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 Shattering Year since the last one: Five reasons it was not hot, and not relevant

 Tell the world, 2015 is the hottest year since 2010.

The fuss made over contested decimal points in highly adjusted datasets of irrelevant factors only shows how unscientific the public debate is. It probably wasn’t the hottest year in the last 150, and even it was, who cares –  that doesn’t tell us anything about the cause. (Remember when cause and effect used to matter to a scientist?) Natural forces like the Sun and clouds can cause hot years too. Even if it was “the hottest” in a short noisy segment, the world has been hotter before (and life on Earth thrived) and the climate models are still hopelessly wrong. If CO2 was a big driver of the climate, 2015 should have been a lot hotter.

1. It wasn’t the hottest year.  Satellites have better, broader coverage, surveying almost  the whole planet (rather than selected car parks, runways, etc. like the surface thermometers). The satellites say that both 1998 and 2010 were hotter. In any case, these kind of piddling noisy differences are just street signs on the road to nowhere — what matters are the long term trends, and the predictions of climate models. (If the models worked, “scientists” wouldn’t need to do a gala performance about nothing eh?)

Hottest year in 2015, Graph, Satellite, UAH, RSS, Global Temperature

2015 is the hottest year since 2010. So what?

2. 2015 was a failure for Global Worriers — not hot enough. Compared to 1998, the IPCC-endorsed climate models all say it should be warmer than it was. We had another El Nino in 2015, and since 1998 humans put out more than a third of their all-time CO2 emissions, yet 2015 was cooler than 1998 and 2010. CO2 is not driving the climate.

3. It’s been hotter before, and for thousands of years. It’s normal. Even if 2015 had been the hottest year in modern records (which start in 1850), the world was still hotter many times in the last ten thousand years. Antarctica didn’t melt. The Great Barrier Reef survived, and so did polar bears and penguins.  Warm weather is not an apocalypse, and it wasn’t caused by CO2.

Get a grip at the way temperatures rose and crashed in Greenland  (below). Current temperatures are probably similar to the Medieval Warm Period (this graph ends around 1900AD). The spikes here only represent Greenland, not the whole world, but the message is clear. Climate change is normal, and what’s happening now is not unusual.

Greenland temperatures, GISP, ice cores, Holocene era.

UPDATED: Ice core data is marked red to show where the modern global warm period begins (specifically 1705AD – 1855AD, long before CO2 levels rose). This graph ends in 1855, so none of the warming after that is shown.

 

4. Where is cause and effect? The latest batch of global warming started long before CO2 started rising. None of the scientists can explain why global warming started nearly 200 years before the first coal fired power station. Either coal affects the space-time continuum, or perhaps they read the tea leaves wrong?

Ljundqvist, Christiansen, Graph, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age.

Temperatures bottomed out around 1700AD according to scores of proxies (See Ljundqvist and Christiansen Fig 4a.)

Global Sea Levels, Trend, Graph, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000. Jevrejura, PMSML

[Graphed by Joanne Nova based on data from Jevrejura et al located at this site PMSML]

5. Since we are in a 300 year warming trend, it is inevitable that  “hottest ever” records will be broken.Back in WWII we could have had the same headlines. If you were alive from 1938 to 1948, you could have heard about five of those records being broken. (H/t and graph thanks to  Geoff Sherrington with red annotation from me.)

Graph, hottest ever years in 20th Century. Global Temperatures.

Every year with an arrow is another “hottest ever year”.

6. Shattered? What kind of scientist is shattered that it was a tenth of a degree warmer than the last area-averaged, homogenized, adjusted record? They should be shattered that they still can’t explain the pause, the medieval warm period, the little ice age, or the missing hot spot.

MIT Professor, Richard Lindzen, says these “hottest year” claims are “spin on nothing”

Thanks to Climate Depot:

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he added.

 “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”

The things the media won’t tell us

 Joe Bast, Heartland Institute

Bast: “The “news’ story makes no mention of the Congressional investigation of NOAA underway, finding evidence that NOAA falsified its temperature data. No mention that the surface station data aren’t actually global and are known to  exaggerate warming trends. And are contradicted by the truly global satellite data, which are in turn validated by weather balloon data. Or that saying “reliable global record-keeping began in 1880” conveniently puts the beginning of the data series at the end of the Little Ice Age. Heartland’s James Taylor tried to inoculate the press from NOAA’s virus with a piece last week at Forbes.com “2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record”.

UPDATE: Top Graph updated to add the word “satellite” instead of “main” which reflects that this is just the main satellite sets. To see all of the main surface sets, including the satellites (notice how similar they are) see this graph published 2 days later. Thanks to DavidR. I prefer this clarification.

UPDATE #2: Thanks to Josh and Twinotter  for pointing out the x axis title on the GISP graph was out by 50 years. The wording “Years Before Present (2000AD)” was incorrect and has been changed to “Years Before Present (1950AD)”. The change doesn’t affect the message or meaning here, but I’m grateful. The graph is more accurate. Thanks also to Just-a-guy for his analysis.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (129 votes cast)
Hottest Shattering Year since the last one: Five reasons it was not hot, and not relevant, 9.4 out of 10 based on 129 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/zf23z6n

239 comments to Hottest Shattering Year since the last one: Five reasons it was not hot, and not relevant

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    It is telling of Joe Public’s illiteracy that so many actually think that this “hottest day”, “hottest year” stuff is meaningful.
    I have run across several who seem to think “well that’s it then; that’s ‘proof’.
    It’s a spoof.

    325

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      On Bishop Hill
      (great cartoon by Josh .. caption “the warmest year since records began…to be adjusted” ).

      commentator dennisa notes that In the 20 warmest years on the Met office site there are the years 1989, 1959, 1949, 1921, 1868, 1834, 1779, 1733 all with temperatures similar to the last few years.
      There’s the problem, no-one remembers 1868 let alone 1779.

      295

      • #
        RB

        Nick Stokes put this spin on the extreme temperatures at Melbourne. Basically that the 7 of the 20 warmest DJF temperatures were in the last 20 years is meaningful

        Apart from the obvious UHI effect at the now old site, the automated stations clearly record higher temperatures than you would get from older instruments, and a lot higher than from half hourly recordings from even a dedicated observer. The last two days at the Olympic Park site has the maximum for the days 22.8 and 21.9. The highest half-our readings are 22.4 and 21.0 While I’ve noticed up to 1.5°C difference.

        But the kicker is that despite the artificial reasons for the results, the highest mean for Jan and Feb were still over 100 years ago with the highest Jan mean recorded in the 19th C when it was taken at the observatory in the Botanic Gardens.

        61

      • #
        RB

        And at the Regional Office, only two record max temps for the month were after 1982. There were three for 1938-1940.
        http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=122&p_stn_num=086071&p_c=-1481637843&p_startYear=1898

        30

    • #
      Dennis

      My son who is a builder and of course works outside most of the time laughs at people who travel by air conditioned vehicle to an air conditioned office and often have air conditioning in their home who claim that this is the hottest period ever.

      121

      • #
        scaper...

        Same here, Dennis. I love the heat but don’t like the cold.

        70

      • #
        gai

        Dennis, I work outside in North Carolina.
        In 2004 and before we had many days at 100F plus (38C) These last four or five summers we barely made it to 90F (32C) a few times a summer with a day or two over 95F (35C) The summers were the same as what I experienced in New England, 800 miles (1300K) north in the 1980s.

        Right now I am starring at white stuff, solidified H20 which we see once every five years but have seen at least one each winter for the last three and we are due for another storm next week.

        If you look at the news on IceAgeNow you see there is cold and snow all over the world. It snowed in Saudi Arabia for two years in a row. Italy captured the world’s one day snow fall record this last winter in March 2015 TWICE.
        240cm (7.84 ft) in Pescocostanzo
        256cm (8.34 ft) of snow Capracotta

        While not far away, the Greek islands in the Mediterranean were buried under 6½ ft (2 m) of snow in January and poor Japan has been dumped on with blizzard after blizzard for the last couple of years.

        In 2014 Semi-tropical Tokushima, Japan (34.0° N same as South Carolina) was hit with major snow storms. Traffic was at a standstill, roofs collapsed, and at least 8 people died. So what does Huffington Post print? Instead of reporting this major series of storms hitting Japan it had an idiot puff piece about scarecrows out numbering people in some Japanese village.

        If the news in recent years of thousands of livestock perishing in Tibet, Scotland, Peru, Brazil and even North Dakota, Texas and Mexico made the headlines you would have people believing in the coming ice age instead of global warming.

        51

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    So what do you say to people about record hot years?
    Let them choose any temperature/time series starting (say) at 1910 or before.
    Use a marker pen to tick off each of the hottest years on the graph, starting with the first year on the left of the graph.
    Simply eyeball the graph to find the next highest year, moving to the right.
    Continue until you have found all the years hotter than any before.

    On the most recent GISS global land/sea graph, one their web site right now, you should find 19 times when a year was hotter than all years before it on the graph.
    That’s from 1880 to 2015, or 136 years, with a new record every 7 years on average. Hardly rare!
    There was a cluster of such ‘records’ from 1938 to 1948 or so, with 5 ‘hottest evah’ years in that 11 years. It is not so alarming to see a cluster of 4 records recently, 2005-2015 incl., been there, done that in 1938 before there was much fossil fuel burning compared to now.
    There is not much value in talking about minute differences in place or time when the errors are so large that the numbers just rattle around in the confidence limits. (For comparison, the BOM global tri-source map of 6th Jan 2016 yields 23 ‘hottest evah’, more than the GISS 19.)
    This pattern happens because, as most people agree, there has been overall slight warming for the last 150 years or more. So what?

    My web hosting is giving me ulcers so I can’t post the graph here & now. Do email me if you wish for a copy. sherro1 at optusnet dot com dot au

    355

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Thanks for adding that graph Jo. It clarifies greatly.
      I am looking forward to lower electricity bills in 2016 since the hot water system has less work to do while herself takes her long showers.
      Geoff

      71

  • #

    @Rod … yes, sadly see and hear that all the time. Due to years of “conditioning” by those pushing this idea on us.

    112

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    If the Bureau of Magic has decided that observers readings are only acceptable from 1910 onwards there must have been a Bureau of Magic training course series in about 1909 to bring all the observers all up to speed.

    Can they provide course credentials etc for this?

    275

    • #

      Silly peon, asking for such bourgeois things like credentials! Don’t you know that they have the power and power needs no justification? All you need to know is that all climate-related charts (CRCs) begin at the year 1910. Before then were the times of darkness. :)

      113

      • #
        ROM

        InRussetShadows @ #4.1

        all climate-related charts (CRCs) begin at the year 1910. Before then were the times of darkness.

        ,

        Ah Yes, 1910 ! When it all began with the Big Bang of Climate Theology!

        Quantum fluctuations at the singularity level occurred in some scientist’s brain cells when they were klooking for a cause without a theory to support it so they could not be challenged.
        And with the emergence of this scientific singularity, the Big Bang of Climate Theology emerged as the new phase of scientific exploitation of the masses.

        An inflation phase occurred at incredible speed through out academia as numerous grant seekers and scammers saw a brand new opportunity to create a new religion of Climate Theology replete with munificent grants.

        As the inflation of the new Climate Theology slowed down, new Stars of immense scientific weight totally reliant upon the Big Bang of climate catastrophic warming to justify their gorging of tax payers funds such as CRU and GISS and NOAA and NCDC and many others, to the eternal joy of the academic scammers and pseudo scientists who were intent on dabbling in the climateverse realms where their ignorance even exceeded their salaries and grants, lit up the Climateverse Theology heavens.

        And the vast copious quantities of Bull dust and BS they threw out created a whole new phalanx of lesser stars in the Climateverse, nearly all of which burned brilliantly for a short time before they burnt out and their ashes were layered onto the political processes and the green blob.

        And when the skeptics investigated these brilliant Climateverse stars that were so revered by the Gorebill High Priests of Climate Theology they found that every one of them had a enormous Black Hole at its centre into which all data of any weather and climate significance had been consigned to by the climateverse academia leading to the unmeasureable Dark Mass that apparently has a major impact on the modelled coming catastrophe of the Climateverse but which cannot be measured by any known physical means mostly due to the fact it can’t actually be found.

        And the Climateverse academia of Climate Theology moved heaven and earth to get the politicals to provide the almost unmeasureable, never publicly seen tax payer originated Dark Energy in massive amounts that continues to fuel the expansion of the academic Climateverse Theology.

        But as they say, what goes up must come down !

        And the Day of the Big Crunch draws ever nearer where the climateverse and all its academic hobgoblins will be squeezed into the vice like hold of another political Black Hole for which there will be no way out short of eternal purgatory for climateverse academics and psuedo scientists, fuelled this time by the ire and contempt of the public who they deliberately deluded for so long.

        141

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Not Hottest
    Not Wettest
    Not Dryest

    This is what they actually want

    A lot worse than we thought:
    70 meter sea level rise

    We have to stop every thing totally
    Burning Fossil fuels
    No cement
    No concrete
    No steel
    No aluminium
    No brick
    No tiles
    No glass
    No marble
    No tarmac
    No oil
    No gas
    No cars
    No sewerage
    No dammed water

    Robyn Williams the 100 meter ABC man is promoting this new Zillion Year Town?

    The “Zillion Year Town” written by an expert called Nick Sharp, a planner from North Sydney Beaches!

    The article is astounding in everything.

    Not one mention of power generation except Wind Mills & Solar on Mirco grids!
    But cooking would be electrical, using resistive ovens, microwaves, induction hobs, kettles and toasters! HUH?

    It gets worse

    Just towns of 15,000 people each, growing vegies, industries, 60 doctors, buses, hospitals, offices, houses & schools!

    This is the most amazing thing I’ve ever read!

    Lunatics have actually written this article and our ABC have promoted it through Robyn Williams …..

    I am absolutely gobsmacked by this junk coming from a PLANNER & Robyn Williams?

