some journalists will believe anything. Anthony Sharman, sports journalist, News.com, Australia” Yeh Jo, I wonder how many papers on climate change he’s read. In fact I wonder if he knows what climate is.

    40

  • #
    RB

    Looks like his colleagues have a high opinion of him. He likes to feed the chooks when he is not flying a kite (for our American friends).

    30

  • #
    Angry

    I know a bit OT but relevant to these evil “greenies”……..

    Greens pay Aboriginal objectors to mine
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_pay_aboriginal_objectors_to_mine/

    This should be illegal !

    51

  • #
    handjive

    ABC updates the 97% Doomsday Climate Debate (that is over):

    Via #talkaboutit presented by Del Irani, @13.55 minutes

    Features John Christie, Tim Ball, Matthew England …

    20

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz -
    presuming u accessed the Financial Times Coal piece. thanx for the excerpts.

    speaking of desindustrialisation – here’s another of those “robots are taking over” pieces the MSM loves. good to see journalists added to the jobs-endangered list, cos that might make them less excited about the prospect.
    at least The Inquiry presenter, Helena Merriman, does seem a little disturbed by the enthusiasm of some of her guests:

    AUDIO: 23 mins: BBC: The Inquiry: What Will Happen When Robots Take Our Jobs?
    Robots are coming for your job. Blue-collar jobs in industries like manufacturing have been disappearing for years but now white-collar work is under threat too. Machines are already taking roles that used to be done by journalists, lawyers and even anaesthetists. One recent study calculated that 47% of total employment in the US is at risk of automation in the next 20 years.
    So what will happen to all the human beings who did those jobs? Will we invent enough new jobs to keep them occupied? If not, how will they fill their time? And how will they earn money? The Inquiry – still made, for now, by humans – brings you answers.
    Presenter: Helena Merriman
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02ys32f

    spookiest part begins around 11 mins in:

    Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University says, even tho most of the jobs will go, the future will be peaceful. US & UK have older populations, & older people don’t revolt. in the 1960s people revolted because they had moved into the middle class, so they had expectations. not so today as wages have flattened since those heady days, so we’ll see more disengagement. Occupy Wall St didn’t get anywhere, so people have already learned to accept a future run by robots. says social media is the new opiate of the masses. people will have more fun, more social connections, more sex, better romance, easier access to drugs.

    how nice!

    30

    • #
      gai

      :Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University says, even tho most of the jobs will go, the future will be peaceful. US & UK have older populations, & older people don’t revolt. in the 1960s people revolted because they had moved into the middle class, so they had expectations. not so today as wages have flattened since those heady days, so we’ll see more disengagement. Occupy Wall St didn’t get anywhere, so people have already learned to accept a future run by robots…”

      Brother, Where the heck has he been? Did he miss the Ferguson riots, the riots in New York City and in Baltimore?

      He certainly has not bothered to get out of that ivory tower and actually talk to people like I have. It is not just the blacks that are upset. Discounting older folks is just plain stupid. They maybe less hot head but they are better trained and have a heck of a lot less to lose.

      He most certainly missed The Sen. Harry Reid/ BLM/ Chinese solar company Land Grab attempt of the Bundy Ranch where citizens rallied in defense of the rights of the Bundy’s and all the unsavory corruption was uncovered making the US government back down, pack-up and leave.
      http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/

      Another Nevada Rancher Targeted For Ruin By The BLM Storm Troopers

      A startling decision on government wrongdoing by a federal court in U.S. v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage gives credence to those who say that the federal government is engaging in a “war on the West” that is hurting rural communities. It is a stark reminder of how powerful our federal government is today and how it can ruin the lives and businesses of American citizens.

      The 104-page opinion by U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones on May 23 in Nevada tells a sordid and infuriating tale of a two-decades-long conspiracy among federal employees of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the Department of the Interior to deny the grazing rights of a Nevada ranching family, interfere with their water rights, and destroy their cattle business by scaring away their customers.

      The case has long, complicated procedural history…

      40

  • #

    The claim that July 2015 is a record hottest month is outrageous! Why does society let these warmists get away with this false tripe that they peddle as fact and why is the public gullible enough to believe them? This July 2015 was the coldest July I ever experienced in Queensland. I went to the hills behind the Gold Coast and saw snow just out west- unheard of!
    As kids growing up in Sydney further south, back in the 1950′s and 1960′s, we used to have severe heat waves most summers. It was much hotter then than it is now. Dangerous bush fires would burn in the extreme heat that often reached as high as the mid 40 degrees C. Temperatures like this were common around Christmas time most years back then for example. We lived near a national park (Lane Cove River Park) in the inner north of Sydney and all the residents were issued with poles with a leather flap on their end to use to help stamp out grass fires at the ends of the suburban streets, that ended at the park. Everyone’s Dad had to do this just about every year as the fires were so prevalent in the hot weather back then. And now fires are rare in this part of Sydney even though the bush is still there because the weather is cooler these days!
    I also remember getting blisters on my feet from walking on the hot sand at the Sydney beaches in summer in those days. But these days I have walked many times on beaches in summer and never experienced really hot sand underfoot like was common back then. I have also rarely experienced such hot temperatures.
    It was much, much hotter in NSW and Southern Queensland back then than it is now, you cannot compare it. I get amazed when people try to claim it is meant to be getting hotter now. These days we get snow in Queensland! What a joke! And these days, throughout the year Southern Queensland is quite mild and temperate compared to the searing temperatures I used to experience there when I spent my summer holidays as a kid.
    Let’s have some honest reporting from these journalists for a change. The truth is that since the 1950‘s, the temperature and weather generally are cooling down, not warming up.

    102

    • #
      Ian George

      Robert,
      You would be pleased to know that Qld had an above average max mean anomaly of 0.55C for July (mean anomaly was even higher).
      This was achieved by the Qld bureau of area shading almost 40% of Qld with a 1C-2C above temp range when only 10 sites out of 112 showed a range above that.
      When you average the 112 sites you only get an anomaly of around +0.1C.
      See here for the area weighting map:
      http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/temperature/maxanom/month/colour/history/qd/2015070120150731.gif
      And here for the actual temp data for individual sites:
      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/qld/summary.shtml

      One of the stand-outs is Moreton (district 40) where the individual sites average out below average but area shading shows on the map as above average.
      GISS and BoM do this all the time – the weighting bears little resemblance to actual data.

