From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT!
By Paul Homewood
Do they think we are really so gullible?
Tuesday was the hottest single day on Earth in the history of human civilization, according to a combination of global satellite data and historical tree ring analysis. One point in far northern Canada was hotter than Miami. In Siberia, the temperature in Altai hit 94°F. Despite July being mid-winter in the Southern Hemisphere, temperatures in Argentina and Chile soared to more than 86°F (30°C). In the Philippines, Metro Manila recorded its hottest-ever July day. The temperature in Iran, Algeria, and Oman all reached 122°F (50°C).
“It hasn’t been this warm since at least 125,000 years ago, which was the previous interglacial,” Paulo Ceppi, a climate scientist at London’s Grantham Institute, told the Washington Post. Given Earth’s annual temperature cycle typically peaks in late July, this is a record that could be broken several more times this month.
The idea that we know the global temperature today is absurd in itself. But the idea that we actually know what it was on a given day 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago, never mind thousands of years ago is sheer fraud.
And the claim that it is hotter now than 5000 years ago is a total lie – there is abundant evidence that it was much warmer then.
And as always with all of these silly scare stories, they cherry pick some high temperatures in the Arctic, knowing that the public will find them alarming because they assume the Arctic is always freezing normally.
For instance, “One point in far northern Canada was hotter than Miami.”
The link takes us to Kuujjuaq:
And the daily temperature from KNMI shows that temperatures over 90F, 32C, are not uncommon there. The new record of 93F replaces the old record of 92F set in 1999, which is hardly cause for panic!
https://climexp.knmi.nl/selectdailyseries.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
Then there’s Siberia:
“In Siberia, the temperature in Altai hit 94°F.”
But again we learn that temperatures often exceed 90F there; the record of 96F was set in 2000:
And according to the con merchants, there has been record-setting melt of the Greenland ice sheet.
Maybe Eric Holthaus has been holding his graph upside down! Greenland has added 100Gt of ice during June, when it is supposed to be melting.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
Naturally the BBC and the rest of the media lackeys have been peddling the same lies and nonsense:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66104822
The bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed. That seems to be the mission statement of the BBC.
From “to educate, inform and entertain” to “to indoctrinate, lecture and instil woke values…”
And as we see from all the attached photos people are MELTING and unable to cope.
https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/man-found-dead-in-car-at-death-valley-national-park-amid-extreme-heat-187101765773
In Death Valley.
How unusual.
Typical Mosh wishful believing.
When the press uses waffle words, you know that they’re blaming without evidence.
Bolding and underlining are mine to highlight newspeak for ‘We don’t know and we made up the belief stuff’.
Balkanization?
How was it determined that, “Against this background, the global average temperature reached 17.01C on 3 July, according to the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction.”?
I don’t find any such information via US NCEP.
I think it originally came from the University of Maine Reanalyzer Project. No idea what they were basing it on, though.
A weather model with data from 1979. The Climate Reanalyzer website specifically cautions that the data are all estimates from the model and it suggests viewing the NOAA climate website for actual measured temperature data.
Data Sources & Information
Ryan Maue and other skeptics regularly cite GFS
but typical
Skeptic: “Theres no evidence!!!!”
science: heres some evidence
Skeptic:” I dont like/approve of that my skepticism is unfalsifiable
and i only accept those sources when they agree with Me
science: kinda like the religious
Skeptic: no falsifiability applies to your beliefs, not mine
More Mosh fantasies, here he uses them as red herring strawmen.
I’m frequently told by alarmists that they refuse to read anything published at WUWT, even when it comes with a list of citations. Just who is guilty of selective acceptance?
The rest of the story:
“The purpose of the interactive chart and maps on this page is to view daily snapshots of temperature as estimated from the Climate Forecast System. The increase in mean global temperature since the start of July, estimated from the Climate Forecast System, should not be taken as an “official” observational record. It is important to note that much of the elevated global mean temperature signal in recent days can be attribute to weather patterns in the Southern Hemisphere that have brought warmer-than-usual air over portions of the Antarctic.
…
For additional long-term climate context, site users are encouraged to view monthly and annual global mean temperature data for the period 1880 to present from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration via Climate at a Glance.”
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2&ortho=1&wt=1
Look at the range of temperatures that are some shade of fiery red, from 16° through 45°. Twenty nine degrees is purported labeled as ‘Hot!’.
Meanwhile cool blues might run from 10° through 22°, with each shade clearly defined. A range of twelve degrees.
Also known as graphical lying.
read harder
It would be good to take your own advice.
Grammar harder.
and it is all due to a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere – right
Yes. CO2’s effect has been conclusively demonstrated for the last 125 years.
Where in earth did that happen, at this point it not even a theory. No can answer does CO2 warm of cool the atmosphere and if it warms the atmosphere by how much. Add in the hot spot never developed of the tropics as was predicted that means the theory should have been discarded over twenty years ago.
What they appear to forget is that at those latitudes the sun is above the horizon for a very large proportion of the 24 hours in a day. That July and August are normally the warmest months.
And I’ll bet that there’s somewhere on this planet where it was much colder than usual, too, (but they don’t talk about that at the Beeb).
Of course it was:
Here in Valla, NSW we’ve got thick ice on the car windscreen. For us that’s existential. We’re heading somewhere warmer like Kuujjuaq.
I am tired of excessive heat warning when Arizona temperature is only two degrees over normal. 109 F is not excessively hot for Phoenix, 107 is the average temperature for the next two months. We have a 160 days with temperature of 100 F.
Be grateful the heat warnings are that high at least! Here in Vancouver Canada we get “heat” warnings when the temperature goes above 75F (24C) which is absolutely ridiculous.