    344

    • #

      Zillion Year Town … uh-huh …
      Being a professional town planner of 45 years experience, you have obliged me to read this stuff. I am not in the slightest gobsmacked. There are plenty more planners like Mr Sharp. He has incorporated all of the new urbanism components as well as the old new urbanism concepts. Or is it “new old” ? they all contain the same old town planning shibboleths such as “neighbourhood” and “urban consolidation”. (They just change the terminology every so often to make out it is innovative.) It’s all been tried before and doesn’t work. Not sure where it comes from. Could be the enduring effect from childhood reading of “Noddy” books, or maybe it was “Blinky Bill’s Forest”?

      253

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Hmm…..reading this what comes to mind is some backward ( no electricity ) Dark Ages medaevil pagan ceremony with flutes playing and maids with flowers in their hair…..oh and may poles….and probably dragons too…..

        Its all rather mysterious, really….

        20

    • #
      ivan

      Dave and Martin, you have only to read the Agenda 21 blurb to see just where this stupid idea comes from.

      There are many of the Australian local councils planning departments following the Agenda 21 directive at the moment. I know because I questioned an author about some housing density he described in a story about an outback town. From that I downloaded some pf the planning departments guidelines – all those I got were pure Agenda 21.

      124

    • #

      I guess that leaves us living in bark huts and going out each day to catch a couple of rats or a bandicoot.

      31

  • #
    scaper...

    Can anyone, let alone nature distinguish say…the difference between 25 and 25.8 degrees?

    I can’t, can you?

    294

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Studies have shown that people cannot distinguish between 18 degrees and 22 degrees, as long as the temperature changes slowly, over a matter of hours.

      People are very adaptable. We evolved to live in a range of temperatures, and yet the vapourous luvvies swoon over a tenth of a degree?

      305

      • #
        joseph

        Those aren’t the right studies . . . . .
        We want to know if it’s possible to distinguish between 25 and 25.8 degrees . . . . . .
        More studies need to be done . . . . .

        75

        • #
          bobl

          Well I could tell you that if I assembled 100 people and put them in a room of 25 degrees @ 90% humidity and 25.8 degrees @ 10% relative humidity then 100% of the people would report the colder room as being hotter!

          Our perception of hot depends more on our ability to cool (evaporate water) than ANYTHING else including ambient temperature.

          131

      • #
        clive

        I have asked this question before.”The difference in Temperature between night and day,can be as much as 15 degrees”These knuckle draggers are arguing about a max of 1.5 degrees and anything over that means we all fry?
        They must be joking,right?

        21

  • #
    Rollo

    My favorite hottest year ever was 2014. Gavin once said there was a 38% chance that 2014 was the hottest year by exactly 0.02 degrees plus or minus 0.1, yet Jo’s chart above seems to indicate that 2014 is way out of contention. My faith in Nasa is shattered.

    345

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    When the average warmy on the street says ’2015 was the hottest year on record’, the question ‘by how much’ will end that conversation pretty quickly. Just like when they say ’97% of scientists agree…’ and you ask ‘Can you name one?’ usually cuts things short.

    I remember Milton Friedman mentioning what he called the economists question: ‘compared to what?’. This question is rarely asked by you average warmy punter.

    375

    • #
      DavidR

      The 2015 record is shown by five seperate surface temperature records as 0.13 +_ 0.01 dC above the previous record. The probability that it is a record is more than 99.9%. according to each assesment individually.
      Thats more than one tenth of the total variation from the coldest year in the record in a single year. Next year will be more of the same, with another rise of around one tenth of a degree. The people who produce the RSS measurements do not contest this figure and deny any misinterpretation of their data that is used to claim otherwise.
      only Roy Spencer has tried to claim differently, ignoring the FACT that the satellite estimates, use data drawn from 10 km above the surface. satellite records show a delay of a few months from the surface records however there is already plenty of indicators that the satellite records will show a clear record in 2016.
      So by the end of 2016 ALL the measures, both surface measures and atmospheric estimates will show a clear and significant record in 2016.

      837

      • #
        Carbon500

        David R: the first of the above graphs shows readings from the UAH and RSS datasets.
        All we see are fluctuations over a range of half a degree or so for the last twenty years.
        Considering the vastness of our planet, I find this truly remarkable.
        Where exactly are we seeing the supposed dangerous man- made global warming in this graph? All I see are trivial variations from year to year.

        363

      • #
        James Murphy

        What are these predictors of which you speak? Please elaborate…

        71

        • #
          James Murphy

          sorry, I meant indicators, when I read such confident statements about weather/climate in the future, I tend to start thinking of crystal balls

          82

          • #
            Ken Stewart

            David R:
            So what if 2016 again shows ‘a clear and significant increase’? It might indeed show a small increase, as the results of the rather moderately strong El Nino are felt, but even that will be embarrassingly below what has been confidently predicted for the last 25 years. Global temperatures to the end of 2015 have risen at a rate not distinguishable from zero- not at all- while the world has pumped out enough CO2 to raise the concentration by 37 ppm.
            (And don’t you just love the terminology- surface ‘measures’ and atmospheric ‘estimates’- only a true believer could show his bias so clearly.)

            274

            • #
              DavidR

              Ken
              The following graph shows the temperature records for UAH, RSS, GISS and Hadcrut4 over the past 36 years. For reference I have also included the trend lines for GISS and RSS.

              http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1979/offset:%200.28/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.14/plot/rss/from:1979/offset:%200.20/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/offset:0.20/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.14/trend

              As you can see there is no significant difference in the trend, variance of variation in the 4 records. You can also see that all the data sets are now above the long term trend lines and rising. So no, the temperatures this year are not embarrassingly below the trend line.

              Temperatures in 2015 were 0.4 dC above 1997, the equivalent year in the last El Nino cycle. Over 0.2 dC above the El Nino year of 1998. When the El Nino year of 2016 is completed we will see all of the various datasets showing about a 0.35C increase above two decades ago.

              The fact that the satellite data use interpretation of atmospheric conditions (proxies) rather than actual temperature measurements is well known. The satellite data has much wider margins of error than the surface measurements which is why all the surface temperature measurements are more than 99.9% confidentthat it was the hottest on record.

              317

              • #
                AndyG55

                roflmao..

                You truly have sucked at that climate kool-aide big time, haven’t you. !!!
                Its frozen your brain.

                Surface temps cover about 40% of the globe and is irregularly spaced and, highly tainted, the other 60% is poor fabrication. Adjustments are based on baseless homogenisations and made-up lies, that can never be replicated.
                They also have no idea whatsoever of the quality of the data they are using, the fact that Anthony Watts had to do the job of finding out in the USA for them speaks wonders to their total lack of scientific nouse.

                Satellites cover about 90+% and the grid is tight consistent, evenly spaced, untainted, algorithms and adjustments are based on known physical changes in orbits and are reproducible. That is the way you measure something if you want a reasonably correct answer, not with random clusters of junk data like that used in the surface stations fabrication..

                So sorry David, your scientific ignorance and gullibility is showing through big time.

                273

              • #
                Matty

                “Surface temps cover about 40% of the globe and is irregularly spaced and, highly tainted, the other 60% is poor fabrication. Adjustments are based on baseless homogenisations and made-up lies, that can never be replicated.”

                Well put AndyG55. Since most of the measurements are made up I suppose there’s every justification for adjusting them, endlessly.
                As I read somewhere this week after GISS’s desperate attempt to bring down satellites & diss. the credible data before their coordinated media event to launch their latest incarnation of surface temps.
                ” Who believes wind gauges beat thermometers, ground stations beat satellites, buckets beat buoys ? “

                101

              • #

                david… perhaps defend yourself against the claims of the article. This increase is due to placement of temperature sensors that have detected increases due to their placement.

                Where is your evidence that the surface temperature are not biased and increasingly so in the last 20 years compared with the 20 years before that. You see, the instruments are just measuring the temperature around them and if they are badly placed this is what they detect. Can you show that the last 5, 10 or 20 years are not biased upwards. Jo’s contention is that they are increasing from year to year, every year, due to some oversight or deliberate action. Can you prove otherwise?

                I thought not. Coward.

                122

              • #
                Another Ian

                Matty

                “” Who believes wind gauges beat thermometers, ground stations beat satellites, buckets beat buoys ? “”

                Well back in the dark ages there was no choice.

                61

              • #
                Ava Plaint

                AndyG55 / Matty,
                Why did it take Karl to remind us about a buoy doing a Mann’s work ?

                72

              • #
                DavidR

                As I pointed out above there is no significant difference between the satellite trends and the surface temperature trends if you look at the full dataset since 1979. They all show a rise of 0,14 dC per decade.
                All of the major producers of the data RSS, UAH, Berkeley, UK Met Japan Met NOAA and Giss acknowledge 2015 as the hottest year in the surface temperature record. And with 99.9 %. Probability.

                If you can’t find one credible scientific organisation to support your claims that it isn’t the hottest on record for the surface temperatures; there is simply no substance to your claims.

                29

              • #

                You keep repeating the same claim which is irrelevant.
                We’re talking about “the hottest ever year” and you keep talking about trends as if they mean something.

                The peak trend hasn’t changed since 1870 in decadal terms. (Ask Phil Jones). You keep ignoring that because you have no answer.

                Even if it is the 99.9% hottest year in 130 (which it obviously isn’t). So what? One hot year proves nothing. Does one cold year show you are wrong? Since this is a scientifically meaningless point Why do you have to defend the hottest ever year claim? Is it because your scientific heroes are embarrassing themselves by putting out PR-wins and scientific fails?

                And you finish — again — by showing how unscientific you are. We talk data. You talk “opinions”. You can’t help but follow your religion like a sheep. There is nothing we can say that will dint your faith because your faith isn’t based on data.

                102

              • #
                AndyG55

                DaveR.. You are mistaken!

                RSS and UAH do not give 2015 as the warmest. Both put it in 3rd, well below 1998 and 2010.

                Berkley is a manifest joke, with its “regional expectations” used to fudge station data into warming trends.

                All the others use part of NCDC/NOAA’s fabricated surface data, made up from sparse, irregular, often low-quality data, then manipulated to give what whatever they want it to give.

                If you had ANY mathematical or scientific understanding you would never just randomly put a line across the step change of the 1997-2000 El Nino, that is children’s maths.

                You see, that step is basically the ONLY warming in the last 37 years. The trend before is near zero, and the trend after is near zero. You are using a NON-CO2 based step change to try to prove warming due to CO2, and its really a piece of low-end rubbish propaganda non-science.

                Try to go back to the start and get some idea of how things work, because your current understanding is manifestly woeful.
                [Editorial discretion applied] Fly

                62

              • #
                AndyG55

                chuckle..

                help!!… I’m being b****y well censored… :-(

                ( only joking, Fly ;-) )
                [Good] Fly

                41

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Pretty much.

                Dr John Christy of UAH said this back in 2009.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4FXmTYyn9Y

                04

    • #

      Turtle makes a good point when he says:-
      I remember Milton Friedman mentioning what he called the economists question: ‘compared to what?’. This question is rarely asked by you average warmy punter.
      Economics is like climate in that you are dealing with highly complex phenomena for which we only have incomplete and biased data. Comparisons are necessary to see whether you have a blip in the data. Jo lays the the comparison quite nicely above, but a shorter and clearer video presentation is laid out on youtube by the late Bob Carter.
      (The video quality is poor though – lack of funding no doubt)

      I summarize Carter’s argument in a comment below.

      41

  • #
    Robk

    The NASA/NOAA headline is a disgrace to science and humanity.
    They contrive some kind of global temperature index then vary the parameters (eg.the reference period 1951-1980) from year to year as suites, then claim it is the actual temperature increment of the earth to a level of precision and accuracy well beyond the ability of measurement and sampling.

    247

    • #
      ianl8888

      Reminds me of a scene from The Great Lebowski, where the main character is accused of laziness, lack of intellect, lack of drive etc

      The reply:

      “Well, yeah …”

      And now the satellite and weather balloon datasets are cast aside, as is the Argo buoy dataset for deep ocean temperature

      123

  • #
    doubtingdave

    I like the way they try to get the temperature data to match the rise in atmospheric CO2 , not so much correlation is not causation as choreography is not causation , because they try to make the two dance in lock step together , mind you the release of the “hottest day” news to the media is very well choreographed.

    245

  • #
    Rob JM

    To be fair to the alambies, dr Roy does point out that the sat data won’t peak till next year. Based on the MEI and warming stopping in 03 with global cloud cover, they may yet get their blasted record.

    143

    • #
      DavidR

      Dear dear , even Dr Spencer acknowledges the delay in the Satellite records. That means everone who actually does the analysis accepts 2015 has the hottest surface temperature.
      So the evidence supporting this article is where?

      939

      • #
        llew jones

        “So the evidence supporting this article is where?”

        Try this Oh incredibly dumb or perhaps lying one:

        “On that 2015 Record Warmest Claim”
        January 22nd, 2016

        We now have the official NOAA-NASA report that 2015 was the warmest year by far in the surface thermometer record. John and I predicted this would be the case fully 7 months ago, when we called 2015 as the winner.

        In contrast, our satellite analysis has 2015 only third warmest which has also been widely reported for weeks now. I understand that the RSS satellite analysis has it 4th warmest.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/

        Incidentally the RSS is firmly into the lying misrepresentation of the alarmist sect of climate science, much like yourself but even it cannot ignore what its satellite data is telling it.

        246

        • #
          DavidR

          [NO David, that is not what Llew or Christy said. This is why you are moderated. by evidence, nothing you say can be trusted.] ED

          llew,
          Thank you for confirming that Dr Christy has predicted and acknowledged that “2015 was the warmest year by far in the surface thermometer record”.
          So every group that produces global temperature records has now been shown to agree with that statement.
          The satellite data which measures something different shows something different. But this is only a short term variation caused by delays in the movement of heat in the atmosphere, in the long term all the temperature records agree that the rate of increase is about 0.14 dC / decade.