      20

      • #

        Well, when we were experiencing the unusually cold weather in most of eastern and southern Australia this July, I was expecting to see many articles published about this cold weather event. These were noticeably absent during July and the days since.
        And oh no, what do we get? A release by the establishment that this July was rather, the hottest month on record. I simply could not believe this when I saw it. That anyone could have the gall to report the opposite says heaps about their indoctrination techniques using spin rather than fact.

        30

        • #
          Ian George

          According to the BoM, July 2015 was the 69th warmest July (out of 106) and actually hotter than July last year (if you can believe that). According to them, July minimums were below average last year but well above average this year.
          The hottest July ever comes from GISS and concerns global mean temp. This July beat the previous 1998 record for July by – wait for it – 0.01C (or one hundredth of a degree).
          That means July temps cave risen 0.01C over 17 years – but they don’t mention that.

          30

          • #
            AndyG55

            And that is after a sustained effort to fill in and fabricate missing data, and to massively adjust records all around the world, all of which is causing a massive deviation in trend between GISS and reality.

            For this to happen the ONLY other reason for the massive deviation of trend could be a huge change in the lapse rate between the surface and the lower troposphere, and that certainly hasn’t happened.

            There is NOTHING in the GISS non-data that could be called trustworthy.
            GISS is a political farce, waiting for an honest political leader to fix it.

            21

        • #

          It’s August 23 here in Wyoming. It was 31F (-1C). Yes, folks, that is belowing the freezing point. It’s also 10 degrees colder than the previous record of 41F. It has not exceeded or even reached 100F here this summer. It snowed in the mountains in July. It is, quite bluntly, getting cold. Now, you can either believe a group of people will really huge budgets, fast computers and a myriad of adjustments to data, or you can believe what your eyes and shivering body tell you.

          Sure, it’s not global but global is, quite frankly, irrelevent. If one took each area and looked at it, that would be relevent. It would not, however, lead to gigatons of CO2 added to the air with a conference in Paris on how to redistribute income. Reality just won’t do for these people.

          61

          • #

            Actually, I stand corrected. My pumpkin vine was killed by frost, my zucchini plants damaged and tomato and pepper plants nipped. On August 23, 2015. August. Now I’m waiting for the “August was the hottest month” so I can destroy my TV and stop listening to this. Warmest my foot—tell my dead plants it’s warmer.

            51

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    John Christy talking about climate science

    he is one of those that speaks calmly and honestly.. :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaPWV6-GhUk

    I like his comment about our general ignorance and our inability to predict
    events in this very complex subject.

    30

  • #
    Jl

    “Hottest July in 4000 years…..” Impossible to tell, as the Gregorian calendar didn’t come about till 1582. So the time period we call July today is not the same as it was previous to 1582.

    30

  • #
    PeterS

    They now want us to believe they know what the highest temperature of each every July for the past 4,000 Years? Is this some kind of sick joke or a deliberate attempt to continue with the hoax? In either case they should be sacked immediately. I know they won’t be and that’s another sick indictment of what some many call “science” when in fact it’s anything but science – more like a religious cult.

    40

  • #
    Kenney

    Get your facts straight. It was the warmest July and just because you only read headlines and cherry-pick data doesn’t really change this.
    If you would read the article here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201507 you would know that:
    “The July average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.46°F (0.81°C) above the 20th century average. As July is climatologically the warmest month for the year, this was also the all-time highest monthly temperature in the 1880–2015 record, at 61.86°F (16.61°C), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.14°F (0.08°C).”

    “Separately, the July globally-averaged land surface temperature was 1.73°F (0.96°C) above the 20th century average. This was the sixth highest for July in the 1880–2015 record.”

    “The July globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.35°F (0.75°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest temperature for any month in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in July 2014 by 0.13°F (0.07°C). The global value was driven by record warmth across large expanses of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.”

    36

  • #
    AndyG55

    Yes you do need to get your facts straight.! :-)

    The junk from NCDC is full of un-scientific, un-verifiable politically motivated adjustments that ALWAYS CREATE a warmer trend than reality.
    It is totally untrustworthy for anything except fooling the climate followers with propaganda BS.

    The satellite record UAH pretty much matches RSS (by scientists that “believe” in AGW), and also USCRN and ClimDiv. (do you even know what they are?)

    ALL of them show COOLING since 2001 for the satellite records and since 2005 for USCRN (when it was established).. and that July 2015 was nowhere near the warmest even in the very short term record. (ignoring much warmer times for most of the first 3/4 or more of the Holocene)

    Here are the year to date global average anomalies from UAH in order. (degrees C)

    1998……0.563
    2010……0.407
    2002……0.234
    2007……0.193
    2005……0.191
    2015……0.191

    And the July only global anomalies

    1998……0.47
    2010……0.35
    2002……0.23
    2009……0.23
    2005……0.22
    2011……0.22
    2014……0.21
    2007……0.18
    2015……0.18

    Also the Australia, July only anomalies..

    2009……1.10
    2002……1.05
    1999……0.94
    2005……0.93
    2003……0.81
    2014……0.75
    2015……0.75

    Anyone can see that 2015 is NOWHERE NEAR THE WARMEST !!

    You have been CONNED by Gavin and his little band of fabricators.

    54

    • #
      AndyG55

      And here is the UAH oceans July from warmest down..

      Again, we see that NCDC are lying through their political agendas.

      I wonder where they get their data.. obviously not from satellites.
      Maybe they just take a few values and fabricate the rest to give the desired outcome.
      That’s what the do everywhere else.

      1998….0.45
      2010….0.32
      2014….0.25
      2009….0.23
      2005….0.18
      2015….0.18

      54

  • #

    I’m off commenting for a while. I’m in moderation for a comment that neither myself nor my spouse can find any words that could be offensive, etc. There’s little point to commenting when so much lands in moderation. No use in making the mods work overtime.

    30

  • #
    Knobby22

    One graph is land and sea temperatures, the other lower tropospheric temperatures.
    Nothing more to say.

    21

  • #
    Ian George

    Knobby
    Whose graphs are you referring to?

    10

  • #

    The link to news.com.au shows a graph from the Japanese Meteorological Bureau shows a temperature graph that shows increasing temperatures. Where did they get thisdata from as it seems at odds with all other temperature graphs that I’ve seen

    00

  • #
    Knobby22

    Ian

    This one. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010july/figure2.pdf
    There was a better one on the NOAA site with land and sea temperatures separated but it has been removed. I have a copy but can’t upload it.

    This is the graph saying we have had worldwide the hottest July ever.

    The one Jo Nova points to is only lower atmosphere, it doesn’t consider land and sea surface temperatures.
    Not comparing apples with apples.

