From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The likelihood of crossing a key global warming threshold has risen significantly, according to a new analysis.
UK Met Office researchers say that there’s now around a fifty-fifty chance that the world will warm by more than 1.5C over the next five years.
Such a rise would be temporary, but researchers are concerned about the overall direction of temperatures.
It’s almost certain that 2022-2026 will see a record warmest year, they say.
The Met Office is the UK’s national meteorological service.
As levels of warming gases in the atmosphere have accrued rapidly over the past three decades, global temperatures have responded by rising in step.
In 2015, the world’s average temperature first went 1C above the pre-industrial levels, which are generally thought of as the temperatures recorded in the middle of the 19th century.
For a start, the world won’t “warm by more than 1.5C over the next five years”, as the absurd Matt McGrath writes. If he really believes that, he should get another job.
Secondly, why the obsession with temperatures during the 19thC, when the Little Ice Age was still in full swing? There is nothing we can do to lower temperatures back to that level, and nobody in their right mind would want to.
We are where we are, and what we should be concentrating on is what happens in future. But if we do that, of course, the numbers look much less scary.
According to the satellites, the most reliable source, global temperature anomalies have fluctuated between around –0.4C and 0.7C in the last forty years. The exception was in the years following the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991), which depressed temperatures.
These fluctuations are driven by mainly by ENSO changes. The record El Nino in 2015/16 led to temperatures about 0.1C higher than in 1998.:
For the Met Office projection to come true, we would need another massive, record breaking El Nino, which is extremely unlikely, given that the oceans lost so much heat in 2015/16. But even then it would maybe only be hundredths of a degree warmer than 2016.
The reality, unlike the BBC’s vision of apocalypse, is that any changes to the Earth’s climate are tiny, and would be unnoticeable if the media was not constantly banging on about it.
Measured temperatures = Natural Temperature + Man Made Temperature + Measurement error.
We are told the measurement error is so small.
So why present only one graph? Where’s the graph of Natural Temperature or Man Made Temperatures?
I’ll tell you what the problem is. If the presented the Man Made Temperature graph, you get out what the Natural Temperature graph is. What you will see is that natural change has flat lined because they claim all temperate change is now man made.
So they hide it.
Yes. There has always been natural climate change and in effect to deny it is incredible.
And many natural fluctuations of temperature are on the order of 0.6 to 0.8 over a couple of years or even 1C in some cases, e.g., 1998 to 2000.
A 1 or even 1.5C trend over a hundred years is not much, just net one or two more positive spikes than negative spikes.
The average global temperature (reconstruction) for 1814 was 7.7C and today it is around 13.9C. Given that the early 1800’s were within an abnormally cold period (the Little Ice Age) and we are still in a pleasant, warm phase of the modern warm period, I think it’s likely that when this pleasant warm phase finishes, temperatures will likely drop to a global average somewhere around 10-11C. That’s assuming we aren’t about to head into another minimum and things will get colder still.
A temperature change of 1.5 °C is insignificantly small. If the temperature changed by 1.5 °C over the time it takes a person to read the above article, the average person would not be able to detect that change occurred.
With comments like this, you need to state at the very outset –
“check the temperature now before you read this”
Then continue with the body of your comment.
Otherwise your comment is like one of those recipes that you start preparing for tonight’s dinner, and right at the very bottom (usually over the next page), it says –
The “man made” temperature is unknown.
Originally climate science was this very sophisticated new young science that only the deeply cerebral initiates could understand. If the uninitated majority mentioned weather we were mocked because we did not realise that weather events are not climate.
Now it’s all terrible weather events and we are mocked for assuming weather is not climate.
They really hate it that our memories are longer than 5 minutes.
As the 1.5ºC is a meaningless number picked out of thin air by an alarmist prat, looking for a virtue-seeking propaganda point, and has absolutely zero scientific relevance.
All I can say is… So What !
