More “Hottest Year Evah” Nonsense
By Paul Homewood
This is just one in a long line of propaganda which tries to persuade us the Earth is burning up.
Needless to say, the claim is based on highly controversial surface datasets, which are affected by UHI and poor siting, have been heavily adjusted, and have extremely patchy data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/
In reality, there is little or no data coverage for most of the world. Instead, temperature trends are simply made up for large areas, particularly the supposedly fast warming regions like the Arctic.
Of course, we don’t have to rely on such unreliable data, as we have satellites to give us to give us a much more accurate and comprehensive measurement of atmospheric temperature.
As even NOAA themselves are forced to admit, temperatures so far this year are running close to those at the same stage in 1998.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/
It was only back in February that the Met Office claimed that surface data records were “corroborated by records of temperatures in the troposphere recorded by satellites”:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-records
They don’t appear worried now that they are “not corroborated”.
The Pause
The pause in global temperatures since 1998 has led to much perplexity and discussion amongst climate scientists.
For instance, the Met Office published a report, “The recent pause in global warming: What are the potential causes? “, as recently as July 2013. The Executive Summary alone mentioned the word “pause” eleven times.
The only thing that has happened since then is that we have experienced arguably the strongest El Nino on record, which has inevitably led to a spike in temperatures.
Yet now we are expected to believe that the pause never existed and that temperatures have been steadily marching upwards since 1998.
ENSO
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
The real story behind temperature trends since 1979, the start of the satellite era, concerns the changing pattern of ENSO, the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, described by NOAA as the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on interannual time scales.
El Ninos and La Ninas are widely accepted as being purely natural climatic phenomena. They tend to run in cycles, which NOAA have managed to track back to 1870.
One such El Nino dominated period was from the mid 1920s to mid 1940s.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/index.html
Since 1976, we have been in a period dominated by strong El Ninos. Not only do these cause temperatures to spike, they also leave residual heat in the system for sometime.
If the past is any guide, eventually we will return to a period dominated by La Ninas, which will push temperatures back down below average.
Oceans have a dominant role in the Earth’s climate system, but its mechanisms are still poorly understood.
Yet for some reason, climate scientists prefer to ignore this fact, and insist that CO2 is the only driver that matters.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
In terms of agw what matters is not so much whether it is warming but whether warming can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2845972
I would go as far to say not even that. Is the warming worse for the planet than the
mitigation measures we are trying to implement such as cap & trade?. What are
the real risks of doing nothing versus depressing economic growth and development.
I get annoyed when the MSM, particularly those special snowflakes at the guardian, talk
about mitigation as if it has no cost whatsoever.
Never mind the astronomical costs, the is too much CO2 to hide somewhere.
Jon A What is seldom questioned is whether the ‘mitigation measures’ will mitigate anything than UN funding poverty. Demonstrating that seems nonexistent.
Reblogged this on Jaffer's blog.
Tom Chivers is one of the vanquished from the former newspaper known as the Daily Telegraph. Back then he was an ardent supporter of alarmism and regularly ventured BTL where he took many a pasting from readers. (No wonder they ditched reader comments) Clearly he still hasn’t broadened his opinions or educated himself on the truth of climate change data-tampering.
Agreed. Chivers was a painful read at the old DT (when it was still generally speaking a passable paper) and starts and finishes his climate pieces with the argument from authority and precious little else in between.
Since then the Telegraph has become much worse, and Chivers has got no better.
Please recall that the ENSO is made up of three parts… (1) A warming El-Nino, (2) a cooling La-Nina and (3) the “normal” El-Nada. The sum of all this adds up to zero. As shown, there are UP periods and DOWN periods. A linear trend through the monthly values during the 20th century is essentially flat. Clearly, our added CO2 has not had any effect on this natural variation.
If you ignore the primary question of is any change in climate natural or anthropogenic, just making a cost benefit analysis shows that adaption is cheaper than trying to hold back the seas as it were. The Stern report that purports to show that doing nothing until necessary would be too costly was rubbished by Richard Tol. And if you have read The Deniers you will know that Richard Tol believes in AGW – it’s just that he hated to see economic BS being passed off as fact. He believes those working in other areas are true, honest and competent so if they say it is real it must be. The Deniers goes on to show that in every field there is an eminent person showing the AGW crowd are wrong. The AGW crowd are revealed as a small bunch who have achieved nothing of note or benefit.
Guru, James Hansen has just said that climate mitigation is “wishful thinking”. His replacement at GISS has been quoted as saying “we won’t ever see a month below 400 ppm”. Maybe reality has crept in?
The Stern Report was used as the justification for the UK’s subsequent climate policies Just as the IPCC’s reports were used to drive UN policy. Missile of Mass Destruction dodgy dossier was used to justify Iraq and Climategate was whitewashed by similar appeals to authority. It’s now become standard fare.
1. Commission an ‘authoritative’, ‘extensive’ and most of all ‘independent’ report by an eminent-sounding author.
2. The report concludes that action is needed and recommends policies that its instigators wanted it to recommend – so they could enact them, all along.
3. Policy is enacted and defended on the back of the ‘independent’ report.
The whole climate change industry has been built on lies from the start.
‘Missile’ of mass destruction? WTF?! Weapons, dear boy, weapons.
Climate alarmists – trying to make mountains out of molehills since 1988.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html
Reblogged this on Climatism.
I live in Arizona, USA, and I, like everyone else, keep hearing hottest ever, etc. I look at the temperatures, and especially the “daily average” temperatures and can plainly see that the increase in “average temperature” comes from higher night time temperatures, not daytime highs. In fact, day time highs are lower than they used to be, but the “average daily temperature” goes up.