          317

          • #

            All Christy has done is state the obvious. He didn’t say the 2015 was the warmest year on the surface of the Earth.

            We all know the “surface thermometer record” after adjustments bears little resemblance to the truth.

            If I were you I would not advertise your gullible need to follow “opinions”. Bad look for someone arguing in a science debate.

            243

            • #

              but is it internally inconsistent i.e. if it goes up does that have no meaning? If it has no meaning then why?

              05

            • #
              DavidR

              Jo, you keep adding your own interpretations to what I say and then refuting what you claim I said. If you restrict your comments to what I said we’d have a lot less to disagree about.

              [Jo, Since he claims some prior communication with you, or appears to, I will leave all his comments in moderation alone. Otherwise I would approve most of the others and let the readers take care of accuracy checking, etc.

              I miss too much when I can't look at what's going on for a day.] AZ

              17

              • #

                I’m not interpreting your comments, I’m pointing how they are irrelevant (and not the point of the post) or how they are unscientific. You have no answer, so now you complain about me “interpreting” things when all I’m doing is applying the scientific method and basic logic.

                You seem to be under the delusion that if some cherry picked scientist, or any organisation says something, it becomes “Evidence”. There is nothing I can do about your delusion. You can try explaining why I’m wrong and argument from authority is not a fallacy, but that will only confirm what I’m saying.

                82

            • #
              DavidR

              Jo,
              llew quoted Roy Spencer as saying “We now have the official NOAA-NASA report that 2015 was the warmest year by far in the surface thermometer record. John and I predicted this would be the case fully 7 months ago, when we called 2015 as the winner.” You said: “All Christy has done is state the obvious. He didn’t say the 2015 was the warmest year on the surface of the Earth”. So are you now accepting that the UAH team acknowledged 2015 as ‘the warmest year by far in the surface thermometer record’ or are you still claiming that they didn’t. You are very confusing.

              With all seven organizations that produce global temperature records acknowledging that “2015 was the warmest year by far in the surface thermometer record” and with all the datasets showing the same trend in warming over the past 36 years surely you have something more to support your claims than way out of date climate estimates and allegations of inaccuracy in individual datasets.

              15

              • #

                DavidR this is too tediously repetitive to me. I’m bailing on being your English tutor.

                Read The Post before you comment. I have never once said that (duh) the surface thermometer record (after adjustments) was NOT claiming to be the “hottest on record”. I’ve said it was meaningless, not representative of the actual surface temperature, that past records are adjusted down and that one single year, any record, is meaningless. etc etc etc. That it’s non-causal, no cause and effect link, contradicted by better data… etc etc.

                I keep pointing out to you that I don’t care if 100 gold plated organisations which call themselves The Supreme Science Society, or Science Gods, or whatever — say anything. It’s not science it’s argument from authority, and your inability to understand basic 2000 year old reasoning means you don’t qualify to comment at this blog. I let you keep commenting because I’m a hopeless optimist, and I keep thinking maybe you will get past kindergarten reasoning. Silly me.

                Clearly you havent read my post, and probably not many of my comments, you just keep repeating the same waste of time logical fallacies.

                I will leave you to other commenters but when they get bored, unless you start to reason, we will give up and you will have to go bore other people on other blogs. Perhaps they will teach you that the phrase “surface thermometer” is not the same as “surface of the Earth”.

                All Christy did was say that the “Surface Thermometer Records” are the “Surface Thermometer Records”. Just as I did. The Surface Thermometers are not the Surface. Getit?

                61

              • #

                DavidR,

                With all seven organizations that produce global temperature records acknowledging that “2015 was the warmest year by far in the surface thermometer record” and with all the datasets showing the same trend in warming over the past 36 years ….

                So what? This is an example of lying while saying something is technically true. The “surface thermometer record” is not a record of the actual global surface temperature. Especially since there is vastly more global surface area NOT represented in the records than is. Added to that, the so called records consists of repeatedly adjusted, corrected, interpolated, extrapolated, and messed with selected raw temperature readings.

                Further, all the “corrections” imply that the TRUE value is already known. If it actually is known, why not use the actually correct values rather than massively manipulated data from a very sparse set of measurement points. This means they don’t really know what the “correct” value is and only know what they want it to be. I suggest that they are trying to hid the fact of their manipulations to achieve their preconceived target behind a huge pile of words, scientific looking plots, and endless pronouncements from their position of self assigned authority.

                Hence, ANYTHING your sacred records and record keeping organizations is without meaning or merit and is totally irrelevant to anything real. Yet, we are expected to destroy western civilization, eliminate the sources of energy that makes it possible, and submit to an unaccountable global authority in order to save something that isn’t in danger and doesn’t need saving.

                What is it that YOU are trying to accomplish by endlessly offering us what are essentially meaningless posts?

                [Everyone, Please be careful with accusations of lying. Lionell substantiated this one sufficiently so I'm approving it. This is a site dedicated to scientific accuracy and honesty as you know. So such an accusation gets caught in the moderation filter. Thanks for your cooperation.] AZ

                63

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Lionell Griffith.

                “The “surface thermometer record” is not a record of the actual global surface temperature”.

                So you are trying to redefine the terms climate scientists use? I recommend you write a paper first.

                [snipsy snipsy. The rest is rubbish.] ED

                05

          • #
            DavidR

            ED , I directly quoted what llew claimed Christy had said. Word for word. Your moderation statement is inaccurate.
            [My statement was absolutely correct. In context, what Christy said is that he predicted NASA would show that 2015 was the "hottest 2015". You said:

            "Thank you for confirming that Dr Christy has predicted and acknowledged that “2015 was the warmest year by far in the surface thermometer record”.

            If you need me to explain further the difference then you need remedial reading comprehension courses.] ED

            15

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              DavidR:

              Are you illiterate?
              “what Christy said is that he predicted NASA would show that 2015 was the “hottest 2015″ – does not mean that he agreed with NASA, just that they would somehow claim that 2015 was hottest year they could manage for publicity purposes.

              51

            • #
              DavidR

              The only reasonable interpretation of Spencer’s statement is that he was actually claiming credit for getting the prediction right before other people. He didn’t refute the NASA statement, or say that his prediction was wrong. He pointed out, quite correctly, that the lower troposphere estimate he calculates did not produce the same result. Nothing wrong with that, the lower troposphere measure is not, despite Jo’s claims, a measure of the surface temperature.

              [Another reasonable understanding (no interpretation needed) is that both Spencer and Christy have come to expect that whatever NASA publishes it will be warmer. ]ED

              13

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … in the long term all the temperature records agree that the rate of increase is about 0.14 dC / decade.

            Gosh! Fourteen one hundredths of a degree per decade! That roughly equates to 1.4 degrees per century! Quick! Everybody Panic!

            Even if those scarey numbers were correct, the human physiology cannot detect a temperature change that small. Nobody is going to die, because of 0.14 deg per decade.

            Is that the best you can do, DavidR

            61

      • #

        DavidR – so there is a “delay” and satellites underestimate warming during an Elnino how come they “over estimated it” in 1998. You can’t have it both ways. Compare the two El Ninos — in the first the satellites recorded higher temps. In the second, they were lower. You have no explanation that fits both.

        62

        • #
          DavidR

          Jo,
          As I am sure you are aware the 2015/2016 El Nino is only half over, the hot year in this El Nino cycle will be 2016. 2015 is equivalent to 1997 not 1998. I am sure by the end of the year the satellite records will show spikes similar to the 1997/1998 El Nino.

          25

          • #

            I think Christy is expecting a rise in the next few months as the El Nino fades right?

            And if 2016 Is A Record, so what? That tells us Nothing about what causes climate change.

            Get back to me when the models understand what drives El Ninos and can predict them.

            (PS: Even if there is a spike in satellite measurements, that doesn’t make the 2015 surface temperatures as recorded by adjusted, homogenised thermometers which are smoothed over 1200km thermometers correct. The oceans are the surface of the Earth too.)

            72

            • #
              DavidR

              Scientists worked out that CO2 would cause global warming 120 years ago this year. The debate since then has been to determine the extent to which this would be amplified or dampened down by other causes.

              Scientists have not found any alternative explanation at this stage. The claims that the surface temperature records are not reliable because they are ‘adjusted …” etc fails because the satellite records show exactly the same rate of warming as the ground based record. If the satellite records are so much ‘better’ than the surface temperature why don’t they show a significantly different rate of increase. Your entire hypothesis that there is something wrong with the surface temperature records, but not the satellite records, is nullified by the fact that they all show the same rate of increase (0.14 dC per decade according to Roy Spencers’ team).

              The fact that your first graph is labelled as the main surface temperature records, when it in reality only shows the lower troposphere records constitutes a claim that the surface temperature record was not at record levels. Your statement that you did not make that claim is unacceptably avoiding responsibility for the claim made in graph 1 above.

              You have completely avoided acknowledging the fact that both the surface temperature measurements and satellite records show the same amount of warming, because to do so would refute not only this post but most of the claims made on this blog.

              25

              • #

                1. “:Scientists worked out that CO2 would cause global warming ”
                No, their global climate models didn’t work then. Don’t now.

                2. “Scientists have not found any alternative explanatio”
                ARgument from ignorance. Can’t think of anything better so it must be right. No. In any case we have much better explanations than CO2 which is already proven wrong because, pause/no hot spot/ decadal rates same 1870 and 1980/ antarctic ice doing opposite to arctic ice/ etc etc

                3. Your claims that high records in one data set in one year are right because the trend is right is embarrassing. Records and trends are different. The same reasoning says in 1998 the surface records are wrong, because the satellites have the “same trend” but higher records.

                4. The first graph is a derivative of the graph shown 2 days later. You see what I mean. But I’ve clarified the title, in this context, I like that better. Thank you.

                5. See 3. Timewasting.

                42

  • #
    el gordo

    The years 1878-79 were extremely hot and cold, then all of a sudden sea level began to rise at a rapid rate. It had nothing to do with CO2.

    214

  • #
    Sonny

    I would comment, but the effects of global warming are simply too much. My PC has all but melted. The skeletons of Polar bears litter my backyard. I look at my neighbours and in their eyes is more than simply the physiological effects of heat exhaustion and dehdration. No, there is guilt there too. “How could we have done this too our children?”, their eyes protest in vain. “Why didnt we just listen”? But it is too late now. Soon we will all be dead, and face the annihilation of nothingness. The big fissle. Does God not exist? Or has he just visited upon us the searing unquenchable fires of hell to roast is while we still live. And then there are those “deniers” who while melting into their armchairs, battle against the unfolding dystopic reality. Science warned us wrll ahead of time, but who among our generation heeded it’s report?

    364

    • #
      gigdiary

      That’s great! I can’t wait for the next chapter. You’ve got the synopsis for a kindle novel right there. Keep it coming…

      153

    • #
      Sonny

      Everybody knows one.

      Those smartasses who flapped their trap on blogs and social media. The contrarians. The conspiracy theorists. They hid behind impressive “qualifications” and fooled many. In their hay day they were prolific earners, clutching on the coat-tails of the fossil fuel denial gravy train. But just like fossils they are relics, doomed to extinction. They are all silenced now — choked on thick noxious plumes of the gas they claimed was harmless, or worse, beneficial to plants… Look around you! Our planet once luscious and blooming is now a dustbowl. The oceans once teaming with marine life, now a vat of encroaching acid rising and corroding away what is left of the shore.
      Those smartasses now face the UN Courts on the charge of Globacide. They were so smug in their glory days, but little did they realise that every keystroke they hammered was being monitored, every utterance electronically screened for buzzwords. They average case file on each of these vile murderers is typically too long to be reviewed by a jury so is rather assessed algorithmically. Conviction rates at the beginning of the trials were 97% but in a few short years were up at the 99 percentile. This success was partially due to homogenisation of the data including the assessment of material whch was self-censored.

      314

      • #
        Sonny

        The biggest area of controversy in these trials was developing an appropopriate form of execution. Never before in the history of humankind had any single person been tried and convicted of totally destroying the entire world, yet here we had an entire sub-class of felons that numbered in the hundreds of thousands and spanned most continents. It was determined after much deliberation that the most appropriate death was slow suffocation in the fumes of previously decomissioned dirty coal fire plants. Just before death they were hung and spun on the wind turbines which they were so effective in sabotaging through their globacidic thought crimes and hate speech. Just as in times of old, massive crowds gathered to witness the spectacles of the deniers spinning to their deaths. Naturally due to the global food shortage the carcasses were taken down and cooked in carbon neutral bon-fires. However, the more principled among us refused to eat. I would prefer death than to corrupt my body with such filth.

        254

        • #
          gigdiary

          they were so effective in sabotaging through their globacidic thought crimes and hate speech

          I missed this one, so thought crimes actually hurt the planet? Yes, I can see the loony left adopting that one. However, before Jo calls a halt to this flight of fancy, do you have a protagonist who will save us from this Green filth?

          93

          • #
            Sonny

            Mother Gaia is only as healthy as the thoughts of her evolved ones. When human beings have negative thoughts and say negative things about Earth saving technologies, this not only has the effect of spreading the rot through the population but has direct deleterious effects on Gai’s life force. It unbalances the Terra-Kundalini and inches us ever closer to the Tipping Points. For example, the Oceans heat up not just on account of atmospheric heat that breaches the air-water barrier, hides in the deep ocean, and leaves no trace in the atmosphere, but also due to the Earth’s natural inflammatory response to Denizenation. Similarly, and concurrently, we get Arctic Sea Ice expansion not only due to atmospheric heating and associated wind increases which trigger Polar Vorticis but also due to Gaia’s Winds of Inner Turmoil.

            184

      • #
        gigdiary

        Globacide

        You evil planet killer!

        102

        • #
          Sonny

          Not me:
          I bought a Prius,
          I bought solar panels,
          I bought a Tesla power wall.
          I invested my Super in Clean Green Renewables.
          I flew first class all over the world to climate conferences.
          I bought a multi-million waterfront property.
          I preached the inconvenient truth.
          I hated carbon with all of my heart, and mind (not my soul because I’m a Darwinian Humanist)
          I corrected wrong data to make it more real. I fought FOI requests.
          I hung out with “the team”
          I rebuked the deniers.
          I suffered the slings and arrows of a million red thumbs downs on JoNova.