A booster in the deltoid for you with that attitude.
When you’re getting medium-term predictions trashed so often and longer-term “warming” so totally inaccurate, the Met (just look out the window) don’t have much to lose by sticking another pin the calendar for the next 4 years. If it’s wrong – no consequences, if they are right – activists will luv them. No science in it – just pure politics.
They haven’t been right so far so I see no reason why that would change now. They have spent millions upgrading their computers so it’s one of the best ideological prediction systems around. Unfortunately it’s bugger all good for real world forecasts.
Haven’t you noticed that this irrevocable, doomsday tipping point used to be 3°C. But when reality didn’t keep pace, this irrevocable, doomsday tipping point became 2°C. Now it’s been lowered to 1.5°C. Very soon, like the Red Queen in “Alice Through the Looking Glass”, we will have to make continual, strenuous efforts just to stand still or else we’ll breach the 0°C limit.
You’re right, again.
And the Catastrophists [very carefully] don’t explain that this is a warming of 0.x°C above the Little Ice Age.
And haven’t we here, at WUWT, all seen how that was – politely – a snappingly unpleasant period?
Because that would – ‘huzzah’- lead to a reduction in human populations. A feature, not a bug, they think.
Misanthropes to a person are our watermelon co-speciesists!
A “1.5C warming limit”? Limit? What limit?
“Global Temperature” is also a meaningless number. And “Global TmperatureS” is even more meaningless when the graphs only show one line.
“According to the satellites, the most reliable source, global temperature anomalies have fluctuated between around –0.4C and 0.7C in the last forty years.”
The aren’t the most reliable source of surface temperatures; in fact, they aren’t a source at all.
But they aren’t a reliable source of anything much. Here is a plot of RSS, UAHV6 and UAHV5.6, all lower troposphere. RSS fluctuates between about -0.4C and 1.2C.
But, I’ll be told, RSS is in the pay of Big Wind, or something. So I’ve shown the previous version of UAH, V5.6. It’s probably closer to current RSS than to current UAH, V6.
All while CO2 rises higher and higher.
Derg, notice how Nick uses the Michael E. Mann trick of subtly changing the statement of his opponent to attack a straw man. Here he changes atmospheric anomalies to a discussion of surface temperatures. One must be aware of that alarmist tactic when attempting a discussion with Nick and others.
“Here he changes atmospheric anomalies to a discussion of surface temperatures. “
No, the switch is Homewood’s. When people talk of global temperature, and 1.5°C, they mean surface temperature. It’s where we live. WUWT articles often switch to lower troposphere, because they think it tells a better story.
As I pointed out here, the fundamental objection is that, whatever its reliability, it isn’t surface temperature. But the reliability clearly fails too, and the case is very weak when the two groups measuring TLT get such different (and time-varying) conclusions.
“But, I’ll be told, RSS is in the pay of Big Wind, or something”
You obviously know already.
Certainly the guy running it is a rabid alarmist…
Did you know he uses “climate models” to “ADJUST” his fabrication !
“The aren’t the most reliable source of surface temperatures”
Trend in UAH is far more reliable that the huge number of urban affected stations and all the manic AGW adjustment/homogenisations used in the surface station not-data.
I note that both RSS and UAH make one-time changes to a new version only after publishing studies to back up any changes. Compare that to the various keepers of surface temperatures ongoing practices of making changes to actual individual records using ad hoc methods on the fly.
By how many degrees C should two of these measurements be different, to enable one to state they are significantly different and not just within a shared noise envelope?
My opinion is that the should be separated by +/- 0.8 deg C, 2 sigma, assuming for now the usual treatment for normally distributed data.
What is your figure?
Would the real Mister Squiggle please stand up?
The brains trust hard at work at Climastrology Central-
Mr Squiggle – YouTube
Right now they’ve all been co-opted into responding to 2000 Mules.
“What is your figure?”
As you’ll gather, I think satellite measures are pretty unreliable.
