The Art of Lying by Omission
Back in the old days, when scientists had standards, they would never get excited over one hot year and certainly not over one meaningless hundredth of a degree.
The NOAA and NASA spinmeisters are parsing their press releases carefully, using vagueness to speak in half-truth-tongues. They utter no outright lie, yet misinform the crowd with lies by omission.
NOAA and NASA don’t say their models still don’t work, that the world was supposed to be a lot warmer and the “pause” continues. Nor do they admit that it has been warmer before many times in history. They don’t say the warming trend started long before we pumped out CO2. They don’t mention how tiny the “record” is, so tiny it could, and probably will, disappear with the next man-made adjustment. They don’t mention that the record depends entirely on which dataset you pick, and better instruments, satellites, show it wasn’t a record. NASA may launch satellites, but they prefer a thermometer in a carpark or beside a runway for measuring temperatures.
All major global datasets, up to date. The pause is clear enough. The lower two lines are from satellites. Jan 2015 | Graph, Dr David Evans.
They don’t mention how much hotter it was than the last record. That’s because it looks very uncool — scientifically speaking — to get excited over two hundredths of a degree, when the error bars are 500% bigger. It’s called “noise”, in real scientific publications.
Get a grip on how much a few hundredths of a degree matters in this graph. “Get excited”.
Panic! \
Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art
If it was the hottest in 130 years, who cares? It was hotter 7,000 years ago, hotter 120,000 years ago, and hotter for most of the history of life on Earth. It doesn’t mean CO2 caused the last hot spell. It doesn’t mean warming is bad. It doesn’t mean it will continue to warm. And it doesn’t mean we understand what drives the climate.
But it does mean some people who want to seem-scientific want more of your money.
The Vaguest Scientists in the world
While NOAA and NASA declare that “… 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend…”
If they had wanted to they could have said the opposite and it would be true too. It’s a fact that we’ve been in a long term cooling trend since human civilization developed. In this case the not-to-long term trend they refer to is 135 years long, but it has been running for 300 years. They don’t mention that either. It is equally true to say “2014 temperatures continue a warming trend that started circa 1700”. There were no coal fired power stations until 1882. Coal power is so dangerous that it causes heating 200 years before it starts producing carbon (sic).
The El Nino Spin
NOAA and NASA are pointing out that ” 2014’s record warmth occurred during an El Niño-neutral year.” What they don’t say is that this is exactly what we would expect for an object that started off warm and continued to stay warm. The world has been in pretty much the same warm zone for 16 – 25 years (depending on how you measure it). In other words, El Nino-in, El-nino-out — we don’t need to add much more energy, in the big-scheme, to raise it by a hundredth of a degree.
But if I were a marketing and promotions agent, and not interested in science, I would make a big deal out of the non-el-nino which didn’t happen and doesn’t matter.
NASA wants your money
Here’s the line early in the press release which is the real point of the story:
“NASA is at the forefront of the scientific investigation of the dynamics of the Earth’s climate on a global scale,” said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “The observed long-term warming trend and the ranking of 2014 as the warmest year on record reinforces the importance for NASA to study Earth as a complete system, and particularly to understand the role and impacts of human activity.”
Who cares about accuracy or serving the public. The only decimal places that matter to these NASA scientists are the ones on the numerous grant cheques.
Gavin Schmidt knows that it is naughty to make a fuss over one hot year:
“This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades. While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.
Schmidt knows that the long term trends matter and that is what he should be talking about, yet he hunts the headlines with short term noise. He must surely also know that the NASA climate models have no idea what causes the real long term trends in the climate since they can’t explain what drove the medieval warm period, the little ice age, or the warming of the 1870s or 1920s and 1930s which was at a similar rate to the warming in the 1980s and 1990s.
Changes in the long term rate are what matters, and Unskeptical-scientists won’t be putting numbers on that in public. Just like they won’t be talking about verifying those roulette-wheel-climate models either.
Quoteable Quotes:
John R. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is known for his skepticism about the seriousness of global warming, pointed out in an interview that 2014 had surpassed the other record-warm years by only a few hundredths of a degree, well within the error margin of global temperature measurements.
“Since the end of the 20th century, the temperature hasn’t done much,” Dr. Christy said. “It’s on this kind of warmish plateau.” — CNBC
Even the BEST team balked at pumping the hottest ever meme:
The BEST reanalysis consortium have also reported their findings which are similar and their interpretation is in stark contrast to NASA’s:
“The global surface temperature average (land and sea) for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however, within the margin of error, it is tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can’t be certain it set a new record.” — GWPF
The ABC got Will Steffen on earlier today to fill one of his regular programmed spots.
Will kept it simple, which suits both his grasp of climate science and his desire to instil terror in the general populace. Basically the planet is frying, we are causing it and you can all expect to burn horribly any minute now.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4163768.htm
The great shame of it to my mind is, people like Will, Tim and Christine wont be around to see that nothing happened. The young people they take pleasure in terrifying today will grow up in a world where people just look back and laugh at how stupid and duplicitous their elders were.
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/richard-lindzen-reveals-reason-for.html
500
Earlier today I was attempting to do my part to resupply CO2 to our CO2 depleted atmosphere by cleaning out and refilling my fireplace. While doing this I was listening to one of the ABC/CBS/NBC lame stream media six o’clock half-hour news follies programs.
Of course one of the lead reports was the 2014 hottest ever on record screeds. With the obligatory film clips of hurricane, tornado and drought damage the propagandist explained that all of this was due to mans’ effect on the climate. Didn’t say how… no mention of CO2! Just man was causing all of these climate disasters.
Well, I thought back over the last three or four years and had a real hard time coming up with any hurricanes hitting the USA, and tornadoes???? Being here in the tornado alley portion of the midwest USA, I had a real hard time coming up with more than one or two tornadoes of note. Drought and high temps? I had a heck of a time last spring getting all my gardens planted because of excessive rain and cold temps.
The news-propagandist assured the listeners that all those recent hurricanes and tornadoes were more frequent and powerful because of what man was doing to the climate.
I couldn’t help but think back on the ‘two minutes of hate’ the citizens of George Orwell’s 1984 society were forced to endure. I guess *man* in general has replaced Emmanuel Goldstein. Or maybe CO2 is replacing Goldstein. Or maybe fossil fuels…
Whichever/Whatever, I think I am supposed to hate them/it.
Well, I guess I better do something about this. I was assured that these storms are only going to get worse as time goes on. And it is my fault.
My solution is quite simple. I’m gonna go put more CO2 into our CO2 depleted atmosphere. If somebody is gonna hate me I might as well be warm and comfortable while they do that.
370
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends
If you can deduce from that, that tornadoes have increased in the US at all, then….. please explain lol
60
No… it has been real calm around this area where tornadoes are concerned. I am talking about those variety that destroyed large areas of Joplin, MO. I live about 80mi east of Joplin and helped clean up that mess. You just can’t get excited over an EF0 or EF1 after seeing something like that destruction. No, tornadoes are not increasing in frequency or power.
But, I have no doubt that one day we are going to pay for this calm and it will all average out.
One thing I have noticed, with all the new fancy radar technologies the weather people are much more likely to call a tornado watch/warning. I am not opposed to that, but I am not sure how helpful they are.
A few years back the locals reported a tornado going down the road in front of my house. Named the road as it is a major entrance to the airport. Well, I looked out my front window and… no tornado. I’ll believe what I see and not what is reported.
All I know, it has been a whole lot calmer around this region where tornadoes are concerned. And I am not the only person around here to notice that.
40
Don’t believe the record temperatures.
I ran a file comparator over both the unadjusted and adjusted files GHCN produces for both the 15th and 16th of Jan.
Between the Jan 15th and 16th they added no new usable data to the GHCN unadjusted file. There were 3 months of data added for 2014, but they were all immediately marked defective.