Much of the time the weather seems to ‘extract the michael‘ out of the alarmists. Over the last few days they’ve been boring us to death with the hottest whatever while temperatures struggled to reach 18C and the rain came down. Must be Wimbledon?
“Tuesday was the hottest single day on Earth in the history of human civilization, according to a combination of global satellite data and historical tree ring analysis.”
Not round here it wasn’t. Not even close. As for tree rings….
Don’t know where you are but we’ve had it cold in Derby too
London
48 F at 7:00 this morning in S. Wisconsin where I am. High is supposed to be 72 today with clear blue sky. A perfect summer day.
I am in Kansas. We are experiencing some of the coolest July weather in the time we have lived here–beautiful and comfortable. Not record setting except as great days.
Then today, it’s 28°C…
Its called ‘weather’
Except when it suits them to call it ‘climate’…
“Tuesday was the hottest single day on Earth in the history of human civilization, according to a combination of global satellite data and historical tree ring analysis.”
Only in the world of invalid averages.
“Do they think we are really so gullible?”
YES,
& sadly, because of a lack of critical thinking, the majority of the population is.
The trouble is that an awful lot of people are very gullible. Just look at kids today and greens and politicians..
The real trouble is we have a Mass Media that is feeding everyone lies about the Earth’s climate and CO2, and they do so to further a political agenda (Socialism/Marxism), not a scientific agenda.
The Mass Media is spreading this current lie all over the planet.
And have been ramping it up for the last couple years.
The hysteria is going to get worse – climate enthusiasts are frothing at the mouth over the expected El Nino temperature rise – this is just the beginning.
As I have said before every political party is a socialist construct. Independents are far right from all parties. The antithesis of Communism is individualism. Until people understand this we are headed deeper into the rabbit hole.
Yes. The vast majority of voters still support political parties although they know they are liars and manipulators with only their own narrow interest. fools all.
30 deg C in Argentina? Where? Actually we’re struggling through an extended cold winter, waiting for that good boy El Niño to rescue us. The only way to get to 30 deg C in the winter is due to adiabatic lapse rate compressive heating, locally called Zonda, same as Chinook in Denver, Colorado. I’ve played golf only once in the last month, and only made it through 4 holes before giving up, that’s a real climate indicator.
Ah you became a prisoner of Zonda, I sympathise!
Story tip: They’re still at it!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66120297
The Beeb has no self-awareness anymore
“a combination of readings from surface, air balloon and satellite observations as well as computer modelling”
Where would they be without their models?
“We ignored a combination of readings from surface, air balloon and satellite observations
as well asand replaced actual data with computer modelling”Fixed it for them.
Better off, there are models that are useful but the so called elites weather people and research scientist model to much. Most of that crowd make the claim model output is data, that is insanity.
We might not be fooled, but they’re counting on fooling millions. Scoff all you want, it’s working.
Yes, and those it’s working on are working on the rest of us.
At a meeting recently, a woman mentioned she had returned from Florida. A man immediately interjected that fish were dying because of the hot oceans and global warming and that beaches were unusable because of dead fish and “fins sticking all the swimmers.” The woman politely replied that she had been on the East Coast, had observed nothing, and that perhaps that was on the Gulf Coast instead. Being polite and leaving room for their BS is not the way to go. Polite, yes. BS, no.
When you announce how hot it is in July, many people will agree, because July is hot in the northern hemisphere. Throw in mention of a few places very few have actually experienced for authenticity on high temps, and you have a very believable article. I note that the handy dandy global temp record here on WUWT reads 4 degrees F cooler than the numbers I just heard on NPR.
From the article: “The idea that we know the global temperature today is absurd in itself. But the idea that we actually know what it was on a given day 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago, never mind thousands of years ago is sheer fraud.”
Yes, and they apparently missed the Roman Warm Period and the Midieval Warm Period, both of which were warmer than today. Humans did very well during these warm periods. No climate crisis ensued. Warmth is good.
Before those were the Minoan and Egyptian Warm Periods and the long Holocene Climate Optimum. All warmer than now.
Global avg is warmer today. Those were regional phenomena.
And were did you get that from. Keep drinking the Kool-aid, as someone quoted above most people are gullible, try not to be.
There is no global average.
Just one leg of the Big Lie Stool. Just keep lying, no matter how easily your lie can be exposed.
The temperature on the WUWT meter was 14.12. The average temperature of the world is 14.7C. It is impossible to have a temperature 2.5C hotter over the whole world.
Nigel Sherratt commented on Paul Homewood’s story a link to
https://temperature.global/#twitter
Which gives 57.48°F/14.16°C for global temperature
There is no global temperature. Stop playing their game.
What skewed the scale were the relatively warm temps during the Antarctic winter. Still cold but much above the day according to the limited data set we have for down there.
Warm air temps at least in part caused by warm SSTs down there. Abyssal geothermal activity raises it’s head again.
Don’t mention Antarctica!
OK.
So what, FN? There’s a low pressure area driving warm winds into the Amundsen sea, inhibiting sea ice formation in some areas but not affecting some others – a couple of those areas having higher sea ice extent than average. It’s the weather – kinda unpredictable.
Millions of km2 sea ice below average for the time of year caused by a transient low pressure area? Right, that would explain it…
Why not! It’s just weather. Just a two years ago they had the coldest winter ever recorded in Antarctica since records began in 1957. So what’s your point again?
Millions of km2 below average is ‘just weather’?
Are you guys actually listening to yourselves?
I just read the temps and signs, and listen to meteorologists that have a superior track record in forecasting. While people like you listen to people that say “The Arctic is screaming” who’s predictions of what they believe to be climate disasters have never been proven correct.
Thank you for supporting rah’s remark.
“It hasn’t been this warm since at least 125,000 years ago,
That’s science right there.
I’m sure that somebody has a graph where you can look at the average daily global temperatures, corrected for proxy error and smoothing, for 125,000 years ago. All you need is the Julian date.