But that means there isn’t any point in quoting UAH V6 to prove some low level of temperature variation, if random change could have meant a much higher level.
Think what you want, Nick, but I think making ad hoc changes to surface temperature data on the fly is inherently more unreliable. The original justification of going to satellite measurements of global temperatures was to make such estimates more reliable.
What IS your figure, Nick?
How far apart should 2 values be, to be ‘statistically different”, for the UAH data as a start, then for any other series including your own, that you select,
Really, it is so fundamental to have a figure for this, to place in proper context announcements that claim something like “this is the highest (optionally lowest) temperature since Year NNNN (optionally Month or Day) by 0.XYZ degrees C (optionally F or K).
What is your figure, Nick?
When you’re talking about “global temperature”, reliable is irrelevant, since it’s a fake number that has no physical meaning.
And here I thought cherry season was not for another couple of months.
Notice Nick did not show changes to the various estimates of surface temperatures made by the different groups. It is fascinating to realize that all of the groups making the different surface and atmospheric temperature estimates use the same basic datasets in their manipulation of separate surface and atmospheric data.
Fake is fake.
We all already know you are an expert in the field of deliberate deception:
Systematic Destruction Of The Temperature Record Since 2000 | Real Climate Science
Well, I do what I think loud sceptics should do – I calculate my own GAT using unadjusted (raw) data. It makes little difference. Each month I use that data (eg here) to calculate the new month’s data, at least a week before the majors. I have posted that for ten years. And each month GISS, when it comes out, is virtually the same.
Using the same fundamentally unreliable and adjusted data doesn’t imply that agreement between the two results proves the accuracy of either.
No, I use unadjusted data. It makes very little difference.
It makes little difference because averages. That’s why GAT is meaningless.
And I’m going to “cherry-pick” a graphic showing how “the previous version” of RSS, V3.3, is “probably closer to” UAH V6 than it was to UAH V5.6 …
One way of comparing “Old vs. New” versions of both RSS and UAH (lower troposphere) datasets …
“And I’m going to “cherry-pick” a graphic showing how “the previous version” of RSS, V3.3, is “probably closer to” UAH V6 than it was to UAH V5.6 …”
Yes. As I noted here, UAH and RSS basically swapped places.
It doesn’t affirm that satellites are “the most reliable source” of global temperature, though.
You may have used other words to say the equivalent elsewhere (though I can’t see them at first glance), but a quick “Ctrl-f (Find in page …)” check in my browser revealed that the only instances of either of the strings “swapped” or “places” appears in the comment I am responding to.
Your OP ended with : “So I’ve shown the previous version of UAH, V5.6. It’s probably closer to current RSS than to current UAH, V6.”
I noted (mentally) : “Errrrrrrrrm … where’s RSS V3.3 in that ? … didn’t I do a comparison of all four options when looking for ‘longest trends’ a year or three ago ? …”
NB : UAH V5.6 was last updated to July 2017, RSS V3.3 updates ended after October 2018.
Please explain how “the previous version of UAH, V5.6 [is] probably closer to current RSS than to current UAH, V6” is the exact equivalent of “UAH and RSS basically swapped places”.
***I*** never made such an affirmation, the quote from the ATL article you started your OP with did.
One issue is the fact that you have failed to define what you have in mind when you hear the term “global temperature” used by someone else.
Your response in your OP starts with “The[y] aren’t the most reliable source of surface temperatures“, which would tend to imply that your interpretation is :
… though that may well be an incorrect inference on my part.
To anyone who assumes “Global temperature = GMST”, saying “[Satellite MSU datasets] aren’t the most reliable source of surface temperatures; in fact, they aren’t a source at all.” is actually a perfectly reasonable reaction.
Continuing, however, with “But they aren’t a reliable source of anything much” is a sign of hubris … well, it is in my opinion, at least.