          I’m the good guy here.

          324

        • #

          “I have become death, the destroyer of worlds…” — because somebody had to bring this quote into it. :)

          102

    • #
      RB

      I could barely smile let alone laugh. What you mock is actually happening. There are many potential minions out there who think like this – being fitted out with brown shirts.

      11

  • #
    DavidR

    Graph 1: The two measures shown are not Surface Temperature Measures let alone the ‘main’ ones’ they are estimates of the temperature at 10km above the surface where the temperature is -50dC
    Graph 2: A single temperature record from the Arctic ending more than 100 years ago. It tells us nothing about local conditions now let alone global conditions.
    Graph 3: Ends more than 60 years ago. The scale is fahrenheit so if temperature records over the past 60 years were included the graphs would go off the top of the scale.
    Graph 4: If we take the starting point as 1795 it is quite clear that the rate of increase is increasing; with the rise in each 50 year time frame significantly greater than that in the previous 50 years.
    Graph 5: clearly demonstrates that records keep occurring despite the fact that records should be come increasingly rare if warming was not occurring.

    All five claims are easily shown to be unsubstantiated by the evidence provided in the article. Where is the current data to support your refutation of the surface records.

    218

    • #

      Graph 1 — If the models are right these trends should be larger than the surface trends. Fail AGW.

      Graph 2 — Your strawman. I never said it did.

      Graph 3 — Yes, weird how we ran out of all proxies (tree rings etc) in the last 50 years isn’t it? Could it be that continuing those proxies either shows how bad they are or how wrong the current “adjusted” surface record is. Why add instrument temps to proxies? Because it helps deceive…

      Graph 4 — Congrats, you can cherry pick 50 year trends to keep your fantasy alive. Do it by decades and the man-made theory fails. Quote Phil Jones, decadal trends for 1870, 1930, 1980 are all 0.16C. No acceleration when it counts.

      Graph 5 — Why did you hide it? You are God and know what the temperature “should” be. Fabulous, please tell the IPCC what controls the climate since you know and can now explain the MWP, LIA, the 1940s warmth (that got “deleted”). You can fix their models. Hurry – they need you.

      PS: All causes of warming cause warming. you have nothing that shows that modern warming is artificial.

      PPS: Perhaps read my blog next time before commenting next time. I have listed all the evidence many times– See the index, look for “BOM”, “Australian Temperatures”, “Climate models”, and “Evidence”. Also see MWP - linked in the post.

      PPPS: Your condescension is not matched by your ability to reason. Please don’t waste our time.

      262

      • #
        DavidR

        Graph 1: I agree that the models predict even greater warming, but that is not what you argue and doesn’t justify the mislabeling of the graphs.
        Graph 2: If it tells us nothing why did you include it?
        Graph 3: The data remain 60 years out of date, and irrelevant, regardless of your speculation as to why more recent data is not included.
        Graph 4: 50 year, 10 year, it doesn’t matter the trend is increasing.
        Graph 5: If temperatures are not increasing the number of records will decrease as the length of the record increases. Its simple mathematics. One doesn’t need to be god, just numerically literate. Your descent in to ad hominem rants does you no credit.

        I have read your blog, your article above, and your comments made in response to mine above and refuted you with data, so please don’t be so ridiculously condescending.

        [Yawn, leaving for Joanne] ED

        14

        • #

          1. It is what I argue. Read the post. Graph not mislabeled. IPCC, others have long compared TLT with surface obs. Get over it. Indeed even you do that yourself. Hypocrite? “rates are the same”?

          2. Read the post.

          3. Read the post. (OR provide a better multiproxy that goes right through to 2000+ with the same proxy. No stitch ups with thermometers near airports. We still have trees, why no tree rings in 2010? Odd eh?)

          4. 7000 year trend is decreasing Ergo that (DavidR-patented-simple-science rule) “proves” CO2 OR man causes cooling.

          5. Cause and effect is too tricky for you? All warming forces cause warming. The existence of warming does not prove CO2 did it. Warming started before CO2 rose — rate has not increased with CO2. Models failed. This disproves your theory. Let it go. It is dead.

          6. I will treat you with respect when you earn it. Read the post. Stop timewasting. Learn to reason.

          41

    • #
      AndyG55

      David, A little film to try to educate you… (I don’t hold much hope in that though)

      https://vimeo.com/14366077

      123

  • #
    Mark D.

    I suppose this means no more “hiatus”.

    80

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      It depends on what follows. If there is a step up loke 1998 (trenberth theory) then perhaps the pause goes away, but not the more impotant model/observation discrepancy. If la Nina follows, then temps go back down and the pause continues, like it did through the 2010 El Nino. Ocean occilations are different than 1998. My SWAG is in 18 months time we will have a two decade pause.

      204

    • #
      DavidR

      Don’t worry there will definitely be an hiatus starting in 2016. After the 2016 record temperature is set and agreed as a record by all the datasets both surface based and satellite based temperatures will drop and voila we have a new hiatus. Unfortunately as we are at the end of the solar cycle rather than the beginning, as we were in 1998 the hiatus wont last much past 2020. To find the hiatus you just need to go to the last peak in the record and project forward from then until the trend reverts to the long term trend.

      220

      • #
        AndyG55

        Well that was one seriously anti-mathematical load of crap,.. Well done Dave.

        171

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        One of us is confused. If the temperature drops after 2016 how can there be a hiatus? Equally, if the solar output is dropping how can there be renewed warming after 2020? ( Sorry, I see that you aren’t up to date on solar matters).
        As for ‘projecting forward’ where is the extra 5.5℃ confidently ‘projected’ in 1995?

        91

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Sorry Mark,

      The hiatus is currently on hold, pending new grants. We will cease to hold the hiatus as soon as monies are available, and the hiatus will go back to doing nothing as before.

      141

  • #
    Bruce

    As a farmer I say bring on the heat,bring on the C02 and stick your carbon trading…….

    235

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I grow trees – Oak and Ash and Totara and Kaori. They all just love CO2. On a calm night, you can imagine them saying, “Yeah, suck it up”.

      101

      • #
        AndyG55

        A good friend of mine runs a horticultural business, CO2 enhanced greenhouses are just a part of it. I’ve even helped him install CO2 production and monitoring equipment.

        He has run many experiments, and every one of them shows the massive benefits of enhanced CO2 for plant life.

        But RW… they do not use much CO2 at night

        On a calm night, they will be waiting for that first ray of sunlight, and the even larger amounts of CO2 that will be available to them for the first few hours, and hoping for a breeze to keep bringing more in.. :-)

        112

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    We know that science shoudn’t be determined by consensus, so lets vote instead.
    Science should be democratic.
    Can we get a 97% vote in favour of last year being the hottest ever since whenever it wasn’t.
    Vote here, vote early, and vote often.
    It’s only one year – that’s weather, not a big important thing like climate.

    223

  • #

    If you are interested in climate then you already know the surface data is fake and only the satellites have any meaning – if you’re not – then you’re not and you don’t care.

    213

  • #
    pat

    perfect for this thread:

    UK Telegraph: Alex Cartoon: January 22, 2016
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/alex/?cartoon=12114013&cc=12080865

    Dave linked to ABC’s Ockhams Razor. I read the transcript the other day & my favourite bit was about these “towns” of 15,000.
    said Nick:

    “Such a town would have to have its own local council.”

    great!

    112

  • #
    pat

    Linda, at the Miami Herald, cites no less than THREE studies – were they all funded under the CAGW umbrella?

    21 Jan: Miami Herald: LINDA ROBERTSON: Chilly forecast for Miami Marathon a relief as times rise thanks to global warming
    Last year was the hottest on Earth by the widest margin since record-keeping began in 1880 … according to the National Weather Service Forecast Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…
    As the world’s best marathoners approach the two-hour barrier, scientists are contemplating when fast times will intersect with temperatures that will diminish pace…
    Frankie Ruiz has been running in Miami all his life and concedes that the climate is a disadvantage for distance runners…
    Ruiz, who is Chief Running Officer for Life Time Fitness, which owns the marathon, and coach of perennial prep cross-country and track powerhouse Belen, has noticed changes in the weather.
    “I feel like it’s staying warmer longer,” he said.
    “Our Coconut Grove training group didn’t have its first mild run until week 20 in the program. And I felt guilty buying Belen warmup suits because I knew they’d never wear them.”…
    (STUDY 1) “Air temperature is the most important factor influencing marathon running performance for all levels,” concluded a study entitled “Impact of Environmental Parameters on Marathon Running Performance” that compared results of six U.S. and European marathons with a total of 1.8 million participants over the course of nine years.
    The correlation between speed and temperature was consistent, said lead author Nour El Helou…
    (STUDY 2) Elite marathoners’ times slowed up to 4.5 percent and average marathoners’ times slowed up to 8 percent as temperatures increased from 42 to 77 degrees, according to a study of seven U.S. marathons — including Boston and New York — in the Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise journal by lead author Matthew R. Ely…
    (STUDY 3) A Boston University study showed that winning times in the Boston Marathon will slow down if Boston’s climate continues to warm…
    But he’s (Frankie Ruiz) confident the Miami Marathon and Half Marathon will continue to attract runners happy to trade cold temperatures for the sight of palm trees and porpoises.
    “We start very early, we have lots of shade, and the majority of our entrants come from Florida, the Caribbean or Latin America, so they are acclimatized,” he said. “As it gets hotter, they’ll get more resilient.”
    http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/other-sports/article55972990.html

    73

  • #
    pat

    ***CSIRO & BoM provide the analysis!

    23 Jan: Age: City to swelter under climate change predictions
    by Benjamin Preiss and Josh Gordon
    Melburnians should prepare for more extreme heat with double the number of hot days, less rain and harsher fire conditions in coming decades, the state government has been warned.
    Analysis prepared for the Andrews government paints a frightening picture of Melbourne’s future climate, with transport infrastructure vulnerable to flooding and heat stress, longer and more severe bushfires and pressure on hospitals from heatwaves.
    The modelling, from the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, predicts climate change could have a major impact on the state’s health system, economy and environment, including shorter snow seasons, food production challenges and problems with transport infrastructure.
    ***The forecasts were prepared as the Andrews government seeks to elevate climate change as a political issue ahead of possible new laws to tackle emissions…
    The predictions, based on international climate models, show…BLAH BLAH
    The report warns future governments may need to consider moving “selected populations” in areas of extreme heat to other parts of the state…
    The report finds temperatures have increased by up to 1.6 degrees in some parts of Melbourne since 1950…
    Monash University Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities Professor Nigel Tapper said the latest forecasts appeared consistent with international research…
    “The urban heat island will add to heat stress,” it said.”…
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/city-to-swelter-under-climate-change-predictions-20160122-gmc1js.html

    93

    • #
      diogenese2

      Let me get this straight. The Victoria State Government, wishing to “elevate climate change as a POLITICAL issue ahead of possible new laws to tackle emissions…”, have commissioned a report (from whom? BOM and CSIRO have provided the models but not, I think, the document) which has produced a real bowel loosening press release.
      In this I note; “high emission scenarios”, “most extreme case” “extreme downpours” “Sea levels up 23cm since 1880″ hum- 1.7mm/year – less than Global Average.
      “if current high emission continue..” In Melbourne or the World?
      The worst horror “In 2050 the climate of Melbourne will be more like Adelaide now”. You poor bastards in SA – I never knew!
      The temperature has increased in SOME PARTS of Melbourne by 1.6C. Are these the “selected population” who will have to be moved to “other parts of the state”.
      “Mildura will have 66 hot days a year” Here in Essex UK that sounds a good retirement destination.

      Please don’t tell my that there are AUSTRALIANS who will buy this crap. My Uncle, the Queensland logger, will be rotating in his casket.

      193

      • #
        James Murphy

        The good thing about bowel loosening press releases is that in their paper form, they can be recycled to..err… repair the damage caused by said bowel loosening.

        73

    • #
      handjive

      The Age January 19, 2015; Melbourne weather: Summer 2015 still hot, just last year was hotter

      Melbourne changes monitoring site from city to park, new max temperature averages 1.2C cooler

      Mr Trewin also noted that the Bureau had recently changed its Melbourne monitoring site from the Royal Society of Victoria on La Trobe Street in the city to Olympic Park, near Rod Laver Arena.

      Maximum temperatures recorded at the new site were on average 1.2 degrees cooler, particularly on cool days, because air coming from the south and west was travelling over parklands rather than the through the city.

      100

      • #
        TdeF

        So the places where people live are very slightly hotter by a degree than they were one hundred years ago, on average, maybe. Well, that’s the end of life on planet Earth. Scientists say nothing will survive.

        153

        • #
          TdeF

          What good has the IPCC done? A branch of the United Nations formed by the World Meteorological Association in 1988, presumably to inform and foster concern for governmental action on change of climates by member states. So has Indonesia stopped burning forests? Has Brazil stopped clearing rain forests? Is distribution and control of water in the Nile valley being done fairly and monitored by the UN? Is there for example a plan for revegetation of the Australian continent, to increase rainfall? Anything? Has the IPCC fulfilled the wishes of the good people who had a vision for a panel of government politicians to change the climate for the better. Why was it created and why is Climate Change in the title of a UN body?

          Or is it a complete waste of money and time and simply an umbrella organization for communist activists to attack successful democratic countries and demand cash on the basis of a made up story about CO2? After nearly thirty years of this, twenty without any measurable warming, we have our answer. For the IPCC, the climate has changed. It needs to be disbanded because it is useless and has only achieved unbelievable waste and no discernible improvement of quality of life on earth.

          203

          • #
            Howie from Indiana

            TdeF- Your last paragraph hit the nail on the head. These people at the IPCC should be tarred and feathered and sent to Antarctica to witness climate change first hand.