    33

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yes but it does consider the massive tampering and data fabrication from a group of people who’s very jobs, reputation and livelihood RELIES on there being a warming trend.

      Please explain how the surface can warm globally while the lower troposphere cools. !!!!!

      http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ScreenHunter_10120-Aug.-20-23.40.gif

      Sorry, but GISS is just ONE BIG PROPAGANDA LIE !!

      74

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        AndyG55.

        The scientific evidence shows the lower troposphere is warming.

        27

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Harry Twinotter,

          You wrote:

          The scientific evidence shows the lower troposphere is warming.

          No it doesn’t. The lower troposphere has been cooling for more than 15 years. This graph of the lower troposphere temperature trend from 1980 onward shows cooling has set in.

          You’ve been shown this graph many times and the details have been explained to you repeatedly. Your continued insistence of lying in your comments here is getting really boring. Please stop.

          Abe

          63

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Just-a-guy.

            Cherry-picking? What is your justification for picking only 15 years?

            You are using a rolling average of 15 years. Averages can be misleading.

            The 15 year trendline up to the end of 2014 shows cooling in RSS, and warming in UAH. But the 95% confidence level for the 2-sigma trend is around 0.2C – the satellite data is way too noisy to be sure of anything in the 15 year trend.

            Do not take my word for it, calculate it for yourself.

            http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

            16

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Harry Twinotter,

              You wrote:

              Bla.

              Bla. Bla. Bla.

              Bla. Bitty. Bla. Bla.

              I didn’t cherry-pick 15 years of data, I used the entire data set. Look at the parameters to the right of the graph.
              Averages are not misleading. All temperature data sets, land, sea, and air, are reported as monthly averages.
              The graph is not a 15 year trend, but rather, a rolling average, using a sub-set of 15 years, calculated monthly.
              I don’t need to calculate anything myself, woodfortrees does that for me.
              The graph you linked to shows a trend of monthly averages. My graph shows a trend of 15 year averages, calculated monthly.
              All this has been explained to you numerous times.
              You continue to spam this blog with lies, misrepresentations, and other assorted non-sense. Please stop.

              You might enjoy listening to this song by Jethro Tull. Expand the details tab to ‘Show More’ and sing along to the first verse.

              Abe

              53

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Just-a-guy.

                Some people are difficult to have a discussion with. They post insulting irrelevancies.

                You have not responded to my point about statistical significance.

                By using a rolling average of 15 years, you did indeed cherry-pick 15 years.

                If you still don’t understand my point about how averages can be misleading, look at RSS and UAH with the 2014 data included (yours only went up to 2013). Looks different now. UAH has resumed it’s upward trend compared to your graph.

                http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015/mean:180/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/mean:180

                Or your graph redone using a 16 year rolling average instead of 15 – the “cooling” is hardly noticeable now compared to your graph. See how sensitive to slight changes in the parameters? UAH and RSS now both show continual warming. The effect of the El Nino spike on the rolling average is clearly visible after 1990 – this is because the spike gets included in the rolling average.

                http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2014/mean:192/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2014/mean:192

                The problem with the satellite data is it is noisy. Noisy data is hard to analyse over short timeframes. The satellite data is sensitive to El Ninos, La Ninas (cooling events) and even volcanic eruptions.

                The bottom line is the satellite data contains a large El Nino spike at 1997/98. Any trendline or rolling average that includes that spike is going to be misleading. My advice, only make the period of averages as big as they need to be, no more.

                14

              • #
                Just-A-Guy

                Tarry Twinotter,

                I used 15 years because I wanted to add a few years on each end of the ~11-year solar cycle to smooth out the curve. If you plot the the same graph using the 127 months, i.e. the average length of the solar cycle without smoothing, this is what you get

                http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2014/mean:127/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2014/mean:127

                If you want a more detailed explanation of why the ~11-year solar cycle, and why the smoothing, you’ll have to wait for Sunday. But, knowing you, you won’t wait. Prove me wrong.

                You also included 2015 in the first graph. 2015 is incomplete. woodfortrees is not the same as the website you linked to earlier. Here, if you insert 2014 as an end date, all of 2014 is included.

                Abe

                32

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Just-a-guy.

                You have dodged responding to any of my points.

                No, you are wrong about woodfortrees, go read their help file.

                03

              • #
                AndyG55

                “They post insulting irrelevancies”

                Yes.. you do, always.

                That’s all you have.

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                “contains a large El Nino spike at 1997/98. Any trendline or rolling average that includes that spike is going to be misleading.”

                Yet that is what the alarmista always HAVE to use to show any trend whatsoever in the satellite data.

                Without that 0.26C step up from the El Nino, …

                …. there is no warming in the whole 36 years of the satellite data

                22

              • #
                AndyG55

                Harry, you are so utterly stupid that you just don’t realise that your statement disproves ANY link between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures.

                Thank you… end of game., by your own admission. :-)

                42

        • #
          AndyG55

          WRONG AGAIN..

          The satellite clearly show the lower troposphere to be COOLING since the end of the major El Nino centred around 1998.

          Your BLATANT LIES will get no credence here.

          53

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            AndyG55.

            Where am I lying?

            Do you consider all the data available, not just the freakish El Nino spike at 1997/98?

            16

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Tarry Twinotter,

              You wrote:

              Do you consider all the data available, not just the freakish El Nino spike at 1997/98?

              Yes. He did! And he left out the freakish El Nino to prove to you that, other than the Freakish El Nino, the satellite data shows no net warming. IOW. Once you remove the El Nino, the 0.01°C rise prior to it, is reversed by a 0.01°C drop after it.

              Abe

              43

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Where am I lying?”

              Only you know that.

              Its probably just part of your persona.

              33

            • #
              AndyG55

              You really aren’t bright enough to comprehend, are you. !

              Your problem.. got back to junior high and try this time.

              33

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            AndyG55.

            I just tried some cherry-picking of my own. I redid the calcs for 15 years (1999-2014 where data for the whole year is available).

            Both RSS and UAH show a warming trend in the data.

            The result is still not statistically significant, I did this just to show trends in noisy data are sensitive to the start and end points.

            http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

            16

            • #
              AndyG55

              But your cherry picking comes from IGNORANCE and PROPAGANDA.

              You obviously have ZERO understanding of climate events and natural cycles.

              You have just displayed that ignorance YET AGAIN.

              That is your way.. because that is all you have.

              43

    • #
      AndyG55

      The satellite record UAH pretty much matches RSS (by scientists that “believe” in AGW), and also USCRN and ClimDiv. (do you even know what they are?)