It is you (implicitly) declaring : “Anyone who dares to think about an issue, any issue, in a way even slightly differently that I do is clearly either incredibly stupid or a shill”.
Writing in a way that results in people drawing that inference, whether that was your intention or not, will result in some of those people reacting badly to your “lofty pronouncements / declarations with no supporting evidence“.
Responding to queries by “interested amateurs” (such as myself) with URLs to your personal “working files / spreadsheets”, on the other hand, will get you a lot of “respect / kudos”.
NB : Compare the (net) number of down-votes your OP has (-16 ?) versus the two (at the time of posting) up-votes you got for the post I am responding to …
The “attitude” that you wish to project in each of your individual posts is a decision that only you can make … at the time of posting, which may well occur on a “Bad Hair Day”, as it can for anyone here (on the Internet, not just WUWT).
Human nature being what it is though, any sign of “lofty-declaration-ism” will be extrapolated by some readers way beyond whatever your actual initial intentions were, in some cases even further than my “parody / caricature” version above.
I think you are over-analysing here. But
“but a quick “Ctrl-f (Find in page …)””
sorry, my “here” was meant to carry a link (which didn’t show) to this page:
where this plot shows the swap:
The RSS are reddish, the UAH blue.
It is possible that I saw that post (or a copy of it on another website ?) four years ago and have completely forgotten about it since.
That would help to explain the colour scheme I “automatically” chose for my (second) spreadsheet above …
Argh the madness is in full tilt
“Much of the UK press is breathlessly reporting the nation is set for the ‘hottest summer ever’ with ‘at least five heatwaves’ on the horizon.
The Met Office’s three-month weather outlook is more conservative, with forecasters predicting a “40% chance” this summer “will be significantly hotter than average” and just a 10% probability that temperatures will be cooler.“
5 heat waves? I can’t wait!
Heat wave in the UK is more than 2 days in a row without rain, isn’t it….
no wait.. that is a drought !
The metric is this: summer is three hot days and a thunderstorm.
Anything more is a bonus.
PS – don’t try to emulate griff…
But what makes a Hot Day? 20c…25c??? Or is it rather a Non-Gray day.
It’s any day you can take your coat off, that’s what!
You mean the UK will get above 80 ℉ 5 times this summer?
Here are some graphs of Australian heatwaves. Those that last for 3 consecutive days can average over 40 degrees C. How would the English like that?
The ones analysed here for 6 cities generally do not shower hotter multi-day heatwaves that are rising with the alleged general temperature rise from global warming. In Aust, they seem to be subject to mechanisms that are not easily linked to global warming. So, I do not know what the Met Office UK use for projections.
Also if you look closely at the UAH record, just about all the warming occurs in two narrow steps, each of which corresponds to a super El Nino. So there are basically three flat periods, each a little warmer than its predecessor. An El Niño does put energy into the air so a bit just has to stay to create the step.
The big thing is there is no GHG warming in this two step picture. None. So the warming certainly is not “in step” with the CO2 increase.
Glad someone else finally noticed 🙂
The warmer water from an El Nino also spreads out quite a bit, and takes a while to dissipate.
Look at the effect of the 2015 El Nino in the Arctic.
No warming this century, then a spike, then gradual cooling, now nearly back down to where it was in 2000
Or maybe El Nino is just another effect. The AMO changed to its warm phase from 1995-97 and the PDO changed to its warm phase in 2014. Both of these phase changes occurred with a related change in clouds leading to increased solar energy reaching the surface.
“there is no GHG warming in this two step picture. None.”
False. False. False. False. False. False. False. False. False. False. False. False.
But what else is new. The vast majority of WUWT reader comments are laughably false.
The heat released by those El Nino stair step events was GHG warming that accumulated over many years in the oceans.
But you are entitled to your beliefs
Merely because I, “Pat from kerbob” have declared it to be so.
And sorry, Pat, but it is far more than mere “belief”. There’s plenty of backing evidence.