In a state where summer highs can be in the 120 F range, seeing day time temperatures dropping to near 115 F doesn’t seem overly impressive when we talk of rising temperatures. However, the night time used to drop down to mid 70s and now hover in the low 80s, so the “average” temperature has increased, the A/C use has increased, and it all can easily be considered “manmade” since the increase night time temperatures can be tied to increased concrete and asphalt. I rather suspect most of “global average temperature” increases come from more buildings and less trees – not that we necessarily have a lot of trees to start with in AZ.
Since average day time highs haven’t really risen, and number of new record highs are generally confined to high population growth areas, it really would seem to me to be obvious to anyone looking that we are not experiencing “global warming” of any type, and that as day time highs continue to trend down, the night time temperatures will not be able to continue to hide the cooling trend, and the pause will turn into a real concern for those people with little financial support as heating becomes the greater issue.
Tom O Well north of you, the heat island effect tends to show up in population centers as a routine effect of a few degrees. Even radiated heat from housing must contribute to that. I have always considered AGW in terms such as energy tax, regardless of the whirlagig of catastrophic prophecy. The position papers for government are just that – having little to nothing to do with science – and a cause for rewriting the ‘scientific analysis’ if it strays too far from designated parameters of what is to be determined as our future. Rebuttal being impossible as much as measuring that which has not happened, the con goes on.. This plan allows the price to be raised at a time when the correlation to lack of sunspots suggests a cooling cycle. What if one cycle was piled on others ? Monopolists would gasp at the windfall – whlle many freeze. http://www.pravdareport.com/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-0/
Guys. In terms of climate science, I’m a simpleton. Can anyone help me with this as I’m having a running battle with some Muppets on the Guardian website. I know, sad.
One of my contentions is simple. If CO2 causes temperatures to increase, (as is widely accepted, seemingly by everyone but me) then if we were to follow Hansen’s advice and sequester atmospheric CO2 (if it were possible without bankrupting the world) temperatures would necessarily drop in proportion to the amount of CO2 we take from the atmosphere. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable statement.
Now being that plant’s die off around 150ppm of atmospheric CO2, we only have 250ppm to play with, so if Hansen could reverse the 2ppm humans contribute to the atmosphere every year and sequester another 2ppm (thereby reducing CO2 by 2ppm) it would only take 125 years until we reached ground zero, or 150ppm.
So we not only kill off all the plants and starve, we freeze as well?
Does any of that make sense to anyone?
And is there any conclusive proof that CO2 drives temperatures?
Don’t worry. you’ll be banned soon. Komment Macht Frei is the Guardian blog motto.
“ we freeze as well
Drop this last part and you did well.
Water vapor is the main “green house gas” …
[Note, I hate this ghg phrase because it is so utterly wrong.]
… so the physics involved would not change, nor would the temperature change by any noticeable amount. Some claim CO2 doublings (or halfings) might change the temperature somewhere between zero and two degrees C.
(The 150 ppm number is approximate because plants differ. Info here: http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php )
“And is there any conclusive proof that CO2 drives temperatures?”
As I would define “drives”: No.
Does atmospheric CO2 do anything regarding temperature? I suggest reading some of the posts of Dr. Roy Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
The proper term is “atmospheric gases” as found in my plant physiology text book from the mid-1960’s.
I tell folks that the only “greenhouse gases” are to be found with the confines of a greenhouse.
The term “greenhouse gases” was “invented” to sound un-natural and thus very bad.
You just know something is wrong when an internet search for ‘2016 the hottest year?’ reveals only the outpouring of the green propagandists. And it does no better if the search is altered to
‘2016 not the hottest year?’
“The Ministry of Truth is pleased Winston, very pleased!”
“Corollation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming” an analysis of geothermal
ENSO forcing by Dr Arthur Viterito at Principia Scientific International.
Hottest year ever not confirmed in New Zealand…
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/weather-severe-snow-watch-across-east-coast-2016101421
Tom O’s comment really makes so much sense. I read a while back that Santa Ana, CA temperatures had risen by “X” amount. Duh. It used to be the Newport Back Bay and orange groves, now it’s concrete, high rises, and asphalt.
I recently saw Leo DiCaprio’s global warming documentary – well I tried to watch it…The PM of India totally dissed him and the west by reminding us that we have already had our industrial revolution….flipped us the bird and moved on. We can’t expect those countries to “go green” when we can’t figure it out. But we can help them with technology like scrubbers for coal, combination cycle gas plants, even nuke…..Doh!
Musk is a huge proponent of cap and trade because he will profit from it – claiming battery storage like what we need is just around the corner. Let’s round the corner first before killing our economy thank you very much.
But then again, I could be wrong….
The problem, for many of us who seek to challenge the thesis that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, is that the temperature trends continue to show continuous warming, even if the rate of warming is far below that projected on the basis of the IPCC models. Attributing the warming to the cumulative effects of the El Nino’s rather than to rising CO2 concentrations would be far more persuasive if we had a La Nina of sufficient strength to actually reduce global average temperatures. That would really set the cat among the CAGW pigeons. Until that happens, we who challenge the catastrophe thesis are left having to make the case that the costs of mitigation as now proposed vastly exceed the benefits. This is true, but it is a more complex argument. If the new Trump Administration can throw a spanner in the UNIPCC works for four or five years, we might see temperatures that would kill this nonsense for good.