      ALL of them show COOLING since 2001 for the satellite records and since 2005 for USCRN (when it was established).. and that July 2015 was nowhere near the warmest even in the very short term record. (ignoring much warmer times for most of the first 3/4 or more of the Holocene)

      Here are the year to date global average anomalies from UAH in order. (degrees C)

      1998……0.563
      2010……0.407
      2002……0.234
      2007……0.193
      2005……0.191
      2015……0.191

      And the July only global anomalies

      1998……0.47
      2010……0.35
      2002……0.23
      2009……0.23
      2005……0.22
      2011……0.22
      2014……0.21
      2007……0.18
      2015……0.18

      GISS is heavily manipulated propaganda JUNK using large amounts of FABRICATED non-data.

      It is designed specifically to meet the warming alarmist agenda.

      And even with all the massive warming adjustments, it doesn’t come anywhere near the absolute farce that is the climate models.

      64

      • #
        AndyG55

        Little cowardly red thumb..

        ….do you dispute these figures?

        if so.. correct them.

        63

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        AndyG55.

        Any references for the match between RSS, UAH, nClimDiv and USCRN?

        I don’t think they all show cooling since 2001 and 2005.

        You appear to be conflating the US regional temperatures with global temperature.

        It is poor form to slander GISS without evidence. You appear to be arguing from ideology, not facts.

        15

        • #
          AndyG55

          You can find them and do the analysis yourself if you have the ability.

          It is good to see you are SCEPTICAL. Baby step, baby steps. :-)

          But I am not here to do you homework for you.

          There is PLENTY of evidence that GISS is a totally corrupted load of fabricated junk which bear little or no resemblance to reality.

          Again, if you have the ability and the will to get past your brain-washing, you will hunt for it and verify the reality.

          Nah.. that’s not going to happen, is it !! ;-)

          33

        • #
          AndyG55

          “I don’t think they all show cooling since 2001 and 2005.”

          I can assure you that they do.!!

          UAH USA48 is actually the one with the least cooling (-0.06ºC/decade since 2005)

          UAH Global shows cooling of -0.15ºC/decade since 2002 ( The current solar forced El Nino is causing slight lump.. but no peak, that causes the slope to level out a bit)

          USCRN since 2005 has a trend of -0.24ºF/decade (do the conversion yourself)

          ClimDiv since 2005 is -0.45ºF/decade

          for some reason best know to NOAA, USHCN stops at August 2014, an the trend form 2005 is -0.9ºF/decade (that would now be slightly less cooling because of the slight bump from the current solar-forced El Nino.

          In RSS , the trend since the end of the ElNino in early 2001 is about -0.04C/decade.

          ———

          Now .. off you go, little child.. and verify or dispute these figures.

          ———

          I must admit.. I expected the current El Nino to deliver more of a peak for the alarmista to crow about, but its just not happening.

          The fact that it hasn’t is rather worrying, because an El Nino is usually followed by a cooling trend from a La Nina. If this happens now the drop is going to be steep and significant, (except in GISS, which will give record highs even when everything is frozen solid) and will be a real problem for food production around the world.

          Please Harry.. shake off your AGW brain-washing and look at what is really happening.

          43

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            AndyG55.

            Well what do you know, the CONUS does show cooling over those time periods. It will be interesting to see if the addition of Alaska in March 2015 will have much of an impact to the US averages.

            “for some reason best know to NOAA, USHCN stops at August 2014″

            Known only by NOAA, and published on their website. They have replaced USHCN with nClimDiv. They probably still maintain both data sets somewhere, but I could not find it. NOAAs public graphs are based on nClimDiv as far as I can tell.

            NOAA’s GHCN shows warming over the globe for that timeframe, so my point about that still stands. I suppose you will claim that NOAA is fabricating the global data as well?

            “solar-forced El Nino” – you’re dreaming. The El Nino is caused by circulation changes.

            15

            • #
              AndyG55

              ClimDiv shows COOLING in the USA, more than UAH USA48 does.

              El Ninos, like ALL weather on Earth, are solar forced.

              GHCN is the massively manipulated propaganda farce concocted by NOAA to try to substantiate the LIE of global warming. !!

              You know that, as does everyone else.

              63

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                AndyG55.

                “You know that, as does everyone else.”

                No, I don’t know that. And neither do you.

                05

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JustAnotherPerson.

                We are not getting anywhere. You just keep posting the same claim, but provide no evidence where they show the satellite measurements are superior to the surface measurements.

                It would be expected Spencer and Christy say their own data set is good – this is called “self confidence”. Perhaps it fine (I don’t know), but where do they show evidence it is superior?

                Also the study by Spencer and Christy was published back in 1990. Since then errors were found in the satellite measurements that they had to correct.

                Anyway read this article and think about the technical issues that affect the satellite measurements. What I do know is they homogenise the life out of the data, they have the same issues with non-climatic influences like the surface measurements.

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm

                01

            • #

              Harry, keeps fighting the Satellite evidence when it does show NO warming since 1997:

              LINK

              Which flatly contradicts the IPCC temperature projection of at least .20C per decade warming and actually .30C when you throw in the stabilized CO2 emissions:

              “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”

              Harry where are the missing .30C “heat”?

              53

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                sunsettommy.

                If you have scientific evidence that the satellite measurements are more accurate of global temperature than the surface measurements, please post.

                And I keep pointing out, the UAH satellite data set shows warming over that timeframe.

                06

              • #

                I posted the CURRENT Satellite data from NASA,using Wood for Trees software, to make the chart.

                Here is the RAW Satellite data: LINK

                YOU make a case that it is inaccurate.

                51

              • #
                JustAnotherPerson

                Mr. Twinotter, I shall repost what I posted below.

                Here from two peer-reviewed papers, is evidence that satellite temperature records are more accurate than surface records.

                From the first article’s abstract :

                Passive microwave radiometry from satellites provides more precise atmospheric temperature information than that obtained from the relatively sparse distribution of thermometers over the earth’s surface. Accurate global atmospheric temperature estimates are needed for detection of possible greenhouse warming, evaluation of computer models of climate change, and for understanding important factors in the climate system.

                From the second article’s abstract :

                The results show that data from such an instrument are precise and therefore ideal for global studies. Temperatures measured by surface thermometers have considerable error for long-term studies because of various factors. Widely varying results are shown for California stations, where the few sites chosen for global temperature trend estimation are shown not to be representative of the average trend measured by over 100 stations in the state. Such a result calls into question the ability of scattered, selected surface networks to provide a true picture of long-term trends.