As stated this can be classified as “technically correct”.
“David Wojick”, however, provided no evidence whatsoever to show why that particular “picture” should be considered as “correct / true / an accurate reflection of reality”.
Again, this is “technically correct”.
Although “David Wojick” failed to provide a reference or link, anyone here who has made even the most perfunctory of investigations knows that “the CO2 increase” has been a monotonic “smooth curve” since (at least) 1958, and definitely not “two steps since 1979”.
Here it is “MGC” who has provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show why their particular “vision” should be considered as “correct / true / an accurate reflection of reality”.
A bold statement that you immediately back up with numerous “worked examples”, including the references (or links) to scientific papers (and/or “serious” media articles) required to demonstrate the “truthiness” of your alternatives …
And the “Average phone number in the NYC phone book” has changed by 2.635 digits over the last 60 years! Woe is me!
The one thing newspaper editors have learned is that fear-mongering SELLS!
The one thing that the propaganda puppet masters at WUWT have learned is that spoon feeding anti-science lies to their brain dead zombie drone cultist readers SELLS.
MGC has a problem with truth – he’s completely unable to write any.
Richard, you do realize that certain WUWT writers have publicly admitted that WUWT lies to its readers, don’t you?
WUWT publishes articles online – some are correct and some have errors; that does not constitute lying to it’s readers. Frankly if you don’t have the critical thinking skills to differentiate then perhaps you should find a different site to lurk at.
Willis E directly admitted in an article that WUWT publishes “obviously false content”.
In other words, they know that the content is “obviously false”, yet they publish it anyway. That’s outright lying to readers, plain and simple.
And judging from the comments to those kinds of articles, many readers swallow those lies hook, line, and sinker. Such readers naively imagine that “if WUWT published it, it must be true”. But of course it’s not.
So perhaps it is you who should find a different site to lurk at. One that doesn’t deliberately lie to you, like WUWT does.
YOU are talking about cultists? When you believe all this crap made up to create alarm over natural variation?
Here we go with the “natural variation” denier cultist lies again.
Never mind the Bar Room Brawling & Willy Size competitions.
What we need to know is why Auntie B’s description of the Green House Effect talks about Trapped Heat (Energy) while she attempts to record that ‘heat’ by using only Temperature
Temperture is not Energy
Tempertaure can do anything it likes at any time it likes
Temperature is a fantastical concept not based on real actual things like metres, kilograms and seconds
Energy is real, it has mass, inertia and momentum – it can not do any of things temperature can
Where are the Energy graphs and please, not the even more fantastical (temperature derived) oceanic zeta joule confections that Lowdo offended our eyes with recently.
Nice try Lowdo but in another comment in that same thread, you shot both your feet off
You mean he shot both his 304.8 millimetres off.
Loydo prefers his measures to be the ones that produce the biggest numbers.
Peta, I notice ocean heat content (OHC) is graphed without error bars. When OHC is calculated using hundredths (thousandths?) of ℃ there are some serious measurement accuracy issues.
Thanks for so comically demonstrating your scientific ignorance, Peta!
“Temperture is not Energy”
Temperature is actually a measure of energy. Sorry that you are too ignorant to realize this.
“Tempertaure can do anything it likes at any time it likes”
Possibly the dumbest comment on WUWT all week. And that’s saying a LOT, LOL!
“Temperature is a fantastical concept not based on real actual things like metres, kilograms and seconds”
Wrong again. But what else is new.
At its very base, temperature is totally “metres, kilograms, and seconds”.
Temperature is not energy – a truthful and factually correct statement. Measured temperature is energy acting on a medium such as a solid (ground, plants, trees, rocks, houses whatever), a liquid (oceans, water droplets in air etc), a gas (the air that we breathe) or a combination of these things.
“Temperature is not energy”
Temperature is a direct measure of energy. Specifically, it is a measure of the kinetic energy of the individual atoms/molecules that make up any substance. This is basic, elementary physics.