To add to the insanity, a local weatherman on TV claimed the temperature in my area was 105 F, when it was really 92F with a heat index of 105. But that distinction is lost on the masses especially when “trusted” news sources get it wrong.
In today’s hysterical report the BBC does concede this
On Thursday the US weather service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it could not confirm records that come partly from computer simulations, according to Associated Press.
The rest is almost exclusively BBC climate change panic
BBC climate change…. Propaganda
Yep just like excessive warning in Arizona for normal or near normal temperatures for this time of year. Makes me want to barf.
We’re having a heat wave here in Woke-achusetts- but so what- my garden, lawn, trees and shrubs never grew this fast nor looked as healthy.
I can believe it was the hottest day on record. At least since records began in the late 19th century. My question is: So what? The world has been in warming trend for decades. No one denies that. As the temp trend continues to increase we are inevitably going to be setting records for the hottest day.
The real question is: Why is that a problem? What problems have rising temps caused? There has been no increase in hurricanes, or droughts, or floods, or severe weather of any kind. Crop yields are at or near record highs. The Antarctic ice sea is growing. No island nations have been swept under the seas. The coral reefs are doing fine.
Where’s the problem? We need to spend $300 trillion to stop global warming? Why? What problems have rising temps caused? Crickets.
I believe there is serious reasons to doubt that it is even the hottest in the last 100 years based on the anecdotal evidence of what was written about global temps and droughts at times during that period.
Consider this. What allowed them to make this claim was higher than normal temps in during the Antarctic winter. Well in 1929 the Arctic came close to reaching the alarmist dream of an ice free summer! How would the global temperature been skewed by those kinds of temps?
Yes indeed. The big lie is the claim that a warmer world would be a disaster.
Time for these points again:
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
The bigger lie is that there is a global temperature.
The estimate is a global average. Averages can be raised by the Daily maximum, minimum, or both increasing. The average tells us nothing about the risk of hyperthermia to individuals. I often put on a light jacket at 63 deg F, especially if there is a slight wind. The average temperature also tells us nothing about the heat index. It is clear that it is an attempt to scare the public rather than educate them.
WPO has really outdone themselves this time. Think about it! To consider this claim worth printing.
“It hasn’t been this warm since at least 125,000 years ago, which was the previous interglacial,” Paulo Ceppi, a climate scientist at London’s Grantham Institute, told the Washington Post.
Think about it! This “climate scientist” is claiming that he knows what the “global temperature” was for every single day in the last 125,000 years, within about 2 deg. C.
Who would have known that proxy evidence can provide that kind of accuracy?
This seems to me another David Viner moment.
Temperatures 125,000 years ago are estimates, from proxy records, with error bands. I believe the conclusion is that even after accounting for error bands, todays global avg temperatures are warmer than 125,000 years ago.
You have to “believe” that because there was absolutely no equivocation of any kind in that statement. And the WPO obviously did not even ask any common sense questions about how they arrived at that conclusion.
You can “believe” what you want. I prefer facts! Remember now, the implication of their claim is that they know what the “global temperature” was within 3 deg. C or less was for every single day in the last 125,000 years. And you “believe” that proxy evidence can provide that kind of information? Show me an example!
I may be an old dumbass truck driver, but after about 30 years of taking an interest in the field I have found no proxy data that claims to have obtained such a level of accuracy in any climate reconstructions, ever!
You don’t need perfect accuracy,. You need results showing error bands that dont intersect.It’s a claim about sustained global averages, accounting for those error bands. That’s how it’s done.
No it is a claim that we just had the hottest day Evah! Some sources are claiming the last 4 days were the hottest. Climate reconstructions based on proxy evidence cannot sustain that claim!
When the error bands of today’s global average temperature are outside the error bands of the proxy data, that does sustain the claim.
Show me the error bands on the periods of a climate reconstruction that claims to show what the temperature was over a period of a week or even a month based on proxy evidence!
Your trying to change the very essence of what the claim was. Are you Nick? Did you even read the link provided above? It is in reference to the hottest day!
Allow me to spoon feed you.
Title:
Currently — July 6, 2023: Earth’s hottest day in recorded history
Statement within the article:
Tuesday was the hottest single day on Earth in the history of human civilization, according to a combination of global satellite data and historical tree ring analysis. One point in far northern Canada was hotter than Miami. In Siberia, the temperature in Altai hit 94°F. Despite July being mid-winter in the Southern Hemisphere, temperatures in Argentina and Chile soared to more than 86°F (30°C). In the Philippines, Metro Manila recorded its hottest-ever July day. The temperature in Iran, Algeria, and Oman all reached 122°F (50°C).
“It hasn’t been this warm since at least 125,000 years ago, which was the previous interglacial,” Paulo Ceppi, a climate scientist at London’s Grantham Institute, told the Washington Post. Given Earth’s annual temperature cycle typically peaks in late July, this is a record that could be broken several more times this month.
Bold mine.
Hottest global average NOW exceeds the maximum temperature range plus upper error estimate, for anytime 125,000 years ago. I think even you could understand that.
And does that provide incontrovertible evidence that CO2 is causing it.
If not, you are dealing in faith that correlation IS also causation. Not science!
I do not claim that, nor was that part of the thread. Do reread it, please.
So your saying that the data does not support the “hottest day evah” claim. Thank you.
Tell me then. What days in the past were the 2nd and 3rd hottest days ever?
Im not your research assistant. Look it up.
No I say there are no numbers to research for that because proxy evidence cannot provide that kind of accuracy, but you are claiming it does. You must prove that it does.
I guess the question was too subtle for you. He is suggesting that the answer doesn’t exist.
How is your proxy from x-thousand years ago a global average?