To build their adjusted file they start with the cleaned(no defects) unadjusted data. Since that didn’t change, their adjusted file should have stayed the same for both the 15th and 16th. It didn’t. They changed 18656 lines on the 16th. Over 200,000 months of data. Those figures are since the 19th century. All changes were in the US, Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas. Nowhere else. You Aussies didn’t even make it to the finals. 🙂
GISS also uses the GHCN adjusted data, so they can’t claim independence.
They have been busy beavers since at least the 6th of Jan. removing and inserting data all over the world. Pretty sure you were included in the preliminary rounds. 🙂
491
Bob that sounds appalling – programmed adjustment!
133
Bob, It would be interesting to compare the US values fed into the GHCN with the values given here.
(ps..I still haven’t figured out how USHCN could match USCRN so closely without massive tampering)
152
Unlikely they would come out the same. GHCN doesn’t use the estimated data months like USHCN does. I’m not familiar with reproducing the smoothing methods used by either group. What I am capable of doing is comparing GHCN data files and picking out anomalous relationships.
You people may not no it, but GHCN no longer has data for Sep, Oct, Nov, 2011 for the entire continent of Australia in their database. They did until version 3.1 of their program came out in Nov 2011. I mentioned it to them 6 months ago and they still haven’t done anything about it. Make no sense. Does make for a cushy job though if you never have to pay a penalty for non-performance.
I think I’m getting under their skin. I keep emailing them with pertinent questions about how they don’t handle their data in accordance with the way they have published they do. They usually give some sort of a non-response response.
Well, it is 1.20 AM here in Connecticut. Think I’ll hit the sack.
342
Bob you need to keep records of your correspondence with these scammers. With the GOP in charge in congress, it would be worthwhile providing these, along with a covering letter, to, say sen. Inhoffe and encourage him to set up an inquiry.
Exposing the likes of GISS to sunlight is the best thing anyone can do.
80
Keep asking the questions. Someone will eventually make an error and give you some useful information. After all that’s what interrogators do?
40
I watch NHK Japan quite a bit. Their news report just reported the record as “hottest year since 1880”. Amazing the difference you get when listening to a bulletin with no left/green script to read from.
110
Bob I agree with your skepticism. I’m surprised that other commenters at Jo Nova and WUWT have so readily accepted the numbers with question.
2014 was a year marked by twice as many record daily low temperatures than record daily high temperatures – due in part to the polar vortices in the US and Europe. Also record snowfall and snow cover in many parts of the world. Both of the icecaps grew in extent, and sea ice increased. Here in Australia we had a comparatively cool year with a good ski season. These observations are not consistent with 2014 being one of the hottest on record. The Earth is not overheating, NASA and NOAA have been cooking the books.
250
SM, I have mentioned a couple of times that the GISS fabrication has started to trend upwards compared to satellite data since Guvin took over from Jimmy.
Seems pretty obvious to me that he has been given a directive to ignore the reality of the satellite data and just do his own thing. !
91
ps.. not the difference if we look at the period 2001-2013
All series pretty much trend the same.
The question that needs to be asked is .. Why this sudden divergence of the trends in the last 2 years !
To me, t whole “warmest year” thing that the warmest are hanging their hats on, is looking more and more like a total fabrication. Tantamount to *R*U* !!!
71
Jo
I think Bob’s post deserves at least two of your big stars !!
30
Bob Tisdale over at WUWT has picked the following from the body of the report:
2014 as the Hottest Year since 1890 is qualified within the report as being 48% confidence level.
Elsewhere in the report 48% is explained as being “More Unlikely than Likely”
says it all really – NOAA / NASA want the global warming headlines and the money but try and cover their backs within the report.
40
So we have the appalling waste of energy and resources from the BOM etc used in creating a retrospective climate record that shows the world is heating.
There is no thought for the future in the sense of cataloging and data recording associated with climate heat transfer mechanisms such as those discussed on the Stephen Wilde thread.
Looking back over your shoulder can be a good idea at times, but this business of reconstructing temperature records is badly done, possibly involving criminal fraud for political ends and pointless in its focus (the last few decades).
What about future methodology and emphasis?
Why no effort there?
KK
172
I guess you could say: ‘Climate Science’ – Never have so many lied so much about so little.
And boy have we paid billions of dollars for absolutely useless studies that have basically contributed nothing to our understanding of climate.
A whole industry of leaches!
372
And still our conservative government shies away from an audit. What happened to the Birmingham whitewash?
50
Jo in your post, 3rd paragraph. “They don’t mention that the record depends entirely on which dataset you pick, and better instruments, satellites, show it wasn’t a record. NASA may launch satellites, but they prefer a thermometer in a carpark or beside a runway for measuring temperatures.”
This makes the statement of 2014 being the hottest ever year false. A graph of the satellite data since 1979 could easily prove that their statements are false. Would it help if you showed a graph of these satellite data?
241
So, 2014 is the most overheated “hottest” claim since NASA have been spinning the records.
80
Leonard, we added in that graph of all the datasets an hour or two after posting the article. Part of the difficulty was in updating the data — as other – like bob koss — described, it was a mess of adjustments.
Sorry we’ve been out so I updated it without adding a comment til we got back (10 hours!)
120
Thank you Jo. That added graph does help explain the deception of NOAA and NASA. Nice post.
Yes, there is no excuse for adjustments and maintaining databases that are such a mess.
I also noticed that the hottest ever 2014 nonsense is getting some pushback on the Drudge Report from several scientists.
60
So a mosquito bite might be appearing on the (too modest?) hump which is the latest warming in a Holocene which has been nothing but cooling dips and warming humps.
Like I was saying somewhere else, the real disaster is indeed the one we are manufacturing: climate-dependent energy. The first civilisation to develop a small measure of climate-independence decides it doesn’t want it.
Imagine trying to wipe the smears from acres of solar panels in the aftermath of a Laki-scale eruption series, basaltic and dirty like Laki. And there is nothing at all alarmist in raising the prospect of another such event. Volcanoes aren’t just for explaining away past climate. They go pop regularly.
“Warmest ever” was likely eight thousand years back. “Dopiest ever”…that could be us.
270
a couple of days ago, Willis had this thread at WUWT:
15 Jan: WUWT: Willis Eschenbach: Forgive Us Our Transgressions
A new paper in Science magazine entitled “Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet” (paywalled here) claims that we are all potential “transgressors” … a curious term more appropriate to a religion than to science. But given the total lack of science in the paper, perhaps it’s appropriate…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/15/forgive-us-our-transgressions/
i commented:
Will Steffen keeps the “transgression” meme alive, indicating the use of the word was purposeful; to align with the Pope’s much ballyhooed, upcoming CAGW encyclical, perhaps!:
15 Jan: HuffPo: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Human Impacts On The Planet Pushing Earth Into ‘Danger Zone’
“Transgressing a boundary increases the risk that human activities could inadvertently drive the Earth System into a much less hospitable state,” said lead author Will Steffen, of the Stockholm Resilience Center and the Australian National University, Canberra…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/human-impacts-danger_n_6480782.html
121
Of course Will Steffen’s climate activism is essentially grounded in a negative view of post IR human activities. Steffen has called this “epoch” the anthropocene and has written on it.
Thus Steffen, who is looking for all the negative impacts humans have on Earth’s systems to back his idea of the “anthropocene”, is easy prey for an anti human philosophy such as anthropogenic climate change.
Again another alarmist pseudo scientist who is driven by activism rather than evidence backed science.
Here’s a bit by Judith Curry on the anthropocene and Will Steffen:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/22/pondering-the-anthropocene/
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/22/pondering-the-anthropocene/
202
“. . . an El Niño-neutral year.”
This too is debatable. The US agencies use a measure (NINO3.4) but others think there are better measures.
The Multivariate ENSO index (MEI) is one and that did peak in April/May.
Japan’s weather folks have their own idea and say El Niño emerged between June and August, continuing into November.
http://news.yahoo.com/japan-weather-bureau-declares-first-el-nino-five-070848230.html
I’m just saying . . .