                Of course, as I stated below, there are more peer-reviewed papers about satellite temps from this wonderful resource.

                31

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JustAnotherPerson.

                “Here from two peer-reviewed papers, is evidence that satellite temperature records are more accurate than surface records.”

                The first paper is from Dr Roy Spencer and John Christy. Well they would say that, wouldn’t they?

                He clearly says he is basing it on only 10 years of data, and the variability is large.

                04

              • #
                JustAnotherPerson

                Mr. Twinotter, they said that based on their work and their analysis of the current data sets (at that time.) You cherry-pick their quote by saying “the variability is large”, but if you read on, you would find they say “large variability on time scales of weeks to several years, but no obvious trend for the ten year period.” (Personally, I don’t see how large variability is a cause for concern.) The reason he says they are more accurate is that, for one thing,

                In contrast to surface thermometers, sensors on satellite platforms can provide nearly complete earth coverage in as little as one day and can obtain measurements from various levels of the atmosphere.

                and that the surface temperature is biased. See, from another article: (this one published in 2009)

                A growing number of studies have found biases and
                uncertainties due to nonspatially representative influences in
                the assessment of multidecadal surface temperature trends
                [e.g.,
                Pielke et al.
                , 2007a, 2007b;
                Christy et al.
                , 2006, 2009;
                Davey and Pielke
                , 2005;
                Davey et al.
                , 2006;
                Hale et al.
                ,
                2006, 2008;
                Mahmood et al.
                , 2006;
                Rogers et al.
                , 2007;
                Kalnay and Cai
                , 2003;
                Kalnay et al.
                , 2006;
                Makowski et al.
                ,
                2008;
                Vautard et al.
                , 2009]. These biases include poor exposure of observing sites (see also http://www.surfacestations.org/), effects on temperature trends of concurrent multidecadal trends in the local surface air humidity; microclimate, nonspatially representative land use change over time, movement of temperature measurements closer to buildings, changes in the turbulent state of the nocturnal boundary layer by surface development and aerosols, alterations in levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, and the sampling of temperature data at single heights…We find that there have, in general, been larger linear
                trends in surface temperature data sets such as the NCDC
                and HadCRUTv3 surface data sets when compared with the
                UAH and RSS lower-tropospheric data sets, especially over
                land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the
                larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near
                surface air temperatures [e.g.,
                Zorita et al.
                , 2008;
                Chase et al.
                ,
                2006, 2008;
                Connolley
                , 2008]. The differences between
                surface and satellite data sets tend to be largest over land
                areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination
                because of various aspects of land surface change, atmo-
                spheric aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers
                to warm at a greater rate [
                Esau
                , 2008;
                Christy et al.
                , 2009].
                Trends in minimum temperatures in northern polar areas are
                statistically significantly greater than the trends in maximum
                temperatures over northern polar areas during the boreal
                winter months.
                [
                40
                ] We conclude that the fact that trends in thermometer-
                estimated surface warming over land areas have been larger
                than trends in the lower troposphere estimated from satel-
                lites and radiosondes is most parsimoniously explained by
                the first possible explanation offered by
                Santer et al.
                [2005].
                Specifically, the characteristics of the divergence across the
                data sets are strongly suggestive that it is an artifact resulting
                from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radio-
                sonde observations. These findings indicate that the recon-
                ciliation of differences between surface and satellite data sets
                [
                Karl et al.
                , 2006] has not yet occurred, and we have offered a
                suggested reason for the continuing lack of reconciliation.

                (I do apologize for the formatting.)

                11

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JustAnotherPerson

                You are claiming me quoting “the variability is large” is a cherry-pick? Are you serious? I took it from the Abstract of the study! And it is important – if the variability is large then it is hard to be certain of any trends, especially a 10 year trend as stated by the study. If you don’t believe me, calculate the least squares trendline and confidence intervals for yourself.

                My point is of course Spencer and Christy are going to say their data set is superior. Personally I would rather see an independent assessment. To counter Spencer and Christy, Carl Mears who looks after RSS says in his blog he considers the surface data sets more reliable.

                I cannot read the Spencer and Christy studies as they are behind paywalls so I cannot see their evidence for the satellite data sets being more accurate than the surface data sets. If you like, you can summarise their argument for us and post here.

                12

              • #

                Twinotter, going off the deep end with his endless “opinions” against posted evidence.

                “Here from two peer-reviewed papers, is evidence that satellite temperature records are more accurate than surface records.”

                The first paper is from Dr Roy Spencer and John Christy. Well they would say that, wouldn’t they?

                He clearly says he is basing it on only 10 years of data, and the variability is large.

                Basically you said NOTHING in your favor. Do you even know what Debate consist of Harry?

                You continue with another dead on arrival “opinion”,with nothing cogent to say.

                “You are claiming me quoting “the variability is large” is a cherry-pick? Are you serious? I took it from the Abstract of the study! And it is important – if the variability is large then it is hard to be certain of any trends, especially a 10 year trend as stated by the study. If you don’t believe me, calculate the least squares trendline and confidence intervals for yourself.

                My point is of course Spencer and Christy are going to say their data set is superior. Personally I would rather see an independent assessment. To counter Spencer and Christy, Carl Mears who looks after RSS says in his blog he considers the surface data sets more reliable.

                I cannot read the Spencer and Christy studies as they are behind paywalls so I cannot see their evidence for the satellite data sets being more accurate than the surface data sets. If you like, you can summarise their argument for us and post here.”

                Really that is all you have to prove something against them?

                Meanwhile you COMPLETELY ignored the many papers showing surface station problems to focus on the more accurate and comprehensive Satellite data.

                YOU have to do better than that Harry!

                12

              • #
                JustAnotherPerson

                Mr. Twinotter, it was a cherry-pick, because you did not include the rest of the sentence, which reads:

                Analysis
                of
                the
                first
                10
                years
                (1979
                to
                1988)
                of
                satellite
                measurements
                of
                lower
                atmospheric
                temperature
                changes
                reveals
                a
                monthly
                precision
                of
                0.01°C,
                large
                temperature
                variability
                on
                time
                scales
                from
                weeks
                to
                several
                years,
                but
                no
                obvious
                trend
                for
                the
                10-year
                period.