            132

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              The people who run the IPCC created it 30+ years ago as a “placeholder”. I notice all the Landcare organizations around Australia were also created so that at the right time once the well-meaning locals had been “calibrtated” with UN kool aid long enough, it would all come together.

              I think whats impressive is these people think in term of decades ahead….to set up their ultimate destination…..

              Thinking back how when I was in year 5 in primary school, I recall how some bloke turned up with a “show” which was just a form of eco-brainwashing for kids. I’ll ever forget the look on his face when he lead the discussion so we’d be “steered” toward “concluding” that push bikes were the logical answer for transport ( like the good eco-peasants we should be….), but I couldn’t help myself and suggested an electric car instead…the look on his face was utterly priceless….

              11

          • #
            Dennis

            At a news conference last week in Brussels (October 2015), Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

            “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

            92

  • #

    But even skeptics have admitted it was a record-breaking year.

    173

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Yes, there was far more talk of records being broken than before, even more so than the lead up to Copenhagen. But don’t worry, after this year it will all quieten down as temperatures drop.

      P.S. Have you noticed how the el niño has brought drought to outback Qld., SA and NSW as predicted?

      103

      • #
        bobl

        Yes, it’s been an incredibly dry year – especially in the MSM.

        I suggest a good SA or Margaret river wine before it gets so hot we can’t make it any more.

        What’s that ? Lake Eyre is full as a goog, nah can’t be, it’s el nino – must be one of those mir-agee thingies (courtesy of bugs bunny), or maybe I shouldn’t have made that left turn at Albuquerque…

        PS all that inland water is gonna produce a carbon sink about 3 times normal for a few years, we should all start lobbying the feds for our share of China’s CO2 emissions penance cheque that we’ll certainly earn by our outback vegetation chomping on their emissions to the tune of 5 GT or so.

        152

  • #
    John_k

    A more honest headline should read “scientists speculate that 2015 was one of the least cool years in a long time” but you probably won’t see that anywhere.

    103

  • #
    handjive

    2015 Hottest Year Ever!

    Further evidence that 97% renewable energy/carbon tax solutions are 100% useless:

    1. Denmark has set a world record for wind energy – with an achievement hailed as “the key to stop global warming”.

    2. The progressive magazine Mother Jones recognized problems with rooftop solar Monday, including financial benefits the industry gets from renewable energy credits (RECs) and how rooftop solar doesn’t help slow global warming.

    3. Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990.

    4. 5 Countries Leading the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy
    . . .
    The 97% stupidity compounds.

    63

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      It is amazing that neither the reporters or many of the commentators have failed to grasp the fundamental problem that wind turbines only work when the wind blows (at the right speed).
      So when it does blow then all the turbines start working. At 39% of demand, with a Capacity Factor that has to be less than 30% that means there is obviously more than enough nominal capacity from wind turbines to supply all of Denmark demand at times. Where are the headlines “Denmark ran on 100% wind for 4 hours last week etc.” ? That is because much of the wind is exported from Denmark, in particular to Norway. Norway has a big hydro scheme but very little pumped storage, so they just ‘turn off’ their hydro and use electricity from Denmark, which is cheaper.
      So Denmark sells a lot of their wind electricity to Norway at a low price but when they need to buy some the price is high. It is some years since I saw the figures, for some reason they are hard to get, but they were Selling $26 and Buying $83 per MWh.
      If that or similar is the situation then more “cheap wind energy” will send Denmark bankrupt.

      93

      • #
        Robert O

        You don’t have to go to Denmark to see how well the turbines work. I have been looking at the King Is. energy continual display (KIREIP) for the past couple of weeks and about one day in ten the diesels have been switched off and solar never goes above 35 KW at midday. The wind has to be about 40 kph for the turbines to supply the required power for the island.

        83

  • #
    Neville

    There is one fact that we can all be sure of for the next 25 years.
    Even Gore’s adviser Dr Hansen told the world that COP 21 was BS and a fr–d, because until 2040 ( see Obama’s EIA) over 90% of all NEW human co2 emissions will come from the developing world.
    The mitigation of their CAGW is ludicrous nonsense and all the wasted trillions $ to come will be flushed straight down the drain.
    And zero change to SLR, deaths from extreme events, polar bear numbers, weather/ climate, polar ice, hot days/ cold days, troposphere temps/ surface temp, etc, etc.

    103

    • #
      el gordo

      Neville do you still believe CO2 causes a little warming? Do you have any positive feedbacks to offer?

      ——

      ‘There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since the Pause began in January 1997.’

      Christopher Monckton

      72

  • #
    Manfred

    The sharp increase in 2015 was driven in part by El Niño, a natural weather cycle in the Pacific that warms the ocean surface every two to seven years. But scientists say human activities – notably burning fossil fuels – were the main driver behind the rise.

    “We would not have seen the record warming without the long-term trend,” Schmidt said. (TV3 NZ NEWS)

    The NZ TV3 MSM took off its gloves to reveal its slimy green hands. In a flagrant betrayal of its societal duty as the Fourth Estate it trumpeted ‘the warmest evah’ to the strains of ‘scientists have been predicting…’ and ‘due to carbon dioxide emission’. Unfettered and blatant UN propaganda, NZ peddles its role as a UN acolyte with desperate, keen to please, fervour. It is as nauseating as it is devoid of integrity.

    Meanwhile in Washington DC, global warming is well installed as it has been in Taipei, which has experienced the coldest January in 40 years, and 9th coldest in 110 years.

    Even the usual cadence of the wheels of corruption has been forced into pause mode.

    103

  • #
    handjive

    It’s official: 2015 was the warmest year on record.

    21 January, 2016, theconverstaion: The last time Earth was this hot hippos lived in Britain (that’s 130,000 years ago)

    21 January, 2016, eveningstandard: London weather: Regent’s Canal freezes over as capital hit by icy temperatures
    . . .
    Something is certainly ‘certified’. Or, should be.

    73

    • #
      handjive

      Note: Weather is now climate

      A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.
      Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to researchers who prepared the Australian Climate Commission’s latest report.

      It might even be the case that the mantra chanted after every catastrophic weather event – that it can’t be said to be caused by climate change, but it shows what climate change will do – has become a thing of the past.

      53

      • #
        el gordo

        We need to debunk the connection at every opportunity, for example the present blizzard in the US north east has nothing to do with global warming or cooling.

        ‘Against all odds, as one could rightly claim in this particular instance, the global warming that occurred between 1951 and 2006 did not lead to an increasing trend in the extremeness of East Coast Winter Storms.’

        CO2 Science

        63

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    None of the national meteorological agencies are reporting 2015 #1 ranking.

    New Zealand: “2015 was the 27th-warmest year since 1909” – NIWA

    Australia: “2015 was Australia’s fifth-warmest year on record” – BOM

    United Kingdom: 2015 was nowhere near warmest ever, 2014 was – UKMO data.

    Central England: 2015 was nowhere near warmest ever, 1779 was warmer than 2015 – UKMO data.

    Europe (from just east of Crimea and including Turkey): 2015 #2. “Last year (2014) was the warmest year on record for Europe, and 2015 comes in second, just above the 2007 data” – Climate Indicator Bulletin from WMO’s European Regional Climate Centre node on Climate Data operated by the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, KMNI.

    United States: 2015 was “2nd warmest year for Contiguous US” – NOAA/NCDC.

    Canada: Yet to report but highly unlikely given 2014 was “the 25th
    warmest ….since …. 1948” – ECCC

    I’ve investigated the breakdown of the above (all referenced and linked) and the HadCRUT4 report from CRU in an off-topic thread at Climate Conversation Group starting here (and work down):

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2016/01/paris-climate-party-agrees-to-have-another-party/comment-page-1/#comment-1406084

    So what is left from HadCRUT4 spacial data (see CRU map at link above) after eliminating all of the above that skews the global metric?

    Eastern Russia
    Northern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean
    Parts of Africa and South America.

    When you look at the land and ocean components of HadCRUT4 (CRUTEM4 and HadSST3) up to September 2015, it is clear that the 2015 spike is not an atmospheric phenomenon. The spike builds in SSTs all year.

    Even GISS data shows nothing remarkable in monthly averages Jan – Sept. It all happened in Nov and Dec.

    That is NOT man-made “climate change”.

    173

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Australia: “2015 was Australia’s fifth-warmest year on record” – BOM”

      In UAH Australia 2015 is in 11th place.

      UAH “SoPol” has 2015 in 35th place out of 37, RSS has 60-70 south in 29th place

      UAH “NoPol” in 13th (iirc)

      104

    • #
      AndyG55

      “It all happened in Nov and Dec.”

      And if you look at Nasa maps, most of it was in the East of the USA and in December in Russia

      ie WINTER. !!!

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201511.gif

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201512.gif

      Again, notice how much of the world has to have “made up” data.

      And many of those places where they do have data from, they have non idea of the actual quality of the sites or the data from them

      The surface temperature data is a JOKE and a TRAVESTY.

      114

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        >”notice how much of the world has to have “made up” data.”

        I don’t think those NCDC grey areas are infilled. If they were they would be a colour corresponding to a colour on the temperature scale

        CRU provide a land+ocean chart showing the grid cells with missing data. To their credit they don’t infill. BEST contrive to “create” “data” where no data exists, so does GISS.

        Those grey areas in the NCDC charts are not infilled by NCDC that I’m aware of. They treat them the same as CRU I thought. Here’s the CRU chart:

        2015 Global Temperature Anomalies
        http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/uploads/pics/2015_global_temperature_anomaly_map_small.jpg

        NCDC actually has more missing cells than CRU. Compare Australia for example.

        The HadCRUT4 eyeopener is CRUTEM4 vs HadSST3 1997 – 2015.83 (end of October)

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem4vgl/from:1997/to:2015.83/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997/to:2015.83

        More revealing is HadSST3 Northern Hemeisphere vs Southern Hemisphere:

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1997/to:2015.83/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997/to:2015.83

        There ladies and gentlemen, in the Northern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean, is where the 2015 record originates.

        Curiously, the SST spike was not nearly as pronounced for the 1998 El Nino at the beginning of that graph. Also note that the NH profile looks rather odd from about midway through 2002 onwards.

        In any event, temperature is NOT the IPCC’s primary criteria for climate change. That metric is the earth’s energy imbalance measured at the top of atmosphere which “controls” temperature according to the IPCC.

        Problematic because AR5 Chapter 2 cites Stephens et al (2012) and Loeb et al (2012) reporting the earth’s energy imbalance to be 0.6 W.m-2 and trendless.

        Thus the theory of man-made climate change is falsified because theoretical CO2 forcing is now 1.9 W.m-2, 3 times greater than actual i.e. CO2 is not the forcing attributable to the imbalance.

        The IPCC neglect to address this diparity in AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. I keep asking, is that due to:

        a) sloppy incompetence, or

        b) willful negligence?

        It must be one or the other.

        93

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          >”I don’t think those NCDC grey areas are infilled. If they were they would be a colour corresponding to a colour on the temperature scale”

          Maybe not in the NCDC charts linked by AndyG but in the following chart from NOAA of GHCN data there is certainly some infilling (e.g. all of Australia is filled):

          http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/gmagx2/spike2.PNG

          From SMH article:
          http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/december-temperature-spike-capped-record-hot-year-in-2015-us-agencies-say-20160120-gmafwp.html

          Either that or NOAA found some stations in GHCN that CRU and NCDC don’t know about.

          In the SMH article NOAA corroborates Europe’s 2nd warmest ranking for 2015 and also says Africa was 2nd warmest.

          “Asia and South America had their hottest year on record, while Africa and Europe posted their second hottest years.”

          The hottest year record comes from the worst quality data.

          102

          • #
            Another Ian

            Richard C

            “The hottest year record comes from the worst quality data.”

            Meaning the areas most suitable for fiddling by any chance?

            62

        • #
          AndyG55

          “I don’t think those NCDC grey areas are infilled. If they were they would be a colour corresponding to a colour on the temperature scale”

          That is before they infill, the data they actually have, no matter how tainted.

          52

        • #
          AndyG55

          “a) sloppy incompetence, or

          b) willful negligence?

          It must be one or the other.”

          Most likely some combination of them.. about 70% each ;-) (and yes I do know maths ;-)

          102

    • #
      Matty

      Great work Richard C & AndyG55. Undoes all the NASA/NOAA averaging out & spin for last weeks press launch for UNFCCC pitch at GEF in Davos.

      21

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >”I’ve investigated the breakdown of the above (all referenced and linked) and the HadCRUT4 report from CRU in an off-topic thread at Climate Conversation Group starting here (and work down): [link]”

      New link below.

      Richard Treadgold at CCG has moved the entire thread to a new and relevant post here:

      ‘Hottest year ever was 2015′
      But only in Ethiopia, Vietnam, Brazil …

      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2016/01/hottest-year-ever-was-2015/

      11

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Richard C.

        I do not like that article. [Snip the rest. Sorry Harry, as you said: censorship here is out of control.

        The reason is that you type such worthless material. Keep trying though. ]ED

        03

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Boy Ed, you really do not want people in this blog to see what I have to say.

          It is terrible the way you treat your readers.

          [Charming to be sure. It's ED not Ed.

          I treat you with the disdain you deserve. If you can't produce something worth publishing why do you blame me?

          03

  • #
    AndyG55

    The alarmist want to use unevenly spaced data, sparse in many areas, often massively tainted by urban and airport effects.

    In the centre of Africa there are basically no usable sites in an area the size of the USA, and goodness knows what the quality of the Russian data is, not ‘pristine’ that is for sure. ! (In the recent past, villages used to push their temps down to get a larger allocation of coal)

    They then mal-adjust that data, creating trends where none existed and smear it over huge areas where it could not possibly apply to.

    They have NO idea of the quality of their temperature sites, as is proven by that fact that Anthony Watts had to do all that work for them in the USA… and the result was that the quality even in the US is often woeful to say the least. No scientist uses data when they have no idea of the quality of that data.