100
Latest here from JMA
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
40
Bob Tisdale has now posted on this in great detail. See his own site or see WUWT today (17th):
on-the-biases-caused-by-omissions-in-the-2014-noaa-state-of-the-climate-report/
50
I just read that post John and its very illuminating. Highlight for me was that buried in their own report is
“Using a Monte Carlo approach (Arguez et al, 2013), NCDC considered the known uncertainty of the global land and ocean annual temperature in the 2014 annual ranking. Taking into account the uncertainty and assuming all years (1880-2014) in the time series are independent, the chance of 2014 being
Warmest year on record: 48 %”
And further on, they state that statistics in the 33.3 to 50% range are in fact “more unlikely than likely”
The report is pure junk science. It wouldn’t pass muster in a Yr 11 science project. But of course, they got their headline and the media is so weak or complicit, that no one will actually check what it is they’ve claimed.
60
When we already know (through a number of research experiments alone) that in a warmer, CO2 rich world, life actually thrives, the world is a better place; so why all the angst?
212
What are these experiments?,
20
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
40
bemused.
As Queen Isabella says in the play Three Ships, “money, money, money!”
20
as for abc, last nite was a CAGW fest –
there was “The Naked Scientists” which abc summarised on its website as follows:
“Obesity is a growing problem worldwide. We look at why so many people struggle with weight loss, and examine some new ways to keep off the pounds, including a new ingredient to make you feel fuller, tricks of the mind to avoid mindless eating and why your chair is killing you. Plus, news of an antibiotic breakthrough, a planet similar to Earth and why colds are more common in winter weather.”
funny, but they left out one topic from the program, according to the UK website, namely:
07:19 – The fossil fuels we can’t touch
this is not the first time abc has omitted CAGW topics from its summaries of late; it’s as if they don’t want to make their CAGW obsession too obvious. excerpts from the piece they omitted to mention:
14 Jan: The Naked Scientists: The fossil fuels we can’t touch
Christophe McGlade & Paul Ekins, UCL
The world’s politicians have agreed that a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature is as much as the world can take. Recent research, published in Nature, has revealed that many of our untapped fossil fuels with have to stay firmly underground if we are to avoid this 2-degree rise.
Researchers Cristophe McGlade and Paul Ekins from University College London explained the work to Kat Arney, also discussing the tough choices the world will have to make if we want to avoid the worst-case-scenario…
Kat – And so, when you look at this, how much can we use of the stuff we know is there in the Earth?
Cristophe – Of the coal reserves, only about 20% of these can be used. So, that means that 80% of current coal reserves have to stay in the ground if we don’t want to exceed 2 degrees. For oil, it’s about a third needs to stay in the ground and for gas, it’s about half of what we think is currently economic to extract has to be left in the ground…
Kat – Oil and gas, and coal reserves that we have aren’t equally distributed between all countries. So, how do some of the things shape up in terms of which countries have to be on the strictest carbon diet?
Cristophe – Generally, those regions which have the most resources currently are going to have to go on the biggest carbon diet, as you call it. For coal, the United States and Russia can only use less than 10% of their current reserves. In the Middle East alone, there’s about 260 billion barrels of oil. That’s the entire oil reserves of Saudi Arabia which needs to remain in the ground if we don’t want to exceed this 2 degrees.
Kat – One of the things that comes out of your paper is that we can’t even burn the resources that we know that we have and yet, companies are exploring in places like under the Arctic, we’re looking at technologies like fracking which is very contentious at the moment. You’re calculations would suggest that this is basically a waste of time.
Cristophe – Yes. So, within the model, we identify all of these different resources that are out there and you mentioned the Arctic. We can look at, under this 2 degrees scenario, which of these resources are actually used and the results suggest that actually, the Arctic oil and gas, and there might be quite a lot of oil and gas out there isn’t required if we want to stay within 2 degrees. Some of the other sources you mentioned, you mentioned shale gas from fracking, there is some potential for that to be used particularly if we have a rapid reduction in coal consumption in the future, some gas will have to come through. And some of that gas can be shale gas. However, if countries such as the UK decide to develop its own shale gas resources, it has to be aware that as a result, someone else somewhere else isn’t going to be able to use all of their reserves. So, there’s always this trade-off between, if we exploit here, someone else has to not exploit somewhere else.
Paul – It’s an enormous challenge because countries quite legitimately regard these resources as theirs and the decision whether they use them or not is their decision. They will need to agree not to use some resources somewhere. The countries that agree not to use their resources, they will probably wish to be compensated in some way. Those kinds of arrangements need to be on the table in the climate change negotiations.
Kat – Climate change is a global problem. It needs all the leaders of all the countries in the world to work together. Some countries say, “Well, no. we want to carry on. We want to develop. We want to use our resources.” Is there hope realistically that countries can actually work together and come to these solutions. What’s your personal feeling on this?
Paul – Yes, I’m very hopeful because I think increasingly, it will become obvious that climate change is something which they very much need to avoid. It may be true that money makes the world go round, but money doesn’t go very far if you haven’t got a liveable climate.
Kat – The projections in this paper go up to 2100. If you could maybe paint me a picture, perhaps over the next 20, 30, 40 years, how you would like see things changing?
Paul – … It is my firm conviction that if we were to bite the bullet of low emission, energy systems and agriculture, by the time we got there and looked back, we wound wonder why we had thought it was going to be so painful. Because many of these technologies already exist, we can invest in them. A lot of them are not much more expensive than the technologies they’re going to be replacing. So, my dream scenario is that both in the UK and globally, governments recognise the urgency of this issue and they start to do things like pricing carbon which will send investment in a quite different direction so that these low-carbon technologies become much more widely installed, emissions start to fall and publics become much more confident about the kind of trajectory that is possible.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1001080/
also from last nite, a Summer repeat of a Margaret Throsby interview from June….with Rob Oakeshott! lots of talk – with Margaret in agreement of course – about the carbon tax, ETS, Coalition believing in CAGW but playing politics, etc. nice choice of a repeat, abc. am sure the public were eager to hear Rob again.
plus a promo for Sunday’s “Talking Plants” program, which spoke of a “climate change” theme.
and that’s just what i heard!
90
Australian Greens leader Christine Milne: “The climate is out of control”. Presumably she means human control, because she follows up by saying governments must act now.
Ms Milne, when has the climate ever been in human control?
Is it amenable to pre-determined adjustment through human intervention and “control”?
What climate parameters would be aimed for in a human-regulated climate?
Can western economies afford to pay for and enforce a global climate control system?
Aren’t you really advocating one world government introduced on a pretext of climate “controls to save the planet”?
310
Bob Brown once pledged to reduce global temperature rises to a max of 2c as an election promise.
I wish Bob would have revealed his weather machine so we can all benefit from it, but for some reason he was satisfied with just using it as electoral blackmail instead.
151
I was having flash-backs when Abbott gifted the
UN-IPCCBob Brown international Bank $200m and then claimed it came from foreign aid.Then it all came back …
The exact same dialogue.
It’s deja vu all over again!
April 23rd, 2011 (jonova)
But Combet in Cancun promised 10% of the Australian carbon tax as a tithe to the UN. (And there’s the $599 million as part of the Fast Start Finance program over three years that is in the pipeline.)
. . .
Combet et al claimed that the money was already accounted for as well.
What value did that $599M do for Australia?
Less Bushfires?
Less droughts?
Less Floods & rain?
or Hottest year ever.
100
On a separate note, I realise that governments may not take much note of blogs, but are the various parties aware of the information and references presented in blogs such as this one, and could that prompt ‘some’ re-evaluation of the typical knee-jerk reactions, especially those typical of the Greens? Surely even Labor doesn’t wish to waste money if they can avoid doing so? The Greens on the other hand…
190
Every Federal parliamentarian received a copy of “Climate Change, the Facts”, published by the IPA (including a contribution by Jo).
So they should be aware of The Facts and the references.
Of course they might not have read it.
200
You are making the assumption that they can read?
My understanding is that they are all graduates of our education system.
190
A few were in school before the 1970s. The others can colour in the diagrams.
110
Abbott government spends up big on media monitoring
(SMH)
30
Everybody on this blog, no doubt, will talk to and influence others about the CAGW scam.