                (Again, I apologize for the formatting.)
                “Large variability on time scales from weeks to several years”. That’s why it’s a cherry-pick. To put things in perspective, using RSS data (I haven’t seen UAH 6.0 data plotted against “the pause” yet in respect to the new temperature anomaly for August (0.28C)) we get no warming trend (in fact a slight cooling one) (this of course using WFT) for 18 years and 8 months, which filters the “large variability” you quoted from the abstract..
                I apologize for not giving you the PDF link for the paper I quoted.
                Here’s for Spencer and Christy 1990. And, as I showed above, (and there are even more papers here and here) the surface temperature record is biased and therefore unreliable.

                21

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JustAnotherPerson.

                Please give me a good reference to where a study has show the satellite measurements are superior to surface measurements. ALL data sets have issues, we know that. But that is not what is being discussed.

                Remember Carl Mears said in his blog that he considers surface measurements to be more reliable than the satellite measurements.

                13

              • #

                Carl Mears also says in his blog that the models DO NOT match the data and lists a bunch of guesses as to why not. So models cannot forecast and we do NOT know if the warming is due to CO2 or not.

                Also, his blog uses the word “d*nialist”, meaning he is NOT a scientist, no matter what degree he has. That term is 100% POLITICAL. So you’re reading a political blog and trying to pass it off as science.

                31

              • #
                JustAnotherPerson

                Mr. Twinotter, (I apologize, this paper is hidden behind a paywall) take a look at this abstract:

                One data set, from the Microwave Sounding Unit, measures atmospheric temperature in deep layers since late 1978. Procedures for verifying and validating these data by two tests are presented: one by comparison with an independent satellite and one by comparison with radiosonde data. The results show that data from such an instrument are precise and therefore ideal for global studies. Temperatures measured by surface thermometers have considerable error for long-term studies because of various factors. Widely varying results are shown for California stations, where the few sites chosen for global temperature trend estimation are shown not to be representative of the average trend measured by over 100 stations in the state. Such a result calls into question the ability of scattered, selected surface networks to provide a true picture of long-term trends.

                If I was able to access the paper, I would show you the evidence supporting the notion that satellite data sets are more accurate than surface temperature data sets.

                21

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Sheri.

                “Carl Mears also says in his blog that the models DO NOT match the data and lists a bunch of guesses as to why not..”

                Correct, the models are a poor match after around 2000, before that they are a good match. Which is interesting, it might imply something has changed after the 1997/98 El Nino. The current El Nino will be interesting for the same reason. My gut feel is the PDO switching phase may have something to do with it, the PDO has been mostly negative after 2000. It is now back in positive mode.

                http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-3-15.jpg

                His work also shows an upward trend in water vapour, which is a prediction of global warming.

                The temperature models for the Arctic region are a good match.

                I think Carl Mears would be hurt by someone claiming his research is politically motivated, and the claim that he is not a scientist. He is a published scientist. I call that an ad hominem.

                03

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JustAnotherPerson.

                So Christy Et Al just looked at California stations? (going by the abstract). That is not a global sample.

                I will have a go at finding the complete paper.

                03

              • #
                JustAnotherPerson

                Here is another paper showing (as I did previously) a bias in surface temperatures (which is why satellite temperature data sets are more accurate; they can measure the whole Earth, and thus don’t give too much precedent too urban sites where the heat island is in effect.) There are plenty more, here.
                From the abstact:

                Meteorological stations located in an urban environment in North America warmed between 1941 and 1980, compared to the countryside, at an average rate of about 0.12°C per decade. Secular trends of surface air temperature computed predominately from such station data are likely to have a serious warm bias.

                11

              • #

                Scientists do not use the term den*er. Plain and simple. If this person uses said word, they are an activist and a politician, not a scientist. Scientists deal in facts. And just because someone publishes papers. Hey, computer generated fake got papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Is the person who created the program a scientist because some journal published their work? I thank you for your comment however. It’s given me an interesting idea for explaining why scientists don’t behave the way we see global warming researchers and writers doing today.

                31

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JustAnotherPerson.

                The satellites cannot measure the whole earth, I do not know why you think that.

                From memory, Carl Mears does not use infilling from surface measurements. Roy Spencer does use infilling.

                01

              • #
                JustAnotherPerson

                From the peer-reviewed paper I cited earlier, “Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites”:

                In
                contrast
                to
                surface
                thermometers,
                sensors
                on
                satellite
                platforms
                can
                provide
                nearly
                complete
                earth
                coverage
                in
                as
                little
                as
                one
                day
                and
                can
                obtain
                measurements
                from
                various
                levels
                of
                the
                atmosphere.

                (I apologize for the formatting.)

                11

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JustAnotherPerson.

                We are not getting anywhere. You just keep posting the same claim, but provide no evidence where they show the satellite measurements are superior to the surface measurements.

                It would be expected Spencer and Christy say their own data set is good – this is called “self confidence”. Perhaps it fine (I don’t know exactly), but where do they show evidence it is superior?

                Also the study by Spencer and Christy was published back in 1990. Since then errors were found in the satellite measurements that they had to correct.

                Anyway read this article and think about the technical issues that affect the satellite measurements. What I do know is they homogenise the life out of the data, they have the same issues with non-climatic influences like the surface measurements.

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm

                02

              • #
                JustAnotherPerson

                Mr. Twinotter, Christy and his co-author, James Goodridge, ( in this peer-reviewed paper) ran a test on Christy’s satellite data set, comparing it with other satellite data and radiosonde (weather balloon) data. Here: (I know California is not a global sample, but U.S. data is generally regarded as some of the finest available, and if this problem is here it most certainly is present elsewhere (see below))

                One data set, from the Microwave Sounding Unit, measures atmospheric temperature in deep layers since late 1978. Procedures for verifying and validating these data by two tests are presented: one by comparison with an independent satellite and one by comparison with radiosonde data. The results show that data from such an instrument are precise and therefore ideal for global studies. Temperatures measured by surface thermometers have considerable error for long-term studies because of various factors. Widely varying results are shown for California stations, where the few sites chosen for global temperature trend estimation are shown not to be representative of the average trend measured by over 100 stations in the state. Such a result calls into question the ability of scattered, selected surface networks to provide a true picture of long-term trends.