One of the issues with current temperature estimates is the sampling protocol. For historical proxy temperatures there isn’t a sampling protocol. It is ‘catch as catch can.’ That is, there are few opportunities for obtaining a suitable proxy, and one has to use the very limited data, which means that there are going to be very large error bars for a global average, if done honestly!
Not if the 2-sigma error bands overlap substantially. It is rare to even see 1-sigma error bands published for recent instrumental measurements. What are the error bands for the recent University of Main claims?
And I’d prefer 2-sigma error bands rather than the usual 1-sigma.
Can you provide a citation for that?
Thank you for all your contributions, Warren.
Sanity is in short supply on this site, as you have no doubt noticed.
Rationalization is all to common amongst the alarmists, which is a special form of insanity.
“Believe” being the operative word when it comes to agw.
No, it’s based on scientific research, which universally concludes AGW. No research has found any contradictory evidence.
So looking at the graph , AGW is responsible for the entire planet warming by 4 degrees between Jan. 2023 and July 2023.
What else could heat up the planet?
A steaming pile of bullshit being dumped everywhere by the predictable alarmist media et al?
You don’t do much reading do you?
When you find evidence that contradicts AGW, show us. You might even submit it to a reliable scientific journal for publication, and earn a Nobel Prize and world acclaim.
Why would any informed adult want to sully their reputation by accepting a Nobel Prize from the bunch of Marxists currently running that clown show?
So your out is to claim scientists are Marxists. Must be one heck of a conspiracy against your personal beliefs
Indeed. Capitalist might also apply. Not that the two are mutually exclusive. Follow the money in addition to the ideology.
Then I presume you’ve avoided understanding any science, since you believe it’s all run by Marxists. Convenient nonsense
Logic fail.
Your assertions is that CAGW is the result of human emissions of CO2.
CAGW can not be contradicted because the is NO FACTUAL EXPERMENTAL DATA proving the connection between CO2 and temperature!
It is up to people, like you, that claim there is a connection to show the experimental proof that there is a connection between CO2 and temperature.
The recent pause in increasing temperature while CO2 has been increasing, drastically complicates your assertions that human emissions cause the change.
Don’t bother with showing a correlation between the two by using time series. That does not prove causation. You need to show CO2 as the independent variable and temperature as the dependent variable. I have not seen a study that does this. Perhaps you have.
Proofs are for math. Evidence is for Science. And massive amounts of evidence support the theory of AGW. None contradict it. And all scientific research, every scientific institution on the planet, every major university affirm AGW.
“Evidence is for Science.”
We are waiting… Real scientific evidence for CO2 causing AGW.
I expect lots of mindless bluster, calls to consensus, and links to pre-ordained models, and absolutely nothing else.
“And massive amounts of evidence support the theory of AGW.”
Another unsubstantiated assertion.
What exactly is the “theory of AGW”? That CO2 is heating up the Earth’s atmosphere? Where’s the evidence for that?
Again, another logic failure! One can’t contradict that which doesn’t exist. Asking for this is indicative of your lack of scientific procedures. It is you that must provide the evidence establishing a casual connection.
When you have that information, tell us about it.
You wont find any peer reviewed science that supports your view, nor can you cite any. I tend not to believe amateurs, especially those that claim they’ve discovered fundamental errors in the body of mainstream science developed over the last 125 years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
Now, where is your evidence to support your belief system?
Thats a reliable scientific source? Please try again
This from a man that uses Wikipedia as his source?
Thank you for establishing the veracity of the reply I made to Mosher about alarmists refusing to accept things they don’t agree with.
Did you notice that I was the author of the two links? Was it your intent to insult me? Notice also, that if you question what your eyes show you, that I have citations to support my work and you are free to verify. So, I’d say, “Yes!”, they are a reliable scientific source.
When you find some actual real science that supports the hoax of AGW, you can post it… we can wait.
https://climate.nasa.gov
IPCC 6th Assessment
The National Academy of Sciences reports on Global Warming.
That should keep you busy
How do you explain the documented differences between the Executive Summary and the technical sections?
Excellent question. “The Science” says one thing in the technical sections and a completely different thing in the Executive Summary.
The technicals say there is no established connection between human-derived CO2 and the Earth’s temperatures (AR5).
Then the politicians get hold of the Executuve Summary and change the wording so that it says there *is* a connection between human-derived CO2 and the Earth’s temperatures.
The scientists say there is no discerable connection between human-derived CO2 and the Earth’s temperatures, while the politicians say just the opposite.
People should believe the scientists, not the politicians. The politicians are lying to you for political/personal gain.
Try reading Miskolczi’s papers and tell us why NOAA radiosonde data going back to 1948 shows no change in the overall greenhouse effect.
It’s the equivalent of an actual experiment and you know what Dr. Feynman said about experiments.
We are waiting for evidence that confirms [C]AGW.
We haven’t seen any yet. And you don’t have any. Nor do any of your sources.
Again, another logic failure! One can’t contradict that which doesn’t exist. Asking for this is indicative of your lack of scientific procedures. It is you that must provide the evidence establishing a casual connection.
When you have that information, tell us about it.
Excuse me, but your ‘belief’ is showing again.
Poor Warren, I doubt you have the vaguest clue what “science” actually is.
There is actually no real science proving AGW… and I bet you cannot produce any.
Models all the down. Kids like Minecraft structures are real too.
It is good to hear that you have faith. Where is your evidence?
Sorry you haven’t read any science. Otherwise you’d know about the massive evidence supporting AGW.
The “science” you rely on accepted Mann’s hocky stick eliminating the MWP and LIA without review or question!
The 1990 chart was generic…never intended to show any particular set of data. Mann’s Hockey stock has been validated and replicated by multiple researchers. It’s foundational, and never debunked. Too bad for you.