Whether its 5 or 50 each year it is a start and will help.
Think Positive!
PKK
90
Piers Corbyn doesn’t mince his words on his WeatherAction website:
Nor is he gentle with the UK Met Office:
He’s good reading. His videos are interesting and worth watching.
Shame he doesn’t do forecasts for Oceania.
272
up in the past hour…abc thinks Steffen should add to his AM piece, while Milne & Labor get to throw some insults, etc:
17 Jan: ABC: Labor, Greens pressure Tony Abbott to act on climate change as 2014 named hottest year on record
Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said the Government simply does not get it.
“It’s putting ideology in front of common sense,” he said.
“Whilst we know that we can’t attribute specific events to climate change, what we can say is that extreme occurrences are happening more regularly and are more extreme.”
Greens leader Christine Milne said the climate was “getting out of control”.
“If Tony Abbott is serious when he says he doesn’t want to run up the credit card for our children, then don’t run up the debt on the environment,” she said…
But Will Steffan, the head of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, said more needed to be done.
“Historically in Australia, more people die from heatwaves than they do from any other type of natural disaster,” Professor Steffen told ABC’s AM program.
(NEW)”It does have consequences and it isn’t the meteorological record that scientists and geeks like to look at, it’s actually affecting us on the ground, now.
“There is no doubt that to really get on top of this problem we have to have deeper targets, more ambitious targets for 2020.”…
Record cold for the year was apparent only in some parts of the eastern and central US…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-17/labor-greens-pressure-abbott-as-2014-named-hottest-on-record/6023162
love how abc says ***”Mr.” Schmidt as they do when they want to show respect. plus more Steffen:
17 Jan: ABC: 2014 was hottest in modern history, US scientists find
AM By North America correspondent Ben Knight and wires
LINK: We asked for your thoughts on NASA’s statement and this is what you said.
(OPENED LINK, GOT: Have your say. Comments on this story are closed. NO COMMENTS)
Marshall Shepherd, a University of Georgia meteorologist, said: “If you are younger than 29 years old, you haven’t lived in a month that was cooler than the 20th century average.”…
Change in global temperature five times higher: NASA/NOAA
The scientists said computer models showed that the change in global temperatures was five times higher than it would be if natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions and solar heating were acting alone.
Including contributions from human activity, such as greenhouse gas emissions, “we get a good match to those long-term trends,” ***Mr (Gavin)Schmidt said.
“Taken together, the warm temperatures of the recent decades demonstrate the impact of greenhouse gases on our climate, and invalidate the sound bite that global warming has somehow ‘stopped’,” said Joe Casola, staff scientist at the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions…
Professor Steffen said the rise in sea level temperatures was the most significant aspect of the reports.
“This is a real cause for concern because 93 per cent of the excess heat – because of the greenhouse gases we’re popping into the atmosphere – actually ends up in the ocean,” he said.
“When you start to see the ocean warming up as much as it is, there’s a lot more heat down there that’s going to come back to bite us.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-17/2014-was-hottest-in-modern-history-say-us-scientists/6022714
50
Tonight, NSW mid north coast, Channels 9 & 7 News promoting 2014 as the hottest year in “modern” records ……. giving Labor coverage to rubbish our PM and attempt tp denigrate him.
It’s Time for all good men and women to shout loudly Bull***t and expose these lies.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/a/26024558/abbott-frozen-while-world-warms-labor/
152
Don’t worry Dennis – SC24 is now entering it’s 2nd phase, ie the downward slope phase & there is no potential for any Global Temp rise, and later this decade when the next GM and LIA are in full force, the “Warmists” will be exposed for peddling a two decade myth, The Theory of AGW – a myth that created economic mayhem on planet Earth. I refer to this day as “JUDGEMENT DAY” – the day the citizens of planet Earth realize they have been conned big time, as all around them they will witness very severe Winters and very moderate Summers, and Autumn & Spring like an extension of Winter.
160
Twilight Of Abundance by David Archibald ….. meanwhile, in Oz, the media spin is mindless and leftist
141
“SC24 is now entering it’s 2nd phase, ie the downward slope phase & there is no potential for any Global Temp rise”
There is plenty of potential for warming in the GISS fabrication while Gavin is in charge !!!
The world could freeze solid, and he’d still manage a new “warmest ever” each year !!
81
Griss,
I agree.
Once there is no room for further adjustments historical data will gradually be converted to Kelvin – that should keep the modern ‘hottest evvvaaaa’ records going for a while longer.
10
Oh, the oceans are warming too!
40
In reply to:
William:
The oceans
arewere warming.http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.1.15.2015.gif
The warmists will need a long term plan B to explain (spin) the sudden unexplained global cooling. Ignoring the cooling with the hope it will go away likely will not work. The past solar magnetic cycle minimums have lasted for 100 to 150 years.
P.S. Hand up frantically waving. Ask me. Ask me. I know why there is a delay of one solar cycle before the unset of cooling.
I’ll bite William. Do tell! – Jo
60
Bob Carter mentions in his essay in Climate Change: The Facts, Brohan et al. 2005 found that the possible and likely cumulative error in the HadCRUT record (and IMO by extension GISSTEMP) far exceeds the total claimed twentieth century warming (Kindle Location 982).
160
If I lent Gavin Schmidt a penny, I wouldn’t trust him to return it to me.
I have never trusted the man since he deleted a scientific point I made at RC. I gave up visiting his propaganda site at that time.
181
NASA has no business in weather or climate! Space Administration?
Yes, like a lot of 20th century institutions it is looking to survive by expanding its role. The same with many publicly funded institutions. Then ambitious individuals want to change the role.
In Australia, it seems simply reporting the weather and making reasonable forecasts is old and boring. They want to make the news and so their own careers. Similarly with the ABC. Who needs to report what happened when you can make it happen, as with the scandalous attempted assault on the now Prime Minister on Australia day. The initial question used to provoke the riot came from the Canberra office of the ABC. It was all so contrived that you would see it as a Baldric cunning plan. Queensland weather predictions are similarly contrived to substitute sensationalism for balance.
Such organizations as the ABC, SBS, even NASA should be sold or closed. The IPCC never had a justification and the UN, like the EU, is seeking to run an unelected communist world government. From Russia to East Germny, we know how that works out.
Sell them all and stop this incredible commercial and political conspiracy based around the most unlikely subject, the weather.
120
Except for the JPL, NASA has done nothing useful, or even interesting, since the last moon landing.
So we shouldn’t be surprised that they are grasping at any straw that may conceivably be used to justify their existence.
But in principle, I agree: sell all of these sheltered workshops and force the “workers” to get real jobs.
/rant ends
100
Can’t agree with that. We have for example satellite temperature data – can you point us to any better?
40
Good point. I stand corrected.
10
NASA has no business in weather or climate! Space Administration?
Yes, like a lot of 20th century institutions NASA is looking to survive by expanding its role. The same with many publicly funded institutions. Then ambitious individuals want to change the role.
In Australia, it seems simply reporting the weather and making reasonable forecasts is old and boring. They want to make the news and so their own careers. Similarly with the ABC. Who needs to report what happened when you can make it happen, as with the scandalous attempted assault on the now Prime Minister on Australia day. The initial question used to provoke the riot came from the Canberra office of the ABC. It was all so contrived that you would see it as a Baldric cunning plan. Queensland weather predictions are similarly contrived to substitute sensationalism for balance.
Such organizations as the ABC, SBS, even NASA should be sold or closed. The IPCC never had a justification and the UN, like the EU, is seeking to run an unelected communist world government. From Russia to East Germny, we know how that works out.
Sell them all and stop this incredible commercial and political conspiracy based around the most unlikely subject, the weather.
121
Thank you Jo, I watched Ch 10 and NBN3 with their parade of “experts” telling us about the hottest year ever, , with no mention of the pause, so I decided to check with a legitimate source of review, that is you. Thank you for some peace of mind, because the parade of “experts” tonight, was very unimpressive.