    And then they have the temerity to complain about an evenly spaced, compact measuring system where the only adjustments are those that can be physically proven, and that trend matches the only sample of similar evenly spaced untampered surface data set in the world as well as the trend in the radiosondes.

    Sorry, but the surface data is just one big hopeless, meaningless, white elephant and should be abandoned as a lost cause.

    But its all they have to hang their scam onto.

    92

  • #
    TdeF

    Looking at the formation of the IPCC and the preceding converence at Villach, Austria, concerns about the Ozone layer, increasing temperature, removal of forests and among them CO2, has become a war on CO2. The Brundtland report 1987 is interesting. This is one of the worries as expressed

    Survival

    24. The ‘greenhouse effect’, one such threat to life support systems, springs directly from
    increased resource use. The burning of fossil fuels and the cutting and burning of forests
    release carbon dioxide (CO2). The accumulation in the atmosphere of CO2 and certain other
    gases traps solar radiation near the Earth’s surface, causing global warming. This could cause
    sea level rises over the next 45 years large enough to inundate many low lying coastal cities
    and river deltas
    . It could also drastically upset national and international agricultural
    production and trade systems.

    So now 30 years later, how has that worked out? Where are these inundated low lying coastal cities (or entire countries like Bangladesh?). Food production has never been higher, twice as much food for twice as many people. Trade as well. CO2 output has never been higher. Where thirty years later is the problem and how much has the erection of 220,000 windmills for the rich helped save mankind and the solar farms for the rich, as near Las Vegas? Where is all the money going? How is Africa better off? Or South America? Or Indonesia or Bangladesh?

    The fact is that the best and natural capture of solar energy is for growing food. Photosynthesis is just carbon dioxide capture of sunlight. More water, irrigation and more CO2 means more plants, more food, more energy. This stop the world organization has achieved what exactly? How’s that Ozone hole, only in the deep Southern hemisphere where only 2% of the world live? Where is the runaway warming? The world’s population has doubled without any effect on the climate at all? So why the giant conference in Paris, or is there another agenda?

    You have to say after 30 years, this whole scare is busted and the IPCC should accept that it has failed to even justify its own existence. Now why did it get the Peace Prize?

    163

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      TdeF:

      Plants convert sunlight at between 4 & 7% efficiency, whereas solar cells can manage 13% (when new, they deteriorate).
      But you can’t space solar cells to cover more than 50% of the land because of shading & access problems, so they aren’t more efficient when new, and less so as they age.
      There is also the little matter that you can’t eat solar cells.

      21

      • #
        TdeF

        and we need food. Solar cells have a lifetime too. Food has a use by date but is infinitely renewable, unlike Solar cells. Greenies should be growing renewable food, not covering the landscape with solar cells.

        21

  • #
    handjive

    temperature.global calculates the current temperature of the Earth.

    It uses unadjusted surface temperatures.

    The current temperature is the real-time surface temperature of the Earth.

    The 12M average is the mean surface temperature over the last 12 months compared against the 30 year mean.

    New observations are entered each minute and the site is updated accordingly.

    This site was created by professional meteorologists with over 20 years experience in surface weather observations.
    ~ ~ ~
    Current temperature: 39.93°F
    Current Deviation: 17.27°F (9.59°C) below normal

    12M Avg Temperature: 54.82°F
    12M Avg Deviation: 2.38°F (1.32°C) below normal

    2015 average 0.98°F (0.54°C) below normal

    Stations Processed Last Hour: 52842

    Last Station Processed: Minneapolis, United States

    Days since last major US hurricane: 3743

    93

    • #
      AndyG55

      I’m guessing that in the middle of the year, the “current deviation” goes positive.

      Do you know if it includes Antarctica?

      54

      • #
        toorightmate

        Strongly suspect it does not include Iceland. They had a relatively cold year. (but maybe Iceland has been homogenized).

        83

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Good stuff handjive (temperature.global link).

      These would be land-only stations I’m guessing, including islands e.g. Pacific island stations effectively capture Pacific air temperatures without recourse to sea water temperatures.

      42

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >”temperature.global calculates the current temperature of the Earth. It uses unadjusted surface temperatures.”

      This is no different to NIWA’s proprietory Virtual Climate System Network (VCSN) covering New Zealand. You have to pay to subscribe to that.

      VCSN takes data from every available data aquisition station i.e. any meteorological recording at any altitude.

      VCSN begins 1972. The VCSN profile for New Zealand is the same as BEST’s over a comparative intermediate period (1980s – 1990s). Only the effective altitude is different i.e. the absolute temperature profiles are offset from each other by a constant amount.

      21

  • #
    John

    Thanks for your succinct but apt disavowal of the annual hype surrounding the year just gone temperatures. I’m sorry to appear dumb, but what do the measurement values equate to on the y part of your sea level graph?

    24

  • #
    Ross

    ” If CO2 was a big driver of the climate, 2015 should have been a lot hotter.”

    This sentence from Jo’s piece is the key point. Here we have a year where there is a natural phenomena on top of the supposed “CO2 effect” and we are getting arguments over small fractions of a degree and this doesn’t take into account the alterations to data that we all know about.
    They can twist themselves into as many knots as they like explaining it or pointing it out but it doesn’t get past the fact that according to their theory the temperatures should be a lot higher. But they are not !!!

    133

    • #
      AndyG55

      By all reports the current El Nino is starting to dissipate.

      That may make the “2016 is the hottest ever” memo to Gavin et al, very hard for them to fabricate. :-)

      The wonky jet stream hitting eastern USA and some of Europe with very warm winter temperatures* gave them a helping hand this year.. they didn’t have to push the fabrications too much.

      It wasn’t actually a “HOT” year at all.

      Yes the anomaly may have been solidly positive, but it was in winter in NH.

      I whole “hottest year” meme is just crap propaganda, because it wasn’t.

      92

      • #
        Another Ian

        Andy

        “That may make the “2016 is the hottest ever” memo to Gavin et al, very hard for them to fabricate.”

        Or the time step between iterations will just be reduced to make it look smoother?

        52

      • #
        DavidR

        Andy think of what happens when you boil a kettle, the water is much hotter after you boil it than before. The El Niño has just heated the planet, 2016 will, like 1998, be significantly warmer than the previous year. The 1998 El Niño started to ease of at the beginning of the year just as this one has. The temperature this year will probably be at least a tenth of a degree warmer than last year and even the satellite records will declare it the hottest on record. NASA will have no trouble declaring 2016 hottest on records and the UK Met have already said it will be.

        15

        • #

          “The El Niño has just heated the planet”

          Oh boy. We are in trouble. By what means does an El Nino generate energy? Is that an Elnuclear Nino?

          81

        • #
          AndyG55

          roflmao..

          Gees David, you really don’t have any idea about reality, do you.

          El Nino is a release of energy from the sea into the atmosphere.

          ie.. its a ocean COOLING event. !!!

          Yes Jan, Feb may have a somewhat positive anomaly in the Northern Hemisphere, but once that dissipated, everything will be cooler.

          The two main ocean cycles have just switched to their cooling phase, the sun has gone quite.

          The only question is how soon the cooling starts.

          And yes, I’m sure NASA will have no problems calling it the “hottest ever”, no matter what the real temperatures do.

          71

        • #
          AndyG55

          And nobody is boiling anything. You live in a fantasy world, D.R. !!

          And just in case you didn’t know, the water after it boils has the same measurable temperature as just before it boils. But that is totally irrelevant to anything to do with EL Nino events.

          51

        • #
          DavidR

          “The El Niño has just heated the planet”
          Got me on that one JO.
          The El Nino releases heat from the ocean into the atmosphere so doesn’t technically heat the planet however it does raise the surface temperature record. So the analogy is quite reasonable if we are considering the surface temperature record.

          16

          • #

            No, the analogy is not reasonable.

            You are pretending one years surface record matters even though you acknowledge it’s caused by slower trade winds, not CO2.

            But as I said, I give up. I have other stuff on the next few days.

            51

    • #
      Carbon500

      Ross: What also impresses me is that while the warmists argue about the trivial variations in temperature you mention, CO2 has risen from 280ppm in the ‘pre-industrial’ era (pre-1750AD) to the current 400ppm (it’s probably gone up a bit more since I last looked).
      That’s a 43% increase in this trace gas – exactly how much of this is a result of human activity isn’t clear – and they’re trying to tell us that we’re heading for doomsday!

      22

  • #
    toorightmate

    I think they’re right.
    I noticed the butter was a bit softer than normal all of 2015 – and that’s as a good an indicator as tree rings.

    123

  • #
    pat

    you almost wonder if NOAA/NASA/Met Office timed their announcement to pre-empt coming weather events!

    22 Jan:KDAL: Reuters: Ian Simpson: East Coast blizzard bids for place in Washington DC history
    A winter storm that could bury parts of the U.S. Middle Atlantic region under nearly three feet of snow slammed into Washington, D.C. on Friday afternoon, threatening the nation’s capital with record accumulations as it barrels up the populous East Coast.
    After emergency officials planned and residents scrambled for days to stock up on supplies, the blizzard started to blanket the Washington area during the early afternoon after six people had died in car crashes as a wintry mix spread across Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky…
    The Weather Channel said more than 85 million people in at least 20 states were covered by a winter weather warning, watch or advisory.
    Airlines canceled nearly 6,300 flights for Friday and Saturday, most at airports in the New York and Philadelphia areas, according to flight tracking website FlightAware.com.
    Washington’s snowfall could eclipse the “Snowmageddon” storm of 2010 that dropped 17.8 inches (45.2 cm), AccuWeather senior meteorologist Alex Sosnowski said. If forecasts prove accurate, the storm could rival the 1922 Knickerbocker storm, which dumped a record 28 inches (71 cm) on the city…
    Federal offices in the Washington area closed at noon on Friday to allow employees to get home before the snow began piling up. City officials said everyone except emergency workers should stay off the streets…
    The forecast prompted the Virginia National Guard to bring in about 300 troops to deal with emergencies. In New York, 600 National Guard personnel were on standby.
    http://kdal610.com/news/articles/2016/jan/23/east-coast-blizzard-bids-for-place-in-washington-dc-history/

    22 Jan: Shanghai Daily: Xinhua: Airport, highways closed as China sees worst cold in decades
    Starting from 8 a.m. on Friday, highways in at least 12 provinces and municipalities have been closed due to blizzards and snowstorms.
    A large part of Jiangxi province, in eastern China, was hit by snowstorms on Friday. The airport in Nanchang, capital of Jiangxi was closed Friday morning. Several sections of the highways in the province were also closed.
    Jiangxi’s coldest weather since 1992 is expected from Jan. 23 to 26.
    Temperatures in Beijing dropped to minus ten degrees Celsius on Friday and is expected to hit a 30-year low of minus 17 degrees Celsius on Saturday, Beijing meteorological station forecast…
    On the streets of Genhe, icy fog clouds the city street and fish vendors can easily snap a frozen fish into two parts.
    Ergune and surrounding areas have seen temperatures fall to minus 40 degrees.
    http://www.shanghaidaily.com/national/Airport-highways-closed-as-China-sees-worst-cold-in-decades/shdaily.shtml

    93

    • #
      TdeF

      Clearly there are no weather events. The weather is all the boring average stuff. Any deviation from perfectly nice is Climate Change and proof of the capitalist evil of Western democracies who need to punish themselves. The fact that this is the mantra of the Western press and the UN is the concern. That is why Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Politics prize.

      143

    • #
      TdeF

      Pat, how can you get a red hand for simply reporting the alarmist news? Or is it self evidently ridiculous?

      123

    • #
      Manfred

      you almost wonder if NOAA/NASA/Met Office timed their announcement to pre-empt coming weather events!

      /sarc

      81

  • #
    pat

    unbelievable:

    22 Jan: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Obama’s Carbon Rule Victory Is More Important Than You Think
    One court’s refusal to block climate change regulations may build pressure for compliance long before the war is over.
    Whereas in previous years so-called deniers were accommodated in the public discourse, the accumulation of scientific evidence supporting the thesis that humans are changing the atmosphere and oceans has begun to drown them out.
    More people believe climate change is real and dominated by human causes, polls show. Despite the usual caveat—it’s difficult for scientists to link any single extreme weather event to man-made warming—the fact is that climate change, to many, just feels true.
    ***As snow-fearing Americans on the East Coast are about to find out, there’s about five percent more water vapor in the air these days, and what goes up must come down.
    Most Americans say they would support a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, additional renewable energy development, or both…
    On a more practical level, climate change is already becoming entwined with government and business…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-22/obama-s-carbon-rule-victory-is-more-important-than-you-think

    business has its own plans, as you well know Bloomberg:

    22 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Greenpeace prepares legal challenge to Norway’s Arctic frontier
    Guggenheim Partners estimates there is a US$1 trillion investment opportunity over the next 15 years. They were one of the advisors behind a prospectus launched at the World Economic Council in Davos on Thursday.
    Also on the council is ***(Norway’s) Statoil, one of 26 companies bidding to open up a new oil frontier in Norway’s polar seas. Even as oil prices languish at US$30 a barrel, the company hopes to start drilling in 2017, saying technical innovations make the venture
    commercially viable…
    For Guggenheim chief investment officer Scott Minerd, it was all about opportunity. “As climate change transforms the Arctic, the Arctic will transform the world,” he said in a statement.
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/22/greenpeace-draws-battle-lines-on-norways-arctic-frontier/

    remember the MSM fantasy about Norway’s green credentials last year?

    SMH, June 2015: $10 billion coal dump as world’s biggest sovereign fund turns green
    In the past week environmental-based investing became a lot more mainstream thanks to the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund – Norway’s – deciding to divest itself of stocks whose assets are dominated by coalminers or coal burners.

    ABC Four Corners, June 2015: The End of Coal?
    GEOFF THOMPSON: The divestment movement’s biggest win came 10 days ago. Norway decided that its $900 billion sovereign wealth fund, perhaps the world’s richest pension fund, will limit its exposure to coal companies.