Another leftist stuck in the echo chamber.
Wasn’t debunk, do you want to buy a bridge. Mann Hockey stick was thoroughly debunked. It is junk which you buy into. were you under a bridge when “McIntyre and McKitrick’s assiduous studies concluded Mann’s argument for CO2-caused MMGW was “a carefully worked artificial creation”” Climate Audit cover it and debunked it completely.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830503322793632
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228684974_The_MM_Critique_of_the_MBH98_Northern_Hemisphere_Climate_Index_Update_and_Implications
McIntyre and Mckitrick are both well know statisticians. If you criticize their results , cite peer reviewed articles or reveal your bona fides that show you have the expertise to do so.
That is good science! Also known as “hand waving.”
It doesn’t strengthen your argument to accuse me of something you would have no way of knowing personally. However, had you read the two links I provided, it should be evident to even you that I have read some science — as well as taught it at the college level. Your ad hominen attack only confirms what most here suspect — your argument is weak and you are relying mostly on appeal to authority to support your belief system.
“your argument is weak and you are relying mostly on appeal to authority to support your belief system.”
I think that sums it up nicely.
Warren disappeared on this little string … how come you disappeared on this line of discussion?
Actually, they are claiming they know the recent global averages to the nearest 0.01 deg F. To make the claim they did, they would also have to know the daily temperatures 125,000 years ago to the same precision.
Can anyone point to a peer reviewed scientific paper that disagrees with the estimate that global avg temperature is the warmest in 125,000 years?
Can You provide the “peer reviewed” paper that makes that claim?
and what’s the track records of the “peers” when it comes to climate prognostications ?
Are you saying we should rely on amateurs instead of scientists? Or on barbers instead of surgeons to perform surgery?
Here we go again with the “believe the experts” and not your own research argument again.
https://youtu.be/0PM67hjv4iM
Well, I’ll tell you what we shouldn’t rely on for anything –
irrational analogies about barbers and surgeons.
Seriously, is this your level of naivete –
“amateurs” (ie people who don’t take payments for their interest, expertise, research and discoveries) have no worthwhile contributions, but “scientists” (presumably you mean those who take payment for their work and discoveries) are the only ones to take notice of?
By your logic, all those climate activists who are offered pro-bono legal defence expertise should shun such “amateur” advice.
Amazing. You would send your child to an auto mechanic to correct a birth defect? Your position is indefensible.
He doesn’t need to defend a position he never took!
Yes he did.
No he didn’t.
(That’s not an argument – Monty Python).
It’s the equivalent argument. “I don’t like the analysis of experts when it disagrees with my bias. Therefore I claim that amateurs know more about the subject matter.”
I agree with Isaac Asimov: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Your analogy is ludicrous.
No, it’s an analogy of a ludicrous position taken by Rah, and by you apparently
Not everyone here is an amateur or non-scientist. I suspect that you are an amateur. Do you have any publications to support your beliefs, or is your position maintained by appeal to selected authority?
No one here is a researching climate scientist as far as I can tell.
I don’t know about “climate scientists” but I know there are one hell of a lot of climate researchers here.
Yes, this kind of research:
“I did’ my own? research?”
1 watched
2 someone else’s
3 shitty youtube video
Your a waste of time and breathable air bud.
And you have the distinction of dismissing things that don’t meet your personal ‘standards’ of acceptance, which is very convenient because it saves you the time of responding to inconvenient questions.
“Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. – Richard P. Feynman
Are you psychic?
That depends on how one defines “climate scientist.” My academic background is not all that different from Michael Mann, who does not have a degree in climatology, but has a degree in geophysics. I’m not “researching” because I’m retired. However, I’ve spent years following the subject. And, because I don’t have a departmental budget to support publishing in peer-reviewed journals, I publish here, some 15 articles at last count.
How about yourself? Have you published anything, anywhere, that would give us confidence that you are competent? Do you have an academic background in anything remotely resembling climatology? [I don’t usually ask about that because it really is a subtle form of ad hominen. However, I’m making an exception for you because you put so much emphasis on being a practicing, published ‘climate scientist.’]
How would you know?
“Are you saying we should rely on amateurs instead of scientists? Or on barbers instead of surgeons to perform surgery?”
I’d say that is a resounding “yes.”
They can’t have people who study for years in their specific field, then research in the finest detail, presenting results that are peer reviewed, telling them what is real and what is not. If they did, they would have to acknowledge they could be wrong and let go of the “Precious.” Can’t have that. Best to just deny (root word) things and say it’s all a big lie….. Seems to work for lots of things on the right.
Thanks. And of course they are. When they have no argument, it’s either a conspiracy, or Marxists, or Woke Scientists. Or data and evidence do not exist, according to some on this thread.
Lotsa data and evidence exist.
Let’s start with how the Medieval Warm Period came about.
And yet here you are presenting absolutely ZERO real science.. just your brain-washed feeble “belief”
We are waiting… and LAUGHING, because we have seen it all before.
“Or data and evidence do not exist,”
Here is your chance to produce it. !
…. or you could just continue your gormless, empty bluster.
I produced it via linkage in a prior post. Try rereading.
So you can’t post the link here.
Too embarrassed ?
Was it to the IPCC SPMs or something equally devoid of any actual science?
And when someone presents you with data and a cogent argument, you dismiss is as unacceptable to you.
You are rationalizing your belief system by cherry picking arguments that you like.
Be careful about what you complain about. I suppose it is ok for you to denigrate the likes of Dr. Happer, Dr. Soon, Dr. Wijngaarden, Dr. Steel, Dr.Frank, etc. Who are considered experts in their fields
Let’s see your bona fides since you are so willing to criticize the folks here many of whom have physical science degrees and have dealt in measurements over their careers.