                You do raise a good point. Of course, Spencer and Christy would content that their data set is the best. But look at the data, which supports that assertion. UAH data correlates with other satellite data (RSS) and radiosonde data. Your point, “Since then errors were found in the satellite measurements that they had to correct” is irrelevant. UAH, as previously noted, correlates well with RSS, and we don’t see many warmists attacking RSS data now do we? (Maybe because Mears is a warmist.) That should be all the evidence that satellites are superior that you need. Also, about the surface data, as this paper I quoted earlier notes:

                We find that there have, in general, been larger linear
                trends in surface temperature data sets such as the NCDC
                and HadCRUTv3 surface data sets when compared with the
                UAH and RSS lower-tropospheric data sets, especially over
                land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the
                larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near
                surface air temperatures [e.g.,
                Zorita et al.
                , 2008;
                Chase et al.
                ,
                2006, 2008;
                Connolley
                , 2008]. The differences between
                surface and satellite data sets tend to be largest over land
                areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination
                because of various aspects of land surface change, atmo-
                spheric aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers
                to warm at a greater rate [
                Esau
                , 2008;
                Christy et al.
                , 2009]… We conclude that the fact that trends in thermometer-
                estimated surface warming over land areas have been larger
                than trends in the lower troposphere estimated from satel-
                lites and radiosondes is most parsimoniously explained by
                the first possible explanation offered by
                Santer et al.
                [2005].
                Specifically, the characteristics of the divergence across the
                data sets are strongly suggestive that it is an artifact resulting
                from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radio-
                sonde observations. These findings indicate that the recon-
                ciliation of differences between surface and satellite data sets
                [
                Karl et al.
                , 2006] has not yet occurred, and we have offered a
                suggested reason for the continuing lack of reconciliation.

                (I apologize for the formatting.)
                Many other papers have found serious errors in the surface data sets, (see here and here) but I will quote from only one here: (from the abstract)

                Urban contributions to the overall trends of
                annual mean Tmin and Tmax reach 100% and 28.8% respec-
                tively for the adjusted data. Our analysis shows that data
                homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to
                suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends
                of surface air temperature, and this necessitates a careful
                evaluation and adjustment for urban biases before the data
                are applied in analyses of local and regional climate change.

                (See Roy Spencer’s defense of the UAH data here.)
                On a side note, I won’t bother reading the SkepticalScience blog post (Mr. David Appell, in a different place, noted that blog posts aren’t science) because 1. SkS was founded by a guy whose only background in science was his B.Sc in Physics, (John Cook was a cartoonist) 2. They use ad hominems and call skeptics “den**rs”, and 3. Smear credentialed scientists with pathetic (as before) ad hominems. See more here.

                00

            • #
              AndyG55

              “I suppose you will claim that NOAA is fabricating the global data as well?”

              It is a well know FACT that pretty close to HALF of the GHCN global data is fabricated. Even their own charts show that.

              And what hasn’t been fabricated has been monumentally altered.

              But you know that, don’t you Harry.

              83

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                AndyG55.

                And you have scientific evidence that the data sets have been fabricated?

                In that case, the satellite data sets could be fabricated as well. It would actually be easier to fabricate the satellite data sets as control of them is more concentrated.

                Me, I prefer to accept the surface and satellite data sets. I see no reason to invent nefarious intent.

                19

              • #
                AndyG55

                “And you have scientific evidence that the data sets have been fabricated?”

                YES.. there is plenty..

                Now go and find a tiny bit of reality in that warped little brain-washed mind of yours, and go and find that evidence for yourself.

                Nothing anyone else tells you will get past your crazed, cult-driven ignorance.

                Only you can fix it.. but you won’t even try, will you.!

                33

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                AndyG55.

                “YES.. there is plenty..”

                OK, show us the evidence. Otherwise all you are producing are empty words.

                14

              • #
                AndyG55

                Harry, if you really want enlightenment, you must seek it yourself..

                You show a strange reluctance to do so. Why would that be ?

                21

            • #
              AndyG55

              See just how much GISS/NOAA has change/manipulated/tortured the worlds temperature even since 2001..

              https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/29/a-spectacular-hockey-stick-of-fraud-with-nasa-surface-temperatures-since-2001/#comment-537322

              It must be pretty close to being criminal and certainly is purely propaganda LIES.

              83

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                AndyG55.

                Steve Goddard, really?

                So your “scientific evidence” of data manipulation is Steve Goddard says it was so.

                111

              • #

                Your bias is showing,making yourself look foolish since “Steve” showed by sources, how he made his conclusions.

                It is OBVIOUS that you didn’t even read the link (NASA and NCAR) filled post there.

                82

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yes.. follow the data…

                But no, you don’t have the intelligence or the will to actually check for yourself, do you.

                52

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                AndyG55.

                Still waiting for this “evidence” I am supposed to be considering. Are you going to post any references?

                Links to comments about Edward Snowden are not evidence.

                13

              • #
                AndyG55

                No here to do your homework..

                You obviously have zero interest in finding out the reality of the situation yourself.

                21

        • #

          LINK

          Here is the Satellite data showing a COOLING trend since 2001,which is the opposite of what the IPCC projected would happen.

          How do you explain that Harry?

          63

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Knobby22,

      You wrote earlier:

      The one Jo Nova points to is only lower atmosphere, it doesn’t consider land and sea surface temperatures.
      Not comparing apples with apples.

      Before we get into why Jo posted lower troposphere temperatures, let’s look at what the combined ‘land and sea’ surface temperatures really are.
      The land surface temperatures are measured approximately 1.5 meters above the land’s surface so basically we’re measuring the air temperature just above ground level. The sea surface temperatures are measuring the water temperature close to the surface of the oceans so basically we’re measuring the water temperature just below the surface.
      So, when you examine the details of the combined ‘land and sea’ temperature records, what we’re really looking at is combined air and water temperatures. If you want to claim ‘not comparing apples to apples’ then you’d better get a hold of the world’s ‘best practice’ Clime-Astrologists and lodge your complaint with them. IOW. Apples and Oranges. ;)

      So when Jo posts lower troposphere temperatures, she’s showing you air over land and air over water. IOW. Apples and Apples. :)

      But it doesn’t end there.

      Here’s a graph of the land and sea temperatures shown separately. Two points need to be made here.

      The first point is fairly obvious. For the period when the major warming has occurred, 1980 onwards, we see that the land(air temps) and sea(water temps) trend lines begin to diverge. Also, as time goes forward the divergence becomes greater. :o

      The second point is not so obvious, unless you’re really looking. Prior to 1900 or thereabouts there is also a pronounced divergence between the two trends. Except that back then, the divergence is in the opposite direction. :o

      As far as I know, and you should all agree, the water molecules in the oceans prior to 1900 are the same water molecules as the water molecules in the oceans today. The same is true for the air molecules in the atmosphere. So can you or anyone else please explain to me why back then the oceans were consistently warmer, (contrary to physical laws), and today, the oceans are consistently cooler?