    64

  • #
    Doug Cotton 

    Jo.

    Temperature trends can be forecast from the natural cycles. The Greenland data in your post shows the 1,000 year cycle, and there is ample evidence elsewhere of the superimposed 60 year cycle. There is also compelling evidence of correlation with the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all planets. So the hiatus will continue for 20 years after the 1998-2000 period, and there will be long-term (500 year) cooling starting before the end of this century.

    In that you agree with me that carbon dioxide has no effect, if correct physics can be used to explain why, would you want to know? I ask the question because late last year you published a series by your husband, David Evans which was all based on the very conjecture used by the IPCC, namely that back radiation from carbon dioxide supposedly causes warming. Correct physics tells us that we should not compound radiation like that. If David were wrong in assuming such compounding happens, would he want to know?

    68

    • #
      el gordo

      Dr Norm Page sees a 600 year cooling, which seems plausible, but it might be best to concentrate our efforts on the present situation to avoid becoming parody.

      Let’s discuss the 60 year cycle, cause and effect.

      http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.au/

      21

      • #
        Doug Cotton 

        Well el, as your linked item says, the 1,000 year cycle is more important.

        “The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year cycles so obvious in the temperature record. “

        I still consider there will be 30 years of warming between about 2030 and 2060, so they will start celebrating again, then and start new models from 2030.

        We have to concentrate on the false physics and expose it. Then we don’t have to wait to see what temperatures do or don’t do. We remove the foundation stone and the greenhouse collapses.

        65

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘I still consider there will be 30 years of warming between about 2030 and 2060…’

          If you accept Tisdale’s sine wave, then I’m with you on that.

          31

    • #

      Doug,

      It is my understanding that David was working to prove that the current climate models were incorrectly constructed even assuming their starting presumptions were correct. The other part of his effort was to analyzed the climate system as a black box system using well tested signal and top down analysis techniques. A valid and validated theory of climate was a long range goal but not a near term goal.

      The basic idea at work here is that one must understand the problem before one can solve it. Attempting to apply random trial solutions to a poorly understood problem hardly ever works. This is mostly because “what works” is itself an assumption without connection to the reality of the problem. Hence, you won’t even be able to identify what actually works and be forever chasing your tail tracking a random walk.

      I am personally convinced that the back radiation model of the so called green house effect is null and void. This on two ground. The first, the energy for the back radiation had to come from the ground. Hence it is no longer in the ground. Any that is returned simply replaces some or all of the original energy loss. Secondly, energy transmission and absorption by radiation is a quantum resonant effect. This is because for the radiation to be absorbed, the absorbent must have an energy level lower than that of the radiation. The only parts of the absorbent that will be at a lower energy level are those parts that emitted the radiation in the first place.

      Both of these reasons are simply different levels of explaining the same thing. The first is the what. The second is the why. I believe you and I discussed variations on this theme several years ago. I would suggest that David’s work up to were he is now neither makes any comment on this theme nor is it necessary for his current level of systems analysis.

      In fact, one of the important principles of systems analysis is the avoidance of moving too soon to minute low level details. One must by necessity understand the higher levels of the system before ANY sense can be made of the low level small details. See the six blind men trying to describe an elephant by focusing on only low level details. The elephant never gets discovered and the six blind men will forever disagree about the identity of an elephant.

      There is an elephant in the living room here but it will never be discovered by examining the equivalent of specks of dust.

      95

      • #
        Doug Cotton 

        Yes Lionell, that’s why I spent thousands of hours in research, study, application of the laws of physics and good-old thinking, so that I could indeed understand the problem and solve it also, then check rigorously that the hypothesis was supported by empirical data and never refuted by any.

        But the surface temperatures of planets with significant atmospheres like Earth and Venus cannot be determined based on radiation calculations, because radiation reaching the surface is not the primary determinant of such temperatures.

        I don’t see my hypothesis (published 2013) as just being a different way of explaining the same thing. The two hypotheses are mutually exclusive, mine assuming the gravito-thermal effect exists (which evidence now proves) and the radiative forcing GH conjecture assuming it doesn’t.

        David Evans is writing within the context of radiative forcing because he very specifically endeavours to determine the marginal effect on surface warming supposedly due to a marginal increase in carbon dioxide. Well, you can’t have a marginal effect (that is, a derivative of a function) if you don’t have a function in the first place. And, if you think you have a correct function, you need to be prepared to scrap your thoughts if you cannot quantify a single point for that function. In that you cannot explain the mean surface temperature with radiation calculations, you need to scrap the greenhouse conjecture and any other corollaries of such.

        46

        • #

          I did not mean your gravitation explanation was saying the same thing as the greenhouse effect. The same thing at different levels was my tow level explanation of why the back radiation explanation greenhouse effect was bogus: energy transfer vs quantum resonance. Either analysis is sufficient to discard the so called greenhouse effect. Your gravitation explanation is quite a different hypothesis from any form of the greenhouse effect.

          Further, since there is no glass ceiling for the atmosphere, the use of the “greenhouse effect” label is itself without rational foundation and its use is at best an attempt to misdirect and to cause confusion. Since there is gravity, it sets the foundation for a totally logical and reasonable place to start.

          It is almost as important to be able to identify what something isn’t as what it is. If you do identify what isn’t, you won’t find yourself falling down into countless very dark rabbit holes looking for something that doesn’t exist.

          54

          • #
            The Backslider

            The so called “blanket” of CO2 is the glass ceiling.

            29

            • #

              A blanket that has a million holes for every 400 parts is not a blanket. It is at best a very thin fog. Also, the CO2 is dispersed and does not exist in a thin layer as would a blanket. Thus it is not a blanket. Calling it a blanket does not make it one. It actually has to be a blanket before the name fits.

              The notion that the CO2 forms a “blanket” is necessitated by the false to fact use of the label “greenhouse effect”. Which is itself based upon an invalid understanding of how a real greenhouse actually works.

              This is a clear example of the dark deep and empty rabbit hole that the pseudo science of climate “science” has been lost in for roughly 30 years.

              Words mean THINGS and that matters. If a word is stolen from the thing it refers to that does exist and applied to something that does not exist, it is at best a misdirection. A misdirection who’s purpose is to cause confusion and uncertainty in hopes of getting away with something. It is in no way science.

              94

              • #
                AndyG55

                A blanket would not automatically promote cooling when the surface gets too warm, like the atmosphere does.

                The blanket analogy is one of the least scientific suggestions ever promoted by the AGW anti-science brigade. … and that’s saying something !!

                74

      • #
        Richard

        This because for radiation to be absorbed,, the absorbent must have an energy level lower than that of the radiation

        Greenhouse effect proponents would probably argue that the back-radiation from greenhouse gases are not directly heating the surface but slowing the rate at which energy leaves. If a body (a) is radiating to its cooler surroundings (b) then the net-radiative heat loss from a is apparently determined by: Ta^4-Tb^4 (see Wikipedia’s radiative-transfer page). Assuming a is 100K and b is 50K the net-radiative heat loss from a is 5.3 W/m2. Increasing the temperature of Tb to 60K decreases the heat-loss from Ta to 4.9 W/m2. Wheather we say ‘greenhouse gases delay cooling’ or ‘greenhouse gases create warming’ – the principle is the same, isn’t it?

        60

        • #
          Richard

          Whether…

          10

        • #

          You bring up what is nothing but an attempt to save a bogus hypothesis. The original form was more or less that the back radiation directly added to the energy of the surface and thus raised its temperature. When that notion is so obviously seen to be bogus, the delay extension was used to attempt to save the original idea. That extension is itself added misdirection and confusion and saves nothing. It is the use of the “greenhouse effect” that must be discarded.

          The simple fact is that the atmosphere is not a greenhouse in any way shape or form – not even metaphorically. Thirty years and a trillion dollars has been spent going down a very dark and very empty rabbit hole. It could have been avoided by actually LOOKING at the atmosphere and trying to understand it rather than making up explanations that are the logical equivalent of “God did it”.

          This is why the top down incremental systems approach is so important. You make sure that there is a there there, before you continue. As a result, you avoid going so far into so many empty rabbit holes. Your succession of hypothesis is based upon hard evidence rather than whiled eye guesses, wishful thinking, pure fantasy, and seeing patterns in random noise.

          54

        • #
          The Backslider

          But this does not explain how the heat got down into the depths of the ocean where it cannot be measured.

          BTW what has now happened to the “missing heat in the deep dark ocean” hypothesis now that the warmists are screaming that there never was a pause and thus no “missing heat”?

          61

          • #

            However, it does explain how the pseudo ‘scientists’ came up with the unverifiable explanation that the missing heat passed into the ocean deep without being detected or even being detectable.

            It is nothing but a bogus add on that attempts to save a bogus theory that is based upon a gross misunderstanding of how things really do work. Which is in turn based upon a stolen concept “Greenhouse” that was transferred from something that existed to something they wanted to exist but had no evidence that it actually did exist. All wrapped up in an unintelligible and disintegrated mass of science sounding kinds of words and charts of endlessly corrected re-corrected “data”. All magically made to fit what they wanted you to believe about what they were saying.

            The search for knowledge and truth had nothing to do with it.

            54

  • #
  • #
    pat

    23 Jan: Townsville Bulletin: Christie Anderson: Review into credibility of scientist’s work
    A REVIEW has begun into the credibility of research by a scientist from the Australian Institute of Marine Science accused of defrauding the Federal Government of more than $550,000.
    The Bulletin understands AIMS is reviewing Dr Daniel Michael Alongi’s work…
    His last court appearance was on Monday when his lawyer Philip Askin requested the matter be further adjourned for the purpose of acquiring more information.
    The matter will be heard again on February 15 and Dr Alongi was ordered to appear in person.
    http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/review-into-credibility-of-scientists-work/news-story/0270658c72cbcfc1f459021d339fb275

    sadly, still nothing at the Bulletin on Prof Carter.

    51

  • #
    Colin Davidson

    Science is about two things: a theory of how things work; and a set of data which describes what actually happens.
    Theories are ephemeral – as new data which contradicts them appear, or as theories which explain the data in a better way arise, so theories are ditched.
    But data – the measurements – always stand. Data is fact – such-and-such measurements were made by so-and-so on this date under these conditions with that equipment. Theories are never fact, nor is data which has been adjusted by theory.
    Because it is factual, data is primary. Theories are tested against data. If found wanting, the theories are modified, not the data. This principle is the great advance made during “The Enlightenment”. Prior to that, theory was more important than measurement – if the church said that stuff only goes round the earth, then that was the truth, and measurements to the contrary were heresy.
    The enlightenment turned that on its head. Measurements are more important than theory.
    It follows that modification of data (including omission of data) without recording how and why (ie what theory was used to modify the data) is a scientific no-no. “Scientific Fraud” is not about presenting an incorrect theory – that happens all the time – but about undocumented, non-reproducible manipulation of the data .
    If someone presents a theory without also presenting the data or explaining how the data was processed then that is not science but fiction.
    The NASA data set is fiction. It cannot be replicated independently.

    112

    • #
      Doug Cotton 

      Yes Colin, and the hypothesis must first and foremost be in accord with the laws of physics, then never be refuted by any single data set.

      That’s why my hypothesis is the correct one. Read about it one day!

      17

  • #
    Dennis

    No need to wonder why a majority of the Prime Minister Abbott Cabinet members voted against due diligence being conducted by independent auditors at the BOM, is it.

    72

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Dennis, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the final decision on this was made by Greg Hunt, while a minister in Turnbull’s version of the Liberal Government, not Abbott’s.

      70

      • #
        ianl8888

        Hunt convinced Cabinet to refuse a detailed inquiry into the BoM because the results of such an inquiry, if made public or leaked, may damage BoM’s reputation with farmers, fishermen and other groups

        92

        • #
          el gordo

          That sounds about right.

          21

        • #
          Another Ian

          Where the hell does he think a lot of the scepticism is coming from then?

          Maybe he needs to be told that farmers, fishermen and some of the other groups ar applied climate scientists. And that

          “What is the difference between theory and practice?

          In theory there is no difference.

          In practice there is”

          Thanks to Chiefio for pointing out that last line and that in this era of abbreviated English teaching “understood” is not necessarily understood.

          41

        • #
          • #
            scaper...

            No wonder my cyber ears were burning.

            What is there to explain? Believe what you like.

            This is a hint. Tried to find a mainstream link but it seems to not have been reported.

            Funny that.

            22

            • #
              el gordo

              Some of you may be aware this is an election year in Oz, where a political sleight of hand is necessary to keep the Coalition together. After the government is reelected with a handsome majority it could be a different ball game.

              Its also worth considering that Greg, Malcolm and Julie are zealots who stopped the BoM audit.

              02

  • #
    Ceetee

    Wouldn’t it be fair to say that since we’ve only really been recording data in more precise ways for the last 15 years or so, we can’t make definitive pronouncements about the entire data record (in itself pretty damn short and unreliable) without looking like we are being a bit cute. I heard a scientist on NZ radio say we have been using satellite data since the eighties and I balked at that because I remember how we argued about weather stations and their location 10 years ago. It was so dishonest, no appeal to authority will ever sway me again. If he was correct can he explain the veracity of the hockey stick as presented to the great and the good and faraway places like Yamal?. Love being a sceptic, it sticks in the craw of people who demand through their sheer dogma that I have some sort of duty to believe and subscribe to their point of view.

    112

    • #
      Matty

      The satellite data has of course been dissmissed by GISS & NOAA in the run up to last week’s launch of their warmest ever year announcement Wednesday, delayed to coincide with WEF in Davos & right on cue for Christiana & the credulous CNN reporter

      61

      • #
        el gordo

        It has been suggested that the satellites have a cool bias, while the adjusted terrestrials are a good warm fit.

        51

        • #
          Matty

          Correction:- Had a cool bias, which has been corrected.
          The suggestion was that surely because of that it must have another, as yet unknown, as well as various other aspersions, whereas the largely made up terrestrial data can be adjusted to fit just about anything.