You do realize you are using an Argumentaitive Fallacy of “Arguement by Authority”. You neither mention the name of the authority you are invoking, nor do you offer data from those authorities to support your assertions. That won’t work here. You want to discuss science, then discuss sicience. Trolls are those who only make broad assertions and denigrate others in the hopes of provoking a response. Thus far I have not seen any science from you.
The names you mention are not researchers in climate science. Harper is a physicist, and long retired from doing any physics. Soon is a fraud, fired from the Smithsonian for lying about his financial connections. And Frank — well, we can see his ‘work’ on WUWT 🤣
And Mann is a geophysicist, and not very good mathematician, who decided to call himself a climatologist.
And then you proceed to argue from Authority!! Except those you cited are not ‘authorities’ They are scientific frauds, and do no climate research.
“and do no climate research.”
WRONG again.. they do far more real “climate research” than just playing with “SimCity” style climate game programs.
He drives a battery car in Kiwi-land, does this count?
Another leftist kook weighs in (yawn).
Appeal to authority.
It is hilarious watching Warren yap and carry on… without presenting one single bit of evidence of anything.
Standard AGW cultist performance.
The evidence is in the peer reviewed published science. Which, apparently, you refuse to read or to understand. Which leaves you reliant on incompetent amateurs, mystics and other Deniers.
More hand waving!
Seems you are ignorant of what “peer-review” even means…
I am betting you have NEVER been anywhere near any actual science in your whole pitiful brain-washed gullible existence..
Yes. You’ll find that conclusion in the IPCC 6th Assessment, which summarizes current scientific research.
And is written by politicians.
Nope. False. Written by subject matter experts.
Yes, the summary is written by politicians, and on some points does not agree with the technical sections. However, even the technical sections are written by people who are usually strongly biased.
You mean they publish findings you dont like.
No they MAKE UP junk science to support their agenda.. and non-scientists like you fall for it…, (or are you swilling from the climate trough)
There is no peer reviewed published science that refutes AGW. NONE. And you consider yourself independently competent to deny the work of the thousands of scientists working over the last 125 years. Theres a word for that — Dunning-Kruger.
It’s hilarious that you are accusing someone else of suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
“Me thinks she doth protest too much!”
It is easy to make such a claim when you refuse to read things that you don’t like.
“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book “Hundred Authors Against Einstein”]” ― Albert Einstein
“Theres a word for that — Dunning-Kruger.”
Was certainly in effect when they hired you as a climate shill.
You are proving yourself to be one of the most gormless, dim-witted and ignorant climate cultists/shills .. evah !
Those are your words not mine. I may disagree with some claims, but when I do, I’m specific about my complaints and provide, data, logic, and graphs to explain why I disagree. All we hear from you are nebulous claims such as “The evidence is in the peer reviewed published science.”
No you will not find any such “science” in the summary for policy makers.
Please point us to chapter and word.. be precise…
Theres more science in the IPCC reports than you can say grace over. Do you even THINK?.
You sound like you are getting desperate when you refuse to answer a reasonable, specific question.
I think that it is pretty obvious that Warren Beeton hasn’t actually read the IPCC reports. He might have read the summary for policy makers but he can’t understand the actual science because it is full of big words and numbers.
It is very obvious that YOU have never read any of the SPM…
… and are also totally ignorant about what “science” actually is.
I repeat… since you are running around like a headless chook…
Please point us to chapter and word and the data that supports it… be precise…
I bet you can’t.
No but I won’t be able to find one that agrees with that statement either. It’s based on UMaine’s computer output and a huge amount of El Nino conjecture.
That conclusion is in the IPCC 6th Assessment, which summarizes the state of current scientific research.
That conclusion is in the summary for policymakers – an opinion piece written for politicians by politicians. The AR6 is a little more equivocal but is still an opinion based on only a few studies, it is by no means a summary of the research available. Link to an actual scientific study please.
the 6th Assessment represents the best scientific research currently available. Are you claiming peer reviewed research that contradicts the 6th Assessment?
Wang in his study concluded that temperatures in the north of Scotland during the Roman warm period were 14.7C +/- 0.4C. Spanish and Italian researchers, supported by the IPCC, have established that temperatures around the Mediterranean were 1.5C to 2.0C warmer than modern temperatures in their paper. Studies from South America and Asia also show higher temperatures than today during the same period. Studies analysing Hannibals journey across the Alps even conclude that they are impassable today due to a lower temperature range. And yet your opinion is that you know better than these scientists. Do your research.
Sorry, but the latest science shows the Roman period was cooler than today for the global average. (And I cited it, as did Alan J). What you’re citing is older and regional.
What I was citing is current, accurate, global and accepted by the IPCC. If you’d actually bothered to read AR6 rather than just the mickey-mouse ‘summary for policy makers’ and morons then you might have found that out. Stamping your foot and throwing a temper tantrum like a spoilt child doesn’t alter the fact that current scientific knowledge contradicts what you believe. Accept your limitations.
You haven’t cited anything, whereas both Alan J and I have. So far, its two to nothing.
They had world-wide thermometers back during the time of the Caesars?
So you say it’s impossible to estimate whether the Roman times were warmer or not? Is that correct?
YOU made the claim about “global temperatures” in the Roman era, YOU back it up.
And the claims about COVID and the “vaccine” were claimed to be based on the “best scientific research” currently available at the time. Even though the fact is that mankind has never been able to stop the transmission of, or control a viral contagion transmitted by aerosol having a non-human animal reservoir.
Are you fully boosted?
What claims were wrong? And what scientific research showed you they were wrong? (Anecdotes don;t count)
People should be made aware that Warren Beeton will look at graphs showing July had the hottest day ever and blatantly deny the graphs say what they say, while also claiming they support his argument.
He is a waste of time.
Another straw man by you. I never said so.