Thank you for confirming what I wrote – it’s energy acting on a medium. You could have saved yourself the effort of writing that reply to be completely honest.
Still wrong, Richard. Temperature is not “energy acting on a medium”. Temperature is energy within a medium.
“energy acting on a medium” can change temperature, yes. But it is not itself “temperature”.
The Met Office is the UK’s national meteorological propaganda service.
Fixed it for ya, you’re welcome
Yawn. Why should we worry about anything the Met office predicts? Historical performance of this political office has been abysmal. Why should we worry about warming of 1.5 degrees? History tells us we’ll be better off in a warmer world not worse off. Why should we listen to people who claim to be scientists but ignore all the rules of scientific practice?
Andy asks: “Why should we worry about warming of 1.5 degrees? History tells us we’ll be better off in a warmer world not worse off.”
Well, for starters, we never before had hundreds of millions of people worldwide living in coastal areas that are potential flood disaster zones. But Andy apparently just wants to pretend away such possibilities.
It’s a busy little troll, for sure
Sorry that you don’t want to accept such simple statements of fact, Pat.
The warmists along with the rest of the climate nutjobs keep searching for something to really catch the attention of cults faithful and spur them on to take a drastic action.
I’m old enough to remember the cooling climate threats, which never came to pass.
If it weren’t for the elites wanting more of the folks money, this would all go away. As there is no actual basis for the alarm. That can be conclusively proven, one way or the other. Its all smoke and mirrors, and has always been so.
Well we all know how good their predictions are so their model world 50/50 is real world 0.01/99.99 against the virtually meaningless 1.5C.
We have had at least 6 huge flood events in the last 12 months, record heat waves, fires, typhoons and droughts…. all climate related
Saying ‘any changes to the Earth’s climate are tiny, and would be unnoticeable if the media was not constantly banging on about it.’ is absolute nonsense. Isn’t it?
It’s cooled ~0.5 C in the last couple of years. It appears you are claiming these events are related to a cooling climate. Is that true?
Wadda ya mean “we”, whiteman?
The UK didn’t get washed away recently did it?
You’re lying, AGAIN, Griffter.
The IPCC has found LOW confidence in any increase in floods or droughts. The Accumulated Cyclone Index has found no increase in Typhoons. Fire acreage has DROPPED in the last 100 years, and dropped dramatically.
The only statistically significant change is a SLIGHT increase in heat waves.
How do you live with yourself, Griffter, you liar?
Griff, the UN IPCC CliSciFi practitioners define climate as the average weather over decades (e.g. 30 years for their purposes) in a particular region. You are describing extreme weather events over the last 12-month period. You need to prove that that 12-month period is unique for all 12-month periods in recorded history. Do you have the data with which to make that claim? If so, show it to the readers of WUWT. If not, the honorable thing to do is retract your statement.
No-one in Griffy’s family knows how to retract, otherwise he wouldn’t be here.
The MSM printed a story about a disaster … say it isn’t so?
Is the Met Office formally predicting a Super El Nino? The Met Office’s predicted peak within 5 years couldn’t be caused by CO2 because rising CO2 in the 21st Century didn’t cause significant warming. I assume this prediction will fall into the failed prediction category within 5 years. Hey, doesn’t the Met Office have a history of failed predictions itself?
How comically ironic. The denier community over the past few decades has a near perfect 100% failure rate of their laughably pseudo-scientific climate “predictions”.
Please enlighten us all as to these “laughably pseudo-scientific climate predictions” – I’m sure we’d all absolutely love your intellectual input on this.
Please – go right ahead, your audience is waiting.
Here’s just a small sampling of the denier community’s laughable failures:
The chances are greater that Russia will own Europe and the Baltic.
I am looking forward to warmer summer weather. We are virtually in the middle of May and early this morning with wind chill it was 3C here. The BBC reporting would be a joke but for the fact this is being used to justify climate fraud.