220
Everybody here knows full well, that, the likes of NOAA and NASA plus a whole load of other charlatans [Penn State climatology faculty] are liars nonpareil.
It annoys the hell out of me but there you go, liars who continue to lie through their teeth continue to make headlines and the truth of it – is damned.
Man made warming mythical potions…
This is all about politics Jo – it never had anything to do with science. Margaret Thatcher, kicked it off, because post Cernobyl she wanted to quietly shut down the UK nuclear industry and put an end to the miners and shut the coal mines. Evidently, it made sense to invent a valid excuse and global warming hit the spot!
Next, after 1988 Hansen’s classic sweat soaked pleading extravaganza [he would have been great treading the boards] before the congress/senate committee. Fantastic, the world was sold a whopper that would make Bernie Madoff’s eyes water in agog appreciation, plus even after the collapse of ENRON – miraculously the ship tax the western world – sailed on imperiously. So, Empire building was what it was all about and oh btw an awful lot of bankers,senior executives in NGOs, the UN, Universities around the world [Boulder, UEA, Penn state], national meteorology offices, carbon shysters, and media shills and politicians made hay while the sun was shining – now there’s an irony!
UNFCCC COP 2015 Paris is coming soon, I strongly suspect climategate III to make it’s final appearance – then it will be popcorn time………Bring it on I say.
191
Agreed. However Lord Monckton openly fears that Climate Change is the lever to get a world government in Paris, to turn the UN into a copy of the EU. He believes this is more likely than not, the only clear obstacles being the Ausralian and Canadian Prime Ministers.
The UK is on board and the whole EU. Obama is clearly on board. It may be his last chance to install an unelected communist UN world government by stealth, although no one uses the old offensive word communist and life long communists like our own PM Julia Gillard simply deny what is documented truth. NZ Prime Minister Helen Clarke is already in her second 4 year term as 3rd in the UN after bringing in her carbon tax.
Maybe it will be a career move for Obama as well? From US President to UN President? A new world order. E pluribus unum? Climate Change is the absurd lie and with it the US fight against communism is lost.
40
TdeF:
Are you serious in thinking that 190 odd (very odd in some cases) heads of governments are going to vote to be superseded?
It may be the case in the EU that they’re used to this, but who else? Even in the EU most of the eastern countries value development and rising living standards more than crippling their economy.
And lets not forget that China, Sth. Korea, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa aren’t going to stop their economies growing just to please Obama.
20
Socialism/Communism – a thorn by any other name?
I was at a loss as to explain just how Communism is still revered by people who quite plainly should know better and it has nothing to do with conviction politics but it has everything to do with power, control and absolutely. The corporate elite desire control, though how Soros thinks it will benefit him – only God knows. A devil incarnated – perhaps Soros thinks, I’ve had my fun now lets **** it for everyone else…….certainly Obama thinks that way.
Thank heavens, for leaders of the free world in; Prime Minister the Honourable Tony Abbot and the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Stephen Harper, two islands of common sense in a sea of alarmist and religious fundamentalist madness. Yes and megalomania wedded to totalitarianism: to which the UN plays up to and drinks deeply of the well.
Australia has it, so too has Canada, metaphorically as the lights dim across the world the world needs: libertas Omnium.
10
I think the “I have mine, who cares about you” and “I have mine and you’re not getting anything now” are primary reasons for the behaviours seen in global warming advocates. Notice how many became super-rich off oil and gas. Some still get rich from these sources. If they can cut off everyone else from making any money from oil and gas, so much the better. It seems very selfish and arrogant. None ever give away all the money they got causing the climate change they now preach. They keep the money and try to shut everyone else down.
In communism, there is a belief that as long as you are on the side of the dictators, you’re okay. Until the time comes, and it always does, when you are no longer useful to the dictator and you become one of the great, unwashed masses (if you’re lucky). It’s like petting a grizzly bear and convincing yourself the bear really likes you and won’t do anything to hurt you. Sometimes that works, sometimes it does not. There’s a blindness to the reality that the bear is not interested in your welfare at all and is simply tolerating you for the time being. No known cure for this—sometimes people learn vicariously but mostly they push the envelope till the bear eats them……
10
“Back in the old days, when scientists had standards, they would never get excited over [THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD!!]
And lets stick to the facts regarding all the replies to this comment..
Lovejoy, 2014a showed that the resent temperature rise is not natural (http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/esubmissions/Fig.5.temp.residuals.big.19.4.14.jpg) and can only be explained with CO2 forcing (http://oi62.tinypic.com/ixv2m8)
Lets focus on facts not feelings..
124
Michael: all I see on these links are two scruffy graphs, one with the data drawn below the horizontal axis!
Where’s the rest of the relevant information?
I’m already beginning to glaze over, because I’m seeing the word ‘proxies’ once again. Also, if this is someone producing pages of equations in an attempt to prove his point then again I want rather more. I want reality, which is what science is about. Figures showing global temperatures are all available if you care to look – for example, there are plenty of satellite measurements available as well as the CET which show show negligible (if any) warming – despite an increase in CO2 of 43% since the start of the ‘industrial era’ – defined as being 1750. Bear in mind that 43% of not much amounts to not a lot in the real world, since CO2 is a trace gas anyway.
Now show me who’s done a reproducible laboratory experiment demonstrating the interactivity of CO2 with water vapour. This might furnish clues as to what really happens in the atmosphere!
171
My bad I should have properly referenced the paper.
“Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming, Climate Dyn., 42, 2339-2351, DOI 10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2.”
Paywalled: http://springer.libdl.ir/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2
Free: http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf
Press release: http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/Society/McGill.Press.release.27.4.14.pdf
114
Michael, Ah yes, I had fun with that paper. . Lovejoy replied in comments and with a PDF.
Lovejoy showed that government funds are being obscenely wasted.
221
JO how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you reference a graph (http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png)that ended in 1855 to try and “hide” the increase? You even highlight the last section in red as if it means something?
You tell your readers to be skeptical but they are not. You even say that Lovejoy is focusing on the last 5% of the graph, but how could he if it ended in 1855! Lets look at facts not misgivings (http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png)
At the end of the day its one ice core! Any normal person knows that using one proxy temperature record is meaningless.
09
Spacer!
Wit quote of the day: “Any normal person”
Are you implying that you belong in that group? Please.
Get a life.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Contact Terminated.
60
KinkyKeith lets see which group you fit into when you say “When you look at the graph above it is obvious that the uptick in temperature is due to industrialization of our society; just like all the other, and often more substantial, upticks that can be seen over the last 10,000 years.” (http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/abusing-statistics-in-the-name-of-global-warming/#comment-1429491)
Yes Kinky industrialization caused the uptick?! in temperature shown on the graph in 1855 and as you state we can compare that uptick!? to the more substantial upticks in the graph. You mean that little one at the end kinky? To funny.
010
You are quite wrong Whitteless.
Please show to us just one peer reviewed paper which asserts that the warming of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was anything other than natural.
The warming began before industrialisation.
Are you aware that warmist scientists do not consider CO2 to be a factor until after 1950?
While you are at it, you must then know what caused the Holocene Climate Maximum, The Minoan Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.
You must also know what caused The Little Ice Age and other Holocene cool periods.
I await with bated breath…..
100
From Gail on SG
“….Where does their data come from for that ?”
……………………
From Kriging
E.M. Smith does an excellent write-up of the GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect That answers your question.
Canada
What about that other red spot in the middle of Canada? Yup, you guessed it. No thermometers survive north of 65 degrees in recent GHCN data in Yukon and The Northwest Territories, and only one survives in Nunavut (at the northern edge of Canada, but in a location called The Garden Spot of the Arctic due to the unusual warmth of the area allowing a variety of plants and animals to survive there that do not survive elsewhere.
In both these cases, there is real data in the baseline period, but the current temperatures must be created from somewhere else….
Simply? They make the data up. They used ‘kriging’ taking data from 500 kilometers away to ‘infill’ as the cover for pulling the data out of their rumps.
….the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations…..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
original link at a russian newspaper in English is now dead.
en(DOT)rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discusses the Russian data here: IEA: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”
IEA is Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis.