Instead you argued you can predict weather four days in the future by looking at the historical record. Which is utter baloney.
Yes I had noticed that!
He might as well be a chatbot.
LOL! They claimed unequivocally that the first two shot series of the “vaccine” would prevent infection. That was a LIE. The story then became that the outcome would be better for the “vaccinated” and they cannot provide the data to back that since they claim they never tracked how many that had received the “vaccine” died from COVID.
The President and the Director of the CDC told the public that the “vaccine” would prevent transmission. That was a LIE!
They claimed that a standard cloth or paper mask would help protect one from contracting the disease. That was a LIE! Such masks offer about as much possibility of stopping a virus as a chain link fence does in stopping a mosquito.
They repeatedly denied that the virus originated from a Lab in China. It did!
They claimed that the “vaccine” was perfectly safe. It obviously was not and now J&J has discontinued it’s production.
Source: Fox and Friends
Biden says you won’t get COVID if your fully vaccinated.
https://youtu.be/ciwyYnwYFaQ
CDC Director says science indicates vaccinated do not carry COVID
CDC Director Says Data Suggests Vaccinated People Don’t Carry COVID-19 (businessinsider.com)
Just two and I could back up the rest, but why bother.
Rah vs Fauci. or an auto mechanic vs the top Infectious Disease Specialist in America.
Fauci was NOT the director of the CDC!
This old truck driver used to be an SF medic that wrote lessons plans on certain infectious and transmittable diseases. I was at Ft. Sam doing that, where I had the top experts in the Army’s Health Services command to refer to and check my work.
I challenge you, or Fauci or anyone to give one example of a viral contagion transmitted by aerosol, and having a non-human animal reservoir, for which an 100% effective vaccine has been developed and which stops transmission of said contagion.
Name just ONE! There are none!
Fauci, Chief WH medical advisor and Director of the NIAID said this. And it was a lie.
Those fully vaccinated very unlikely to spread COVID-19, Fauci says | WBMA (abc3340.com)
That is on big ring you’ve got in your nose.
Good show! Very informative.
It is no surprise and fitting and a measure of the quality of WUWT that anti-vaxers inhabit this site and are not called on their mumbo jumbo mischief science. But please keep writing, it makes all the other stuff people, write less credible.
CNN Simon does another face-plant.
Once again.
I challenge you, or Fauci or anyone to give one example of a viral contagion transmitted by aerosol, and having a non-human animal reservoir, for which an 100% effective vaccine has been developed and which stops transmission of said contagion.
Name just ONE!
And BTW I’m almost 68 years old and was truck driver dealing face to face with people all over multiple states during the pandemic and was not vaccinated.
I had COVID before they knew what it was and was down for three days and then went back to work. It was two weeks before I was fully recovered.
I know I had COVID because I tested positive for antibodies.
I never had any symptoms of any of the several subsequent variants. And I knew I was good to go long before the “experts” fessed up and admitted that natural immunity provides superior protection to their experimental “vaccine”.
Did you ever notice that it was only the “vaccinated” that got COVID multiple times?
“Did you ever notice that it was only the “vaccinated” that got COVID multiple times?”
What garbage. Look it is as simple as this. If you are vaccinated your chances of dying decrease. End of story.
Yes you can still get covid. Yes you can still pass it on. Yes you can get it more than once…. but your chances of dying decrease.
If you get the COVID vaccine your chances of dying certainly do decrease.
A recent study showed ‘‘The data revealed that individuals who received more than two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine had a reduced likelihood of developing cardiovascular diseases, thrombosis, kidney failure, respiratory diseases, liver cirrhosis, and diabetes compared to those who had not been vaccinated.’
This COVID vaccine is excellent stuff. It protects against diabetes, lung cancer, dementia etc etc – all cause mortality is much less in vaccinated people in studies.
After all, these are official statistics, and if you can’t trust official statistics not to be manipulated, what can you trust?
“After all, these are official statistics, and if you can’t trust official statistics not to be manipulated, what can you trust?”
Except what you said was silly nonsense….
Another antivaxxer who denies the effectiveness of COVID vaccines! There are so many…..
Happily, many studies confirm the miracle nature of the COVID vaccine, like this study of 12 million people.
http://koreabizwire.com/covid-19-vaccines-reduce-risk-of-major-illnesses-study/252704
‘Yes you can still get covid. Yes you can still pass it on. Yes you can get it more than once…. but your chances of dying decrease.’
This is 100% true.
If you are 80 years old and drive to the vaccination centre and get vaccinated, and then get COVID, your chances of dying are way less than an 80 year old in a nursing home who has not been vaccinated because they have dementia and heart failure.
Absolute fact! And people still spout nonsense like vaccinated people are just as much at risk as unvaccinated people.
Silly comment….
Two words! Faced with indisputable proof of the effectiveness of COVID vaccinations among the elderly, antivaxxers prove themselves once more unable to make coherent statements.
“Silly comment….”
Yes Simon, we know that your comments are always remarkably gormless and ignorant.
No need to title them.
I have a few very simple questions for you Simon.
1) have you had your 5th vaccine yet?
2) when is your next vaccine scheduled?
3) do you believe that Covid is still in circulation & still dangerous?
Another lie, CNN Simon.
SPM are junk.. not even science..
.. they are political manipulations that bear very little resemblance to reality.
They are for POLITICAL AGENDA purposes.
Are you so “unaware”/”ignorant” that you don’t know that !??
Or are you a paid shill sucking on the climate trough?
Could you be a little more expansive? “I’m sure that it can be found somewhere in the literature!”
It has been warmer than now for most of the last 10,000 years.
This 125,000 is a number pulled out of their nether region, based on absolutely zero science … so exactly the sort of thing an ignorant mind like yours would fall for.
No, it’s based on the data. Which you apparently havent checked.