      Now. Unless you haven’t caught on yet, that last question was just rhetorical. Of course the oceans are and have always been cooler than land temperatures when the land temperatures are taken close to or at the surface. Water takes longer to heat by volume than solid land.

      Please take heed and listen well: Any explanation for this phenomenon that involves CO2 and it’s claimed effects on the atmosphere must be false because in order to be true, the divergence in the trends between land(air temps) and sea(water temps) prior to 1900 would have had to extend all the way to 1950 and not end in 1900, because . . .

      . . . we know that CO2 levels were flat and stable up until 1950.

      So. Hmmm. What’s going on then?

      The answer is simple and this graph just points it out one more time. Older temperatures are homogenized downward. The older the lower. Newer temperatures are homogenized upward. The newer the higher. and so . . .
      It’s not that the physical characteristics of air and water molecules have somehow magically changed. No. They’ve remained the same. It’s the land based temperature trends that have been cynically shifted to show a steeper, upward slope to promote CAGW ™.

      So. When Jo posts tropospheric temperatures, it’s not only because they’re comparing/combining ‘apples to apples’, but also because they are more reliable than the heavily homogenized, i.e. manipulated, land and sea based temperatures.

      There is of course, a third reason for using the satellite lower tropospheric temperatures. Even distribution of data points. While the land based temperatures are taken by thermometers that are haphazardly and unevenly distributed all over the place, the satellite temperatures are taken over an evenly distributed grid layout over all of the planet (not including the poles).

      But then again, this last reason is well known and understood by most so there’s no need to get into the details of it. Right? ;)

      Abe

      73

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        WOW! Red thumb only five minutes after posting! :o

        Busy little beaver, they is!

        Abe

        51

        • #
          tom0mason

          Wear them as a medal!
          It indicates they (whoever) has no answer to a comment, like Pavlov’s dogs they only have unthinking reactions when the correct order of words ring their internal bell.

          30

    • #
      AndyG55

      I repeat…

      Please explain how the surface can warm globally while the lower troposphere cools. !!!!!

      nothing.. nada.. Zip.

      53

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        AndtG55,

        There’s this little ‘app’ they call ‘The Homogenizer’, (pat.pend.). Works like a charm, I hear.

        Abe

        43

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        AndyG55,

        You wrote:

        nothing.. nada.. Zip.

        Welcome back! You were missed!

        Abe

        21

      • #

        The surface can warm from heat under the surface. If there is not sufficienct heat to warm the air, the air above will be colder. Kind of like when the floor in the house stays warm due to ground warmth but the temperature in the room is chilly. Not saying this is happening, just that I can find examples of where the ground/floor is warmer than the air further up. The air closest to the floor will be warmer than the air at the ceiling.

        10

  • #
    Ian George

    Knobby
    This is the GISS anomaly map for July 2015 – 0.72C.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=6&type=anoms&mean_gen=07&year1=2015&year2=2015&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob
    This is the GISS anomaly for July 1998 – 0.71C.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=6&type=anoms&mean_gen=07&year1=1998&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob
    An increase of 0.01C over 17 years – a linear increase of 0.06C for 100 years.
    And if you take into account the homogenisation adjustments made by GISS (see more comment and evidence above at 62.1) then forgive me for thinking that this declaration of the hottest July ever is unconvincing.

    63

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Ian George.

      “An increase of 0.01C over 17 years – a linear increase of 0.06C for 100 years.”

      It is not valid to extrapolate from 2 month’s data like that.

      16

  • #

    [...] July since the last one,” noted popular Australian climate researcher and scientist Jo Nova in an analysis ridiculing the official claims and the even more outlandish media propaganda surrounding them. “We [...]

    22

  • #
    Knobby22

    The truth is that the error in measurement provided by NASA is double the amount that the record was broken so it is true that it is not a convincing figure but (like unemployment figures) it is the trend that is important.

    22

    • #
      AndyG55

      And that trend in all reliable, well spaced, untainted data sets is COOLING !!!

      43

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Knobby22,

      AndyG55 wrote:

      And that trend in all reliable, well spaced, untainted data sets is COOLING !!!

      As shown by the RSS satellite data set.

      Abe

      33

      • #
        AndyG55

        UAH matches RSS quite closely. Both show a COOLING trend since the culmination of the 1998 El Nino in 2001. (UAH slightly less than RSS.

        UAH USA48 actually has a COOLING trend slightly less than USCRN and ClimDiv since USCRN was established.

        (for those who don’t know, USCRN is the set of “pristine”, “untainted” climate stations established at regular intervals in the USA…
        why hasn’t BOM done this, one should ask. !!!)

        This verifies RSS as a very sound data source.

        The El Nino from 1997-2001 was solar forced.. (even climate scientists admit this) and caused a temperature step of about 0.26C in RSS LTT.

        Apart from this 0.26C, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WARMING in the 36 years of RSS (run by warmistas) satellite data.

        THERE is ZERO CO2 signature in the whole of the 36 years of satellite data despite a large beneficial gain in atmospheric CO2

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/offset:-.26

        43

    • #
      Ian George

      Knobby
      I don’t know where you get those figures for (at #71) but the official NASA GISS data does not say that.
      It says there was an 0.01C increase in July from the previous high in 1998. The margin for error is at least + or -0.5C.
      Hardly a warming trend when the MFE is taken into account.
      BTW, as an example, the hottest year ever was 2014 (according to NASA GISS). Down at the bottom of the report, NASA admits that there is only a 38% probability of that statement being correct.

      42

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Knobby,

      the annual uncertainty estimate is around +/- 0.05C, about 5 hundredths of a degree Celsius.

      I am not sure about the monthly values, the uncertainty may be higher.

      The error is no-one’s friend, it might be cooler or it might be warmer than estimated.

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

      13

      • #
        AndyG55

        “the annual uncertainty estimate is around +/- 0.05C, about 5 hundredths of a degree Celsius.”

        ROFLMAO.. now that just seriously STUPID !!!!

        42

      • #
        AndyG55

        And THANK GOODNESS there has been some warming since the LIA.

        Do you REALLY want the climate to go back to freezing time????? Really ???

        Move to Siberia if you do, but leave us out of it.

        42

  • #
    Knobby22

    Abe, that data set ends in 2008!

    10

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    Knobby22,

    You wrote:

    Abe, that data set ends in 2008!

    No, it doesn’t. Please take a look at the parameter settings to the right of the graph. If it’s still unclear after you do that, I’ll be happy to explain.

    Abe

    10