50
Michael Whittmore,
Industrialisaion in 1855 didn’t cause a minor uptick.
The Little Ice Age just prior caused a humungous down tick.
30
“To funny”
If only you were educated.
Really, its too funny!
KK
20
Thats the best you got Kinky? I guess you’re apart of that group after all.
07
Is that the best you got?
I am patiently waiting for your answers, polly.
30
“industrialization caused the uptick?! “
You have absolutely NO proof of that.
Coincidence is NOT causation.
The series of very strong solar cycles on the other hand, are a much more likely cause, while also forcing more CO2 into the air.
In the last 18 years, China has industrialised massively, but ZERO warming in the real temperature data. !
Your coincidental warming from industrialisation is BUSTED !!
50
James Bradley
January 18, 2015 at 12:33 pm
the Griss
January 18, 2015 at 2:00 pm
I was mocking Kinky for being gullible enough to fall for JoNovas parlour ticks.
011
Michael fell for global warming parlour tricks, so I am not sure why he is mocking Kinky for falling for skeptic parlour tricks. Instead of mocking, describe the parlour trick and be done with it. We can play dueling graphs all day. That’s the beauty of stats and graphs—you can “prove” anything you want. Heavy reliance on statistics and models allows for many, many parlour tricks. Sadly, most people are impressed with them and fall for the line. Looks like Michael is one of those. Perhaps he can learn someday.
50
“I was mocking Kinky for being gullible”
lol.. from a gerbil warming believer.. that’s quite ironic..
You are the GULLIBLE one.
You should be mocking yourself. !!
10
Who is Michael Whittemore ???
Someone with more whitte?
Naw. No whitte at all. Whitteless
20
“You even highlight the last section in red as if it means something”
The big benefit of that little uptick is that it takes us from the minimum temperature of the LIA.
… nowhere near the periods of abundance that were the MWP and RWP and certainly nowhere near the Holocene optimum.
We are now in the “Current Slightly Warm Period”.
We are still way too near the bottom of temperatures in the last 10,000 year to be truly thankful yet..
…and if the sun is any guide, we are not going to see much more warming.
30
I did stumble on an interesting paper by Nasif Nahle some time ago claiming that experiments by Hottel 1954 and Leckner 1972 (including a number of other researchers since) have shown that the maximum absorptivity/emissivity of CO2 in a super-saturated state (I think they went up to 600,000ppmv) at a temperature of 300K is 0.003. That’s exceptionally low and translates to a temperature increase at the Earth’s surface of only 0.08C when applying the S-B law. Meanwhile their experiments with water vapour at 5,000ppmv at the same temperature showed a total absorptivity/emissivity of 0.4. So based on those experiments, assuming they are correct, the warming ability of water vapour is at least 120 times greater than that of CO2. The only source (apart from a few insignificant papers like Harries 2001) I see CAGW-advocates cite are the HITRAN and MODTRAN computer-model codes but these to my knowledge have never been independently verified.
90
@Richard:
thanks for that lead. I have been searching for something like that for some time.
Others might prefer http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/ which ‘OUTS’ Science of Doom as a lawyer.
He comments frequently. Also note cementafriend’s comments.
The Nasif Nahle paper can be found at http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf
10
No Michael No Wit
Lets concentrate on the science.
There is no such thing in science as a “forcing”.
But then I may be wrong.
Perhaps you could explain it for me in your own words and define forcing as applied to the CAGW scam?
KK
70
KinkyKeith this comment is meant for you as well. http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/2014-noaa-nasa-produce-weakest-science-on-hottest-fantasy-in-modern-record/#comment-1668157
014
Your links point to studies that are based on statistical models. Realistically, it is virtually impossible to get 99% probability of a prediction in a case as complex as climate science. One would have had to identified all of the components, measured them (not used parameterizations unless you can show 100% accuracy of the parameterization, in which case you would not need said parameterization) and input the proper values into a model that predicted with near perfection. Climate science cannot even come close to these requirements. The accuracy of a statistical model is determined by the lowest accuracy of inputs. While I have not read through all of your links (I will, however, as I am also interested in how statistics and methodology are being used and abused in climate science), in virtually all studies I have read on this supposed 99% or higher probability, the certainty is far overstated. Models were created with the idea that CO2 is the culprit in the warming and that alone makes them unlikely to yield certainty of 99% when discussing nature versus humans (who incidentally, are part of nature). Factually speaking, the certainty here seems extremely overstated. It will be interesting to see what the studies assumed.
90
Michael Whittmore,
You have way to go yet, and you’re safe at the moment because you don’t ask questions you just follow the meme blindly. You don’t even read the stuff you link to.
Your stuck in a position where most people start, but you have doggedly retained a belief in something that has failed the test of time and evidence and you’re still relying on someone elses opinion.
At least read the information you link to, try to understand and then if you can, try to put it in your own words to form a coherent argument.
But first ask yourself these questions:
1. Why do global warming believers become sceptics, but sceptics don’t become global warming believers?
2. Why don’t sceptics troll an alarminst site?
161
Sorry Whitteless, but you and Lovejoy are wrong. For a start, there is no “present” temperature rise. The temperature trend has remained flat since 1998 (at least).
There is no statistically significant difference between the warming rates of the late 1800’s, early 1900’s and between 1978 and 1998 (Professor Phil Jones, CRU, East Anglia).
No climate scientist will argue that the two earlier warming periods were anything but natural, thus there is no “signature” for CO2 “forcing” in the latter period.
1/4 of the total of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since The Industrial Revolution have occurred since 1998, yet the temperature trend has remained flat since 1998, thus falsifying the AGW/CO2 hypothesis of CO2 “forcing”. The effect is so small it cannot be measured.
Between 1940 and 1975 the planet cooled, despite anthropogenic CO2 emissions escalating, again falsifying the AGW/CO2 “forcing” hypothesis.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions today account for only 3% of the total of atmospheric CO2 emissions, the remaining 97% being natural emissions from the biosphere. What was the percentage 20 years ago… 40 years ago… 60 years ago? Far smaller. That 3% is well within the bounds of natural variation and it’s effect has not and cannot be measured.
We had a twenty year period of slight warming of only 0.3 degrees, hardly anything to be alarmed about, particularly considering that it has not continued as the crystal ball gazers have predicted – we are now missing at least 0.2 degrees of warming.
142
Quick, someone call for an ambulance. I’m dying from laughing…
… … gasp
. .
70
“can only be explained with CO2 forcing”
NO. It shows that its the only thing he considered. !!
Let’s no forget that the temperature series used has been specifically “adjusted” to flatten follow that shape.
Steven Goddard showed that the “adjustments” are an almost perfect correlation with the CO2 level.
Its no accident !!!
60
@Michael Whittemore
“And lets stick to the facts regarding all the replies to this comment..
Lovejoy, 2014a showed that the resent temperature rise is not natural (http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/esubmissions/Fig.5.temp.residuals.big.19.4.14.jpg) and can only be explained with CO2 forcing (http://oi62.tinypic.com/ixv2m8)
Lets focus on facts not feelings..”
So let us focus on real fact – for 18 years CO2 has keep rising, conversely temperatures have flatlined.
A ‘pause’, a ‘hiatus’ a… what ever you wish to call it but for 16 years there has been no global warming, no CO2 forcing.
80
Of course the warming alarmists now squark that “the missing heat” is hiding in the deep dark oceans.
They have a very serious problem with this unproven and never measured conjecture: CO2 “back radiation” cannot warm the oceans. Infra red radiation can only penetrate the skin of the ocean by a few microns. This skin is the evaporative layer and is in fact cooler than the water immediately below it due to that evaporation. The transfer of energy is from the sun to the oceans, from the oceans to the atmosphere.
Back radiation has a net cooling effect: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html
30
It’s like when Qatar won the football world cup.
It’s an open secret that they bribed everyone.
But can we actually “prove” there were bribes flying around left right and centre, goalie, back and forward, referee linesman and commentator?