Wrong, I have multitude of data from all over the world, that shows that most of the Holocene was warmer than now.
You are either totally IGNORANT of any actual science…
… or are a low-paid climate shill pretending to be totally ignorant.
The media has gone insane
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/300923591/for-the-third-time-this-week-earth-sets-an-unofficial-heat-record
there is a caveat thou
Yes, they think we are that gullible. I’ve seen this claim repeated ad nauseum, reported without question.
“unofficial records and computer modeling!” Must be a slow news day or the media is trying to cover up something else or distract the masses from other news stories.
I am afraid that about 60% of the population are that gullible…
I’d like to know what kind of instrumentation they used and by how much the previous record was beaten. Until then, I wouldn’t trust it.
A magic computer – think of a number, input your selected data and adjustments then hey presto, it comes up with the same number you originally thought of. See – magic!
Yes, the UoM is short on descriptions other than that their Climate Reanalyzer is based on weather modeling and doesn’t provide any estimate of the error bounds other than the implied precision from the number of significant figures. However, that doesn’t address the question of accuracy.
no problem – the US & UK governments have a plan to block out the sun – what could possibly go wrong with that?
I matters not that you have experienced a pleasant spring and mild summer were you live, a place that has had hot and humid springs and should reliably be in the 90’s to 100 by July but is currently 85 degrees and sunny.
The keepers of the data (kept behind closed doors under lock & Key) have manipulated the Global Averages (East Anglia anybody?) to be “THE HOTTEST DAY ON RECORD!” It’s over there not everywhere don’t you know.
They beat this drum to brainwash those future voters whose earliest memory of spring and summer only goes back 1O years to voluntarily crowd into the cities and take the bus which will reliably break down because it is run on an unreliable battery they pretend is charged by the Sun (which is suspiciously absent casual relationship in their propaganda on Global Warm…ahh we really meant Climate Change all along).
As these future voters grow up, their evidence of the “Hottest day on record” will be supported by the experience of sitting in a hot bus waiting for the diesel version to rescue them and get them to their destination 2 hours late.
Here in Central Ohio it has been unusually cool this summer. Daytime high temps have not yet breached 90 degrees even once and it’s already the second week of July. They aren’t forecast rise above 82 anytime in the next 10 days, either.
I prefer cool weather, so I’m not complaining. I always think about these things in a particular way:
The total insolation received by the Earth doesn’t really change, nor do any of the other bulk characteristics which would effect average temperature. Therefore, the average temperature remains the same; at least, temperature and area integrated over time will not vary.
That means that if it’s too hot somewhere, it must be too cold somewhere else. It isn’t possible for the whole planet to heat up unless you actually changed the albedo.
According to all these graphs of the Earth’s hottest day in July, the temperature of the entire planet should go down about 4 degrees by the time we get to Jan. 2024.
That happens every year. The graph says the climate mean is 16.21 in July and 12.41 in January, when we are closer to the Sun.
What mechanism causes the temperature of the entire Earth to go up or down by 4 degrees each and every year?
And if we can survive the Earth’s temperature rising by almost 4 degrees every 6 months, can we survive the temperature rising by 3 degrees in a century?
Singular temperature records shouldn’t really be focused on. Global warming continues apace and that fact is concerning enough, whether we had the hottest day ever or not.
Please state what humanity needs to be concerned about adapting to if current temperatures reach or exceed those of say the Roman times.
The Roman period warming was a regional phenomenon, not global, and global temperatures were cooler than today.
Nope – wrong guess, try again. You really are bad at this game aren’t you? Next time try thinking for yourself rather than regurgitating some garbage you stumbled over on an alarmist blog somewhere.
Sorry, the latest scientific research affirms my post. The warming was regional, not global. References are cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period#:~:text=More%20recent%20research%2C%20including%20a,%2C%20not%20globally%2Dcoherent%20episodes.
Wikipedia? I was right then -regurgitated garbage you stumbled upon. I have already mentioned a couple of papers that refute your ill-informed opinion, showing that temperatures were higher in the Roman warm period. Cite scientific studies please not substandard alarmist rubbish from wikipedia.
Refer to Alan J’s post from ‘Nature’, or to the references cited in my Wikipedia post. . Yours is outdated.
Wikipedia, really?
“””””More recent research, including a 2019 analysis based on a much larger dataset of climate proxies, has found that the putative period, along with other warmer or colder pre-industrial periods such as the “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period,” were regional phenomena, not globally-coherent episodes.[7] “””””
Your research capabilities are lacking. See this link that points out Pages 2K contradicted itself after only 4 years. Their 2019 graph shows there was no Little Ice Age, just1900 years of very cold temperatures! If you look around you will find studies that shows there was a global Little Ice Age. That refutes the Wikipedia page. Sorry about that.
https://iowaclimate.org/2021/08/16/the-ipccs-latest-pages-2k-2019-temperature-hockey-stick-is-contradicted-by-pages-2k-2015/
Not from a reliable source and not peer reviewed. Fail.
It has been my experience, and that of others, that Wiki’ does a reasonably good job of explaining science and math, but an abominable job of being objective with topics that are politically polarized, and tends to support the woke narrative instead of presenting both sides of the evidence. Just because a particular published paper contradicts a position doesn’t mean it is right or that there won’t be further research that contradicts it. Science advances with back-and-forth exchanges, and your willingness to accept something because it is recent or supports your beliefs says a lot about your approach to science.
What you are really saying is that there was a warm period in the known world. Little is known about the New World or Siberia because of a lack of written records or well-characterized proxies. The Wiki’ article seems to support a more widespread warming based on proxies.
LOL.. Pages2K interpretation by Wikipeedia…… that is funny.
Many tree rings, so is actually showing the CO2 deficit.
It is meaningless trite for temperatures.