          42

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    Now, I’m of the understanding that “GISS” stands for “Goddard Institute for Space Studies” and is part of the American “National Aeronautics and Space Administration”. I assume the “Goddard” in the title is the character who did lots of rocket experimentation.

    Why is it that the last resource to which GISS will ever refer is the one which Goddard himself made possible?

    And do the people at GISS actually study space at all?

    62

    • #
      Ceetee

      I don’t know. What do you think?. What I do know is that anyone who qualifies as a scientist or who requires that we view them as such should be biologically averse to telling LIES. In other words, keep your professional integrity and your politics separate because politics is most certainly not a science.

      42

  • #

    The article only looks back over the last 10000 years. Below is the late Bob Carter going back over 16000 years. He has six periods
    1. Last 16000 years – massive warming from the last ice age.
    2. Last 10000 years – slight cooling.
    3. Last 2000 years – more rapid cooling.
    4. Last 700 years – covering the Little Ice Age – stasis
    5. Last 100 years – lots of warming.
    6. Last 10 years – stasis.

    The last two periods are not statistically significant, and not unusual in the ice core records.
    Warning – the video quality is terrible.
    https://youtu.be/_NW0re9EqE8?t=303

    71

  • #

    We are still waiting for the proof that CO2 causes Global Warming. Despite statements that ‘the science is settled’ we have not seen it yet. Until then, ‘the hottest year eyah’ is irrelevant.

    71

  • #
    Paul

    “The science is settled” means exactly the same thing as your mother saying, “My mind is made up, and I don’t want to talk about it anymore!” Right or wrong, fair or unfair, true or false, moral or immoral, legal or not, none of these things have any relevance once Mother has decided that you cannot _______________ (fill in the blank for yourself).

    41

  • #

    [...] Hottest Shattering Year since the last one: Five reasons it was not hot, and not relevant Tell the world, 2015 is the hottest year since 2010. [...]

    11

  • #
    Paul

    JoAnne,

    The heated dialogue above is remarkably similar to other conversations found around the internet, on semi-related subjects. Those folk with an agenda attempt to define terms, as well as define concepts, to their own liking, so that facts and data become irrelevant in the discussions, which they then control. Let me pick one example – that of “surface temperature”, as opposed to “surface thermometers”. The more important data point being, “the average temperature of the surface of the earth”, as opposed to “the temperature recorded by strategically placed thermometers on the surface of the earth”.

    Repeatedly, above, there is an attempt to define those strategically placed thermometers as an authoritative source of valid data. Which, in a perfect world, might be true. However, in this imperfect world, many of those thermometers are poorly placed, and, I feel, intentionally so. I could stick an observation station on my roof, and try to pass it’s recordings off as genuine climate data. The roof is usually over 120 degrees F, and it would drastically skew any “scientific” analysis of temperatures in my region, or, of the world.

    This attempt to define terms used in the discussion mirrors similar attempts in the ongoing Social Justice Warrior dialogues. Anyone who is not familiar with the sad puppies and rabid puppies from the gamergate controversy should visit Amazon, and read Vox Day’s writings on the subject. ‘Social Justice Warriors always lie’ is a good starting point.

    More on topic, I loved this video, posted above by AndyG55. The video sums up all that is wrong with “climatology”.
    https://vimeo.com/14366077

    22

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Paul.

      You like your diversions I see. [snip]
      I will repeat this challenge again to people actually interested in scientific measurements. Be skeptical about the surface record, sure. But produce evidence that there is an issue with the surface measurement ie science, data, graphs that sort of thing. Spoiler alert – it has already been done. The latest set of adjustments actually DECREASED the estimated rate of global warming over the 20th century a bit, explain that [snip]

      [Harry, the conspiracy meme is absolutely wearing out. I will not wast my time snipping you. If you claim conspiracy you'd better provide details to support the claim otherwise your comments will be thrown in the trash.]ED

      14

      • #
        Paul

        You’re right – I should have left a citation. Try this one: http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm Browse around the site, don’t just look at that one page. I couldnt’ remember the addresss, so I entered this search term in Google: “surface station placement fraud” Another top link from that search is this one: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/

        Couple the obvious fraud with the statements freely made about “adjusted” temperatures, and the claims are simply incredible.

        21

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Paul.

          “surface station placement fraud”

          So you are claiming “fraud”. Care to provide details about why you think fraud is involved?

          If you trust anything produced by Steven Goddard (not his real name), I feel very sorry for you. I think it is easy to pick a fake expert. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence – he does not provide any.

          Based on the amount of UAH temperature adjustments that have occurred, I could just claim “fraud” in an attempt to discredit them. But I do not – the UAH data set provides useful data and I trust Dr Roy Spencer to do the best job he can.

          http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html

          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L1XCYFk2Ws4/VUFE-DEmaYI/AAAAAAAAEkE/T70fUJgnaeY/s1600/Differences%2Bv6.0beta%2Bminus%2Bv5.6.JPG

          [HARRY! his links provide the evidence. You aren't even reading them are you? Besides that you have already maligned Spencer without a shred of "details" or specific proof that his methods are lacking. Why don't you take your own medicine eh?]ED

          25

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            “You aren’t even reading them are you?”

            I read them – did you?

            “Besides that you have already maligned Spencer without a shred of “details” or specific proof that his methods are lacking.”

            Ummm no. I am supporting Dr Roy Spencer in this respect. You appear to have missed my point completely.

            [supporting Spencer? Perhaps in this one comment but where else? ] ED

            25

  • #
  • #
    Josh

    Your number 3 point is wrong. Paleoclimatologist use the year 1950 as ‘present’, not the year 2000. Furthermore, you last data point is 95 years before this present date, giving the date of the last data point as 1855. So your graph doesn’t even include any warming from the 20/21st centuries…

    [The image is from a guest post by David Lappi you can click on the image to read it. Presumably he chose the date of 2000 and adjusted the scale appropriately. As for your other point, Jo already covers the fact that the graph ends around 1900. So what is "wrong"?]ED

    22

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      ED.

      It is easy to understand what is “wrong”.

      The graph only goes to 1855, Dr Richard Alley whose team produced the data set says so. So it is not rescaled for 2000.

      Also the calibration appears to be off. Temperature observations (not ice core) for that part of Greenland at 1855 are higher.

      In other words, showing that chart says nothing about the global warming that has occurred since 1855.

      44

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        ED.

        A subject change? Have we now gone from discussing a temperature reconstruction going back tens of thosands of years, to another going back millions of years?

        When in a hole, don’t dig. You have just told us that you do not know what the lines on the chart are.

        I know where the data came from, I read Dr Alley’s study some years ago. He was interested in how cold the Younger Dryas was in relation to more recent times. Go read his study for yourself.

        Let’s see 1950 – 95 = 1855. 1855 is not particularily close to 1905 last time I looked…

        [Am I in a hole and digging? Possibly. Apparently this particular graph has been disputed before: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/ .

        Without input from David Lappi to defend his graph, I'll change my position on its labeling and urge Joanne to consider corrections. Thank you for your service.

        I still defend the position that nowhere was it claimed to represent later than 1905]ED

        ___________________________
        REPLY *** Harry — it’s late here and I’ll look into this properly tomorrow. It’s no biggie, being only 50 years in 10,000 if true, and it makes no difference to my points about the graph, nor does it make current warming unprecedented, but I’d rather get it right, so I’ll be fixing it and thanking you if I confirm that the “present” is really 1950. Cheers – Jo PS Thanks to ED for pursuing this.

        ———————–
        UPDATE: It will get fixed. Thanks to Harry for drawing my attention to this minor error in the axis. – Jo

        11

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Harry Twinotter,

        You wrote:

        In other words, showing that chart says nothing about the global warming that has occurred since 1855.

        Correct. And it wasn’t supposed to.

        You missed the point entirely, as usual.

        See my reply to Josh below.

        Not that it matters. We all know from extensive experience that you won’t be able to fathom even the simple ‘ritmetik’ in that post. But, hey, we aim to please. ;)

        Abe

        25

        • #

          Thanks to Josh and Harry Twinotter for alerting me to the incorrect axis title. (Amazing that no one noticed for so long?) Thanks also to Just-A-Guy for his analysis and discussion. The graph is fixed, the caption improved, and the original post is also corrected.

          In many ways the change only poses more questions. Why does ice core data only begin 150 years ago? I shall be revisiting this soon. It is very interesting.

          I would like to add some estimate of the warming in Greenland from 1855 – 2015. Does anyone know of accurate proxy or surface record data from Greenland?

          10

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Harry Twinotter,

        You wrote:

        The graph only goes to 1855, Dr Richard Alley whose team produced the data set says so.

        In my previous response to you, I said that you were wrong about this and referred you to my response to Josh for an explanation. After reviewing the original data for Alley (2000), I have now retracted my position on the start date for that data. I do apologize for that part of my comments.

        You wrote:

        Temperature observations (not ice core) for that part of Greenland at 1855 are higher.

        How did you come to this conclusion? To the best of my knowledge, there are no temperature observations for that part of Greenland on or around 1855. If you have evidence to back up your claim, you should be able to provide a link.

        Abe

        00

    • #
      Josh

      What is ‘wrong’ is the interpretation from the data. I really don’t care about your presumptions ED, the fact of the matter is that the raw data only goes to 95 years before 1950. You can look at the paper by Richard Alley if you wanted to and find out for yourself instead of relying on someone else to do your research, and making a baseless presumption

      22

      • #
        Josh

        Change the last ‘and’ to ‘instead of’.

        02

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Josh,

        You wrote:

        . . . the fact of the matter is that the raw data only goes to 95 years before 1950.

        Yes it does. And the blue line on the graph represents the raw data.
        208
        - 95
        —–
        113/2 = 56.5

        95
        +56.5
        —–
        151.5

        So. Had you used your head and done the math, the raw data ends ~151.5 years before the year 2000.

        Just like the caption below the graph states.

        And you missed the whole point of #3.

        To wit: For the last 10,000 years the temperature trend has been downward with intermittent upward spikes. One of those spikes is occurring now. The more pronounced of those spikes reach their peak and then return to their previous position over the course of ~200 to ~250 years.

        So, for all intents and purposes, we’re just about at the peak of the current spike and you can expect temperatures to begin dropping. Soon.

        That’s what the ice cores show has happenned in the past and there’s no reason to believe anything different will happen now.

        Prove to us all that CO2 will cause warming of the lower troposphere as prophesized by the IPCC Inc.’s Climastrologists and step up to receive your Nobel prize. As of now, all we’ve gotten from the UNFCCC, LLC. technocrats is conjectures, speculations, computer simulations, propaganda, and scare mongering. No science yet. None forthcomming.

        Abe

        56

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Josh,

        It looks as though I owe you an apology.

        You wrote:

        You can look at the paper by Richard Alley if you wanted to and find out for yourself instead of relying on someone else to do your research, and making a baseless presumption.

        I got to thinking and decided that I would do just that, if only to prove you wrong. It wasn’t as easy as I thought, though. I needed to look at the original raw data, but the link to that data on NOAA’s website didn’t work for me. I then tried google but, there too, the link to the data didn’t work. I kept getting an error that said that url does not exist.

        Luckily google keeps cached web-pages and that’s where I found the data.

        The first 10 entries in the dataset are:

        – - – Age – - – Temperature (C)

        0.0951409 . . . . -31.5913
        0.10713 . . . . . . -31.622
        0.113149 . . . . . -31.6026
        0.119205 . . . . . -31.6002
        0.119205 . . . . . -31.598
        0.125451 . . . . . -31.6656
        0.132407 . . . . . -31.7235
        0.138807 . . . . . -31.7583
        0.145126 . . . . . -31.8098
        0.152263 . . . . . -31.8415

        These data points match the right most part of the red, upward curve in the graph and not the end of the blue line as I incorrectly stated earlier. But,

        The data file doesn’t give a start date of 1950:

        GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Greenland
        PERIOD OF RECORD: 49 KYrBP – present

        DESCRIPTION:
        Temperature interpretation based on stable isotope analysis, and
        ice accumulation data, from the GISP2 ice core, central Greenland.
        Data are smoothed from original measurements published by
        Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).

        It would appear from the words I bolded that the start date is 2000. Until I looked at fig. 1 of Alley (2000). It’s x-axis is marked ‘Years Before Present (1950)’.

        So I misread the original Lappi article where this graph first appeared. And since the calculations I presented in my original comment worked out really well, I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

        That said, the main thrust of my comment still stands. The point that Jo is making in the O/P is that . . .

        3. It’s been hotter before, and for thousands of years. It’s normal.

        This point stands because the ice-cores clearly show cyclical warming and cooling periods, but the overall trend, at least during recorded history, has been one of cooling. Just because the instrumental record began on an upward trend in the natural cycle, doesn’t mean the climate is changing and it certainly doesn’t mean the human production of CO2 has caused that warming.

        The climate varies, cyclically and naturally.

        The IPCC, Inc. claims that we change the climate by heating our homes in the winter and cooling them in the summer. Read that sentence again, out loud, and hear for yourself how ludicrous it sounds.

        Jo wrote:

        Current temperatures are probably similar to the Medieval Warm Period (this graph ends around 1900AD). The spikes here only represent Greenland, not the whole world, but the message is clear. Climate change is normal, and what’s happening now is not unusual.

        We now know that the graph ends in 1855, but so what? Jo will probably fix the graph, but her point still remains, humanity’s production of CO2 did not cause any of the previous spikes in temperature, they were natural and cyclical, and so there’s no reason to believe we’re causing this one.

        Abe

        00

  • #
    John

    Such as shame that we live on the surface of the planet.

    12

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yep. some do.. under the rocks and in the crevasses.

      54

    • #
      tom0mason

      We live on the surface but climate is everywhere, from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the oceans.
      So we may live in the thin surface area but to some degree our weather is affected by the way climate work and interacts everywhere.

      30