No, not everyone got a bribe.
But it certainly definitely completely unequivocally wasn’t “cricket”. (A phrase invented ironically by the same academics who know fabricate global temperature data).
81
Pseudo Seriously
I’m very surprised that NASA hasn’t demanded that the year end change from December to June. Because what’s the point in fabricating statistics “proving” it’s the warmest year ever … in the middle of the coldest month when everyone is looking forward to a bit more warmth.
Which is presumably, why this has far more traction in the land of the kookaburra
101
Having lived in Melbourne (Aus) for longer than many and rugged up against the cold in the middle of our summer as I type this at 6.50 am, let me assure you that this is a pretty cool summer so far.
Heat waves in the good old days used to stretch for 5 or 6 days at around 105 F to 110 F. That was pretty useful beach weather. When we were kids we used to get a bit of melted asphalt on our shoes or bare feet on the warmer days. These days the weather youngsters on TV get excited about any plus 30 C days and if we get 2 of these coolish days in a row we are having a “heat wave”.
As an oldie who needs a bit of warming my optimum ambient operating temperature is around 40C. In my experience of late friends and relatives oldies seem to prefer doing their dying in the winter. Roll on GW.
71
I’m sitting here about to eat my breakfast in country Victoria. I’m wearing a nice warm dressing gown from John Lewis in England and I’m COLD!!! This is supposed to be high summer. We had a few days of heat recently but nothing out of the 30s so far and today isn’t forecast to reach 20C. Where’s the heater?
30
John Lewis is a paragon of customer service. If you let them know their dg isn’t living up to expectations I wouldn’t be surprised if they do something about it.
30
Ha! I don’t blame JLP . It was just so cold here early today. I’m still in a jumper (M and S as it happens!) and gilet and just warm enough at 1535.
10
The nino in, nino out spin is as you say it, it’s just spin to con us as ‘average temperature’ does not highlight a local area which is what nino is. Nino is part of what gives us the average. Are you confused? Record temperatures at any spot make hardly any difference to the global average.
40
This is NASA.
30
Yes. The NASA of Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt. The NASA whose GIStemp website uses Tokyo to explain UHI homogenization, and whose GISTemp overall does the exact opposite. The NASA who provably has been busily cooling the past so that they could manufacture this headline.
Details in essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke : essays on energy and climate.
50
One of the first things Obama did was to re-define NASA’s mission as outreach and technology transfer to the “Muslim nations”. So what else would you expect from NASA.
[So people know the detail of what this refers too, see the Telegraph . I don’t see “technology transfer” but it is about multicultural relations and PR, not science. – Jo
]
10
NASA………….Never A Straight Answer
100
Never A Series Adjusted 😉
10
“Never a straight answer”
Unless it pertains to funding. Then their answer is always straight: YES.
30
The sad part of it all is that the average person is subjected to this hyperbole, as was the case on SBS this evening, without any commentry to the effect that the data could be disputed by many people and organisations. How can the average person even form an opinion when all they hear is this one sided Goebellian propaganda? Just a continuing snow job at taxpayers expense. Think of the money wasted on the AGW hypothesis so far, and will be spent to cover-up it as the wheels fall off the bandwagon.
80
The ABC 7pm news was the same….not one tiny indication that anyone might have a contrary view.
90
The times, they are a changin’
SHOCK POLL: 57% Of Americans Say Global Warming Is Not A Threat
Furthermore, nearly half of Americans say global warming is caused by natural forces or isn’t a proven fact.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/15/shock-poll-57-of-americans-say-global-warming-is-not-a-threat/
100
PROGRESS!
40
As long as this 57% think it’s not a global threat because of the facts, and the evidence, and not for ideological reasons, otherwise we will be no better off…
40
Hottest year/years compared to what?
They took as their control the three decades from 1951 to 1980 which correct me if i’m wrong were relatively cool decades according to the historical record (unadjusted)but nevertheless a very narrow timeframe.
More parlor trick for the fans(believers)than actual science.
50
The BBC managed to trawl up an “Archbishop of Broadcasting” (I misheard – he was an archbishop andbroadcaster) who really fed the flames of this lie – it is not just the hottest on record, “evah”, but the hottest in 1,700 years, or even 5,000 years. Not a jot of evidence to back it up, of course, and no figures given (to be honest, 0.02°C does sound somewhat unimpressive) but, when you are broadcasting to so many sheeple, who needs evidence? Of course, the rise, despite ALL the evidence to the contrary (i.e. so far, all we have had are benefits), is going to bring Bad Things upon us.
I am not a statitisticianiser nor much of a mathematicianologist, but I do know that the end of a rising trend is likely to be the “highest recorded”. As the records only go back to the middle of the Little Ice Age, when global temperatures were dangerously (for humans) low, then there is a high probability that the temperatures of recent years are amongst the highest recorded. Quite why it should be a 1:27 million chance, as claimed by Mike “The Hockey Stick” Mann, I have no idea. It would be interesting to see the maths behind that claim!
70
And of course, ‘highest recorded’ goes something like this using figures from the Central England Temperature record:
1659: first reading ever: 8.83C average for the year.
1660: highest ever recorded 9.08C
1686: highest ever recorded 10.13
1733: highest ever recorded 10.47
1959: highest ever recorded 10.48
1989: highest ever recorded 10.50
1990: highest ever recorded 10.63
2006: highest ever recorded 10.82
2014: highest ever recorded 10.93
Isn’t amazing that our huge planet can regulate temperature this well? It’s interesting to think that after all these years of ‘highest ever recorded’ we’re all still here and not being fried!
And – I’ll say it again for the warmists – in 1750, we’re told that CO2 was 280ppm, now it’s 400. That’s a 43% rise of this trace gas, which is now 0.04% of the atmosphere.
CO2 is measured in dry samples, so the concentration in atmospheric water vapour is even less. Clear and present danger, anyone? I think not!
110
No, it’s only 30%.
31
Backslider: I’ve rechecked my figure, and I definitely make it 43%(rounded up from 44.857)
Here’s the calculation stepwise and my check on the result:
High value (400) minus low value (280) equals 120.
Divide 120 by the low value (280) which gives 0.428.
Round it off to 0.43 and multiply by 100 to give 43%.
Check this:
43% of 280 = 280 x 43% = 120 (rounded off from 120.4)
So 120 is 43% of 280, finally add 120 to 280 and we get 400.
00
Whoops! Typo: I meant rounded up from 42.857 (I’m not awake yet!)
10
Backslider: 30% of 400 is 120, yes – but it’s not the percentage increase from 280 up to 400, which is 43% as I’ve calculated.
10
It wasn’t Bishop Ussher by any chance?
30
So,NASA are jumping with glee,
Having found just a hundredth degree,
Of a temperature change,
In the data-set range,
For which they will charge a fat fee.
120
You surpasss yourself Ruairi…that’s excellent!
40
Trends since 2001, according to NASA.
The only place that appears to have any major +ve trend is the Arctic and West Antarctic (neither have many thermometers, btw)
So.. hands up all those living in those areas that wouldn’t yell out loud for a bit of warming !!!
(Jo, Perth seems to have a bit of warming trend.. can you see if Ken can check that ?)
30
ps.. It should also be noted that the warming trend is the Arctic appears to be in winter
The temperatures appear to have jumped from 243K to around 255K.
This warming makes it now a winter paradise !!!
50
Seriously, the more you dig into the “hottest ever” garbage, the more laughable it becomes !!! 🙂
60
The HadCRUT and GISTEMP sets dating back to 1850 and 1880 are IMO examples of overprecision or false precision which leads to overconfidence in accuracy which, in turn, to precision bias where “… an observer or assessor falls prey to precision bias when he or she believes that greater precision implies greater accuracy (i.e., that simply because a statement is precise, it is also true) …” (Wiki).
A general knowledge of modern history is enough to doubt the accuracy of a claimed global temperature record even back beyond the1940s to tenths of one degree C.
40
I missed your comment before querying Radical Rodent (comment 32) but it is relevant here.
