On the ludicrous '90 Second News' on BBC1 there was an item about the
hot weather, concluding with the words "Experts fear that these
temperatures indicate that climate change is reaching crisis point."
Yes when it's cold they say, "Climate and weather are two different things."
Buried away on Today, someone pointed out this morning that this June
was the hottest on average since records began, and averaged 1.8C warmer
than pre-industrial average temperatures.
Do you remember the ice age that was on the way when we had all those
cold Winters in the 1960s? Apparently that was one of the early signs of
global warming. :-/
Well its in between. we had the Roman warm period, and the mediaeval
warm period, with colder climate in between, and are now in a modern
And before that the Holocene optimum.
3-400 years seems to be a cycle time, although it's not periodic as such.
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:57:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
It's typical climate alarmist spin. While it's true that June was the
hottest June on record, globally, according to NOAA data (the Hadley
Centre and the Climate Research Group at U. of East Anglia, HadCRUT
haven't reported their June result yet), and it's also true that the
last 16 months have been the hottest on record, it glibly ignores, or
at best plays down the fact that we're just coming out of a
particularly strong El Nino effect. The following table, showing the
warmest 16 months, is taken from the NOAA data at
Date Deviation from 1901-2000 average, °C
1998 Feb 0.8632
2015 Aug 0.8714
2015 Jun 0.875
2016 May 0.8768
2015 Feb 0.8799
2007 Jan 0.8826
2015 Mar 0.8953
2016 Jun 0.8987
2015 Sep 0.9196
2015 Nov 0.9637
2015 Oct 0.9896
2016 Jan 1.046
2016 Apr 1.0802
2015 Dec 1.1189
2016 Feb 1.1963
2016 Mar 1.2203
I've graphed the NOAA global climate temperature data here:
Click on the image to enlarge it.
You can see that for most of this century, temperatures are flat and
bump along at around 0.7 °C above the 1901-2000 average, but they
start to increase from early in 2015, reaching a peak in February this
year corresponding to the maximum in El Niño, and are now beginning to
fall sharply as El Niño subsides. It's hardly surprising that an El
Niño peak superimposed on an existing temperature plateau gives the
highest temperatures ever recorded, but this has nothing to do with
the theory that global warming is continuing or that it's due to
anthropogenic CO2. As La Niña kicks in, and temperatures actually go
below the plateau for a while, there will be silence from the climate
Note that there were equally strong El Niño events in 1972, 1983, and
1997/8, the last being responsible for the high global temperature for
February of that year, the first entry in the table above.
AFAIK, climatologists have no explanation for El Niño events, which
casts doubt, at least in my mind, that they understand or have a valid
explanation for the global warming over the period 1975 - 2000 either,
or the flattening off since then.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:43:29 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
Which is why I said 'or at best plays down the fact that we're just
coming out of a particularly strong El Nino effect'. I saw the BBC
news item too, and the implication was very much that what we're
seeing ATM was evidence for on-going global warming, rather than
simply being due to a strong El Niño. It annoyed me, and prompted me
to go into the NOAA site to get the actual data and make my own
judgement. I normally use HadCRUT, but it doesn't yet include June's
I'm not suggesting the BBC is actually at fault, let alone lying,
because they just repeat what they're fed by the climatologists, and
as has been said here often enough, when it comes to getting technical
stuff correct, media reporters are clueless. So they can't really be
Well ... or can they? I used to expect better from the BBC.
If they were to abandon their constant-news-feed model, by which they
breathlessly report anything that seems like it might cause a ripple (or
better still: a tidal wave) to attract the attention of the public, then
they might give themselves chance to appraise and evaluate news before
reporting it to us.
We're in a phase of the media whereby the reporters/correspondents/news
readers / editors/ producers all consider themselves more important than
what they're reporting (but darling; I have a *career* to think of!).
Bring back Kenneth Kendall - that's what I say.
They should have a top-left-hand-corner flag on every news item,
coloured like the Met Office Weather Warnings, signifying "rock solid"
through to "shaky, but it's tasty".
They don't, all of it is based on mathematical models that are tweaked
to account for observations and then run into the future to predict results.
The trouble is that when they first started to model it they got
alarming results which they now have to have when they change the model
or the model is considered broken.
The earlier models failed to predict the future correctly for the last
few years but the alarmist results are still valid for some reason.
Yes. Models don't *tell* you anything. They make predictions, and
whether those predictions are worth a damn depends on the assumptions
the models make, whether the modellers have set up the boundary
conditions correctly, whether everything relevant is part of the model,
how good the data is that is input to the model, and I expect other
We're never told whether any of the above conditions are met or indeed
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
Primarily the Beer-Lambert law applied to the atmosphere. It's pretty
simple in its basic form and has been around since the early 1700's,
but only in the last half century or so has it been applied to the
atmosphere. http://tinyurl.com/zlc52be It's basically very simple, but
the exponent contains many terms that are difficult to measure
accurately and are subject to wide uncertainty and debate.
It all looked so good in the early days, when the 'hockey stick' curve
actually fitted the results, particularly for the period 1975 - 2000.
But even then, they had to postulate positive feedback, aka a forcing
factor, to get the curve to fit the data and implicate CO2. Without
feedback, CO2 on its own could not account for the degree of warming
observed (this is not disputed and is accepted on both sides of the
But then it all went awry, but climatologists are reluctant to abandon
the theory, despite its failure, because it worked at one time and
they're desperately clinging on to it.
The acid test of any theory is that the results it predicts should
match the observations, which ATM they don't. Climatologists are
getting increasingly desperate and thrashing around wildly, invoking
this or that new factor or discovery to convince themselves the theory
is still valid. Straw and drowning man are words that come to mind.
And I remember, some years ago, reading in a well-established
publication the research that revealed that each ice age had been
preceded by a period of 150-250 years (pretty short in geological terms)
of abnormally high temperatures. Magnus might still be proved right.
I have also never heard anyone panicking about climate change explain
why the Vikings could colonise their newly discovered "Green land" while
temperatures were a lot higher than we are seeing now, without sparking
the runaway climate disaster that they are now predicting.
The climate has never been constant in the past, so why should anyone be
trying to treat it as such now?
Just because trees fall over in the forest on their own doesn't mean
lumberjacks don't exist. The current rate of change is way beyond anything
seen in the climate records including all the warning periods.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.