“unnoticeable if the media was not constantly banging on about it”
Actually, unnoticeable _even with_ media constantly banging on about it.
If you think you’ve noticed a change in the earth’s climate, you’re mistaken.
What an intentionally ignorant comment, Nisbet.
Haven’t noticed that 75% of the world glaciers are in accelerating decline?
Haven’t noticed that sea level is rising all over the world? And speeding up.
Haven’t noticed accelerating loss of Arctic sea ice?
Haven’t noticed earlier and earlier first spring bloom dates?
Haven’t noticed first fall frost dates coming later and later?
Haven’t noticed more extreme rainfall? (like Hurricane Harvey)
So sadly typical of WUWT cultists. Totally ignorant of reality.
Nothing of what you have listed comes even close to reality – wherever you are is another planet entirely.
85% of the world’s glaciers are in Antarctica and are stable, of the other 15%, less than half are currently declining – so I reckon that 75% is inflated by a factor of 10 – 7.5% would probably be closer to reality.
Yes but no.
Haha – not even close.
No – it still fluctuates from year to year.
Lastly, no – rainfall fluctuates but hasn’t significantly increased or decreased.
Please supply evidence (not unsubstantiated opinion) to support your claims – it’s shooting fish in a barrel otherwise.
“of the other 15%, less than half are currently declining”
False. World Glacier Monitoring Service reports 75% in decline.
sea level is rising all over the world. And speeding up.
IPCC AR6: “robust acceleration (high confidence) of global mean sea level rise over the 20th century”
Haven’t noticed accelerating loss of Arctic sea ice?
“Haha – not even close”
Try again Richard. See accompanying graph.
Haven’t noticed earlier and earlier first spring bloom dates?
“No – it still fluctuates from year to year.”
Haven’t noticed first fall frost dates coming later and later?
Thanks for demonstrating that you haven’t bothered to look, Richard.
Graph is from:
Haven’t noticed more extreme rainfall?
“no – rainfall fluctuates but hasn’t significantly increased or decreased.”
Haven’t you gotten tired yet of being wrong all the time?
One more piece of evidence:
“Since 1921, the annual peak bloom date of Washington, D.C.’s famous cherry trees has shifted earlier by approximately six days”
It is so comical, yet also so tragic, watching you denier cultists fall all over yourselves trying to pretend away reality.
So, once again a pile of opinion and propaganda utterly devoid of unbiased observational data or real world facts. Next time just post factual analysis and real data, not bullshit propaganda and urban heat confirmation anecdotes.
Such a sadly typical WUWT denier cultist “response”. Just pretend (i.e. lie to yourself) that actually measured data is merely “opinion and propaganda, devoid of real world facts”.
Of course, the truth is that it is all “real world facts”. All of it. But these facts aren’t congruent with the fairy tale fantasy world of WUWT denier cultists, so they simply pretend away these facts and make up ridiculously stupid rationalizations.
Ridiculously stupid rationalizations like “urban heat confirmation”. Oh please. Yeah, its all those “urban heat islands” up in the middle of the Arctic Ocean that has caused all the warming and ice loss up there.
Seriously: you really can’t see how ridiculously stupid such a rationalization is?
Lordy, you denier cultists are such a truly sorrowful bunch of fools.
Another sadly typical spew of “lets just pretend away reality” WUWT anti-science denier nonsense.
Fixed it to match reality and alarmist history.
Rinse and repeat.
Fifty-fifty eh? Thats clearly some science right there!
Ah well, the Met Office prides itself on being two faced!
“Fifty-fifty chance”is always a nice guess… always comes true… like tossing a coin: always shows one face (minimum chance it will stand on the side)
50-50 equals “we’re guessing”. Like all climate change predictions you might as well just throw a couple of dice as the results will be just as reliable.
This is appalling reporting.