Bishop Ussher spent 25 years examining ‘the records’ and with enormous precision set the date of the earth’s creation in 4004BC. He consulted over 10,000 manuscripts in many languages and went into great detail (there are references not only to Cleopatra but 6 other Cleopatras).
Admittedly his selection of October 23 was a bit of a guess (ripe fruits meant Autumn) but he didn’t claim 9 a.m. (that was Dr. Charles Lightfoot of Oxford University).
So enormous precision, backed by a university and received with wide public support. Who believes it now?
30
Thank you, Graeme No.3. I was a little perplexed by your response. However, one bit of good news is that I have found the origin (or, at least, an origin) of the silly 1:27million: http://m.phys.org/news/2015-01-figure-figuring-odds-earth-global.html. The flaw in the argument is in the final sentence:
Because it is NOT random; it is the end of a long, rising trend. The odds of 1 square metre of land in 100 square kilometres being the highest is a 100 million to one chance; the odds of 1 square metre at the top of a hill being higher than all around is 1:1 – a certainty.
m.phys.org (whomsoever you might be): big, big, BIG FAIL!
00
Hottest, Coldest and Wet as Well (SMH)
“The biggest standout was the warmth of the oceans,” said Blair Trewin, senior climatologist at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology.
“The year was pretty much warm everywhere.”
~ ~ ~
Not everywhere.
Oct, 2014 NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed (nasa.gov)
30
handjive
“The biggest standout was the warmth of the oceans,” said Blair Trewin, senior climatologist at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology.
“The year was pretty much warm everywhere.”
Of course that is because we’ve measured the temperature of all parts of all the oceans and major bodies of water everywhere haven’t we.
Well, haven’t we?
20
‘NOAA never stated specifically that 2014’s record high surface temperatures were a result of human-induced global warming, but they implied it…thus all the hoopla. NOAA has omitted key discussions within that report, which biases it toward human-induced global warming.
‘In other words, the NOAA State of the Climate report was misleading. NOAA has once again shown it is a political entity, not a scientific one. And that’s a damn shame. The public needs openness from NOAA about climate; we do not need to be misled by politically motivated misdirection and misinformation.’
Bob Tisdale
30
NOAA 2013:
Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
“The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean …
… scientists estimate the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. When analyzing temperature patterns at different depths of the ocean, scientists observed that deep ocean temperatures—measured more than a half-mile down from the surface—began to rise significantly around 2000, while shallower waters warmed more slowly.”
NASA 2014:
RELEASE 14-272
NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
. . .
97% certified Settled Science?
70
@AlboMP: Performing to the Warmist’s tune:-
Media conference as Acting Shadow Environment Minister this morning in #Marrickville to discuss latest NASA Reports on #climatechange
10
During 2014, I have skied, walked on a frozen lake and frozen sea in Japan, felt the temperature below -20C (with maximums of -4C), saw Tokyo under snow (its latitude is only 36 deg N) and walked in towns and villages, next to the sea, under snow up to 3 metres deep. Less than 3 months later, I flew to Jakarta, travelled across Java and ended at Kuta Beach in Bali (a near 1000km journey). The weather was hot and humid, up to 36C.
The 58C temperature difference betwen the two trips was (almost) irrelevant. I enjoyed both trips immensely, met lovely people, had plenty of excellent food, great accommodation and saw wonderful scenery.
So excuse me (to those alarmist and catastrophic AGWers) for not being too concerned whether 2014 global weather has cooled by a litte more than 0.1C over 4 or 17 years or, warmed 0.3C (or little more) over 6, 15 or 16 years; depending how you view the bar graph, with a +/- 0.1C accuracy..
We are an adaptable, inquisitive and resilient species. Should global warming become a problem , I am sure we will solve it. But for now (since the end of the little ice age), global temperature changes are within global Holocene period variability.
40
Absolutely right. But, the average Green Warmist finds all these attributes to be unacceptable.
40
“The Art of Lying By Omission”.
There is no greater lie than half the truth when used for the purpose of deception.
30
Used car salesman, “This is a fantastic car, owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays. The engine is like new and its only done 21,000 km”.(It was also driven by her son who flogged it to death during week days. A new engine and mileage counter were installed 2 months ago and this is recorded in the papers attached to the back of the car’s service record for anyone who reads the record in detail).
NASA/NOAA spokesman, “This has been the hottest year ever” (NASA/NOAA weren’t sure about this as the figures were scientifically inconclusive but they have put a note in the substance of the report to clarify their approach for anyone who reads the report in detail).
20
[…] Våra etablissemangsmedia har nu lydigt och okritiskt trumpetat ut NOAAs och NASAs gemensamma pressmeddelande att 2014 var rekordvarmt. Visserligen går det inte att skilja 2014 från 2005 eller 2010 på grund av felmarginaler i mätningar och beräkningar. Och visserligen har två satellitmätningar (se här och här) kommit till helt andra slutsatser. Och visserligen så gör de ytterst små förändringar som det handlar om ingen skillnad för den utplaning/platå/paus/hiatus som den globala temperaturen har haft i 18 år. (Se vidare om NOAAs och NASAs vilseledande pressmeddelande här) […]
00
The situation for warmists is dire. Since they fundamentally believe rising CO2 causes rising temperatures, and CO2 continues to rise, temperatures cannot be seen to decrease. They can talk around a plateau, calling it a “pause”, but they absolutely must prevent a decline. First they got rid of the high temperatures in the 1930s, then 1998 went, now 2014 is the new record. Yet future years must surpass this last one, in order to hide a decline. Future cooling is not an option.
10
For a perfect example of just how mathematically illiterate media people are, this headline: “We may never have another coldest year in history” found on the Salon website, Nov 29, 2014.
The will never be another coldest year? That’s mathematically impossible. Even if the globe warms and all the ice caps melt, there will still be another coldest year. According to the article, 1909 was the very last coldest year we will ever have—yet there will always be a coldest year. The ignorance in the headline is astounding. (I’d give them the doubt of the matter and say they don’t understand grammer and superlatives, but that seems highly unlikely.)
10
I am so disappointed there has been a “pause” in the warming.
.
I had been enjoying the extra CO2 greening the planet and the slight warming since I was born in the 1950s.
.
The increase of CO2 is still there, so that’s good news, but I WANT MY WARMING TO CONTINUE.
.
It’s very expensive to buy a second home down south in Florida for the winters and I can’t afford it.
.
So the warming here in Michigan (never mind that my water meter froze and cracked in February 2014, costing me $300) gave me hope that a winter home in Florida wouldn’t be needed as my body aged, and various body parts could no longer tolerate the cold.
.
I blame this “pause” entirely on Al Gore.
.
When he was out there in the public inventing the internet, making movies and winning Nobel Prizes the temperature was rising.
.
Now that Gore is fat, very rich, and very quiet, the climate has stopped warming.
.
This is scientific proof that without large emissions of Al Gore’s hot air, our planet is no longer warming.
.
And I’m not happy about that.
.
When I go out and walk in the cold weather and my knees hurt … well … I feel that I am a climate change victim of the “pause” in global warming and deserve some kind of financial compensation for my pain and suffering.
.
This month I told my knees 2014 was the hottest year ever, but they don’t agree.
.
They won’t even talk to me anymore — not since the “pause” began about a dozen years ago.
.
Anyone who studies anomaly charts of tiny random variations, of very rough measurements of the average temperature, over short periods of time relative to Earth’s 4.5 billion year life, and then makes ultra-confident predictions of life ending as we know it from climate change, must have a good sense of humor.
.
That’s why for 2015 I will try to bring some humor into the tedious and serious climate debate.
.
Meanwhile, I am trying to figure out why governments pay people with science degrees to play computer games all year, when everyone “knows” the science is settled, so why do the taxpayers need any climate scientists on the payroll?
.
11
“but I WANT MY WARMING TO CONTINUE”
Sorry Richard, I wish there was some way we could help you.
UNFORTUNATELY, our main external energy supply source is having a bit of a snooze for the next half century or more. 🙁
10