From JunkScience.com Via ClimateREALISM
Steve Milloy
Guest Post by: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the International Climate Science Coalition, and Truth in Energy and Climate.
Editor’s note: This summary serves as a fact check on the biggest false claims made in the media in June, 2024.
NASA satellite data indicates that June 2024 was still in the warming spike of the past year although slightly cooler:
In contrast, the real-time surface station temperature record of Temperature.global reports cooling since January 2015.
We remind you that the notion of “average global temperature,” however guesstimated, has no physical meaning and there are many significant problems associated
with it. That said, we will address the claimed warming spike of the past year at the end. Let’s move on to this month’s fact checks.
Links: The Washington Post link, Read more.
Links: The New York Times link, Island area study.
Links: The Washington Post article, extreme wildfires, wildfire study, wildfire burn acreage.
Links: The Washington Post article.
Links: The Washington Post article.
Links: The Washington Post article.
Links: The New York Times article, Read more.
Links: The Washington Post article.
Links: The Associated Press article.
Links: The Washington Post article, U.S. EPA graph.
One last thing notable for June is the media suppression of the late-May study from one of the Nature journals reporting that 80% of the past year’s warming spike was caused by cleaner air allowing more solar radiation to hit the Earth’s surface. When the study was first published, it was covered by Reuters and the Telegraph (UK).
But other than a one-sentence allusion to it in the Washington Post almost one month later, the media has failed to report about it despite efforts to bring it to their attention.
The dishonest media is why we do these monthly fact checks. Check out these and other great fact checks from June at:
- The New York Times Is Right, Finally; Climate Change Is Not Threatening Island Nations
- Wrong, AP, Human-Caused Climate Change is Not Why Houses on Barrier Islands Are In Danger
- Wrong, Mainstream Media, Hajj Deaths Not Unusual or Due to Climate Change
- CNN Goes ‘Mann Overboard’ on Eastern U.S. Heatwave
- No, Science News, Your “Ocean’s Record-Breaking Hot Streak” Claims Are False
- The Resilient Great Barrier Reef: Analyzing the Surprising Recovery Amidst Climate Alarmism
- Video: The urban heat island – implications for global warming & climate change
- Hot Facts About Heat
- Arctic sea ice at the summer solstice: more polar bear habitat than 2022 after hottest year on record
- Expert’s Prediction Of “Summer of Hell” For Central Europe Hasn’t Materialized Yet
See you in August for the July Climate Fact Check!
Breaking. Summer is hotter than winter.
Very nice.
Climate does not cause weather, weather causes climate.
Once again, record breaking rains are weather, and therefore cannot be caused by climate change.
The weather changes all by itself as pressure systems circle the globe. There is no theory anywhere that CO2 causes the pressure to change and therefore causes the resulting weather to change.
The circular logic used in major newspapers to claim otherwise is the disgusting result of journalists who were never trained in any logical reasoning college courses. If they were, they would be embarrassed and ashamed to attach their names to such drivel in the first place.
I don’t think so. They were never logically trained to reason in college journalism school. They were only indoctrinated. So they are not aware of the difference.
Which is why no journo should be trusted. Is why the NYT is in financial turmoil and cutting staff, and why WaPo is failing. (New publishing WaPo head said you guys are not writing stuff people want to read, to which staff revolted—so long term new editor in chief decided NOT to leave UK Daily Mail for WaPo.)
Better times are emerging. Biden’s cognitive impairment now causes MSM that covered for him to revolt against him (to quote the Casablanca gambling scene, SHOCKED). Net Zero is impossible, so even UK Labour has to now back peddle,
I think our new Labour government will have to crash headlong into the brick wall of reality before any back pedaling begins. Our Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero thinks 2+3 is complex maths.
We have a supreme court justice who believes one has to be a biologist in order to tell a man from a woman.
The Trump team needs to make an effort to point out to people how the media that are attacking him, spent years covering up Biden’s obvious frailties. The kind of problems that Biden showed in the recent debate don’t crop up over night. The media refused to cover it, until it became too big a story to ignore.
This headline from The Financial Times just in:
“How boiling seas fuel hurricanes”
Just an opinion. Climate fact checking is important but impotent.
Most people appear to think their information sources are reliable, when in reality on matters like climate or Biden’s cognition they provably aren’t.
A long slow slog to sort information from misinformation from disinformation.
You might enjoy this. https://billricejr.substack.com/p/our-first-significant-truth-bomb
Very nice and concise. Will start to follow.
Thanks for this Scissor.
I liked the closing paras –
The ball is now in the court of that (largely) silent force known as “the public.”
Truth be told, the proletariat “masses” outnumber the crooks and conspirators probably 500,000 to 1.
If the oligarchs and World Government crowd suddenly lose the protection of their mainstream press division commanders, they might be in deep you-know-what.
Which would be a great development for the rest of us.
Agree.
A streaming service channel dedicated to comedy about global warming / climate doomism / agenda scientists / ponzi politicians / Rube Goldberg perpetual electricity generators, etc etc would stand a good chance of re-positioning the climate capers as a waste of serious consideration, let alone “progressive” support.
Thanks WUWT. We needed something like this. Good job!
“We remind you that the notion of “average global temperature,” however guesstimated, has no physical meaning and there are many significant problems associated
with it.”
HOLD ON! If that is true then what does the UAH temp graph represent? (The first graph in this article.)
Simple!. The UAH temperature graph is nonsense.
UAH and RSS did not launch the satellites. Satellites were launched by NASA to observe the tropical tropospherical hotspots predicted by theory because ground station and radiosonde measurements were inadequate and too coarse to measure them.
The tropical tropospheric hot spots are necessary and key to predicting CAGW. They ARE the fingerprints of dangerous human caused global warming.
Since they have not been found, it’s all crickets about that topic, much as the now ignored OCO satellite data is, how inconvenient. But that does not change the reasoning for acquiring satellite data in the first place.
Despite the probability distribution function being skewed, the ‘average temperature’ derived from a very large number of samples tells us that the most common temperatures (mean, median, mode) recorded are increasing over time. That is, the public can expect future days to be warmer in general, for evapo-transpiration rates to increase proportionately to the increase in the average, and for problematic Heat Indexes to be encountered more frequently in the future. I would say that those changes have physical meaning.
Most likely, landscape changes produce the greatest temperature changes (e.g.UHI). Landscape changes, the real human climate change factors, can produce significant regional temperature, precipitation, atmospheric circulation changes, and no doubt other factors important to meteorology but most likely have little or no global impact. This does not mean that the temperatures, precipitation, etc. are not changing overall, only that humans have little or no impact on the more widespread changes.
Only the human CO2 emissions have little or no impact on the more widespread changes.
While it has no physical meaning, and tells one nothing about any real location, an average is a calculation based on, in this case, many millions of actual temperature measurements. These measurements reportedly have a lower uncertainty than any of the surface station measurements but they are also measuring temperatures in somewhat different places places than the surface stations : in the atmosphere above the surface up to a fairly high altitude (there are three other compilations for higher layers of the atmosphere that are not shown in Roy’s blog (but are readily available). If the planet as a whole, or the surface as a whole, is getting warmer, then the atmosphere is very likely also getting warmer. These measurements are not much effected by UHI problems or political agendas. The calculated numbers (averages) are not nonsense, only some of the use to which they may be put is nonsense.
Again, when you average an intensive property, you are doing nonsense. You must first convert the intensive property to an extensive property. Extensive properties can be averaged. The problem then becomes, how do you convert intensive temperatures to extensive temperatures? One thing is you must know is the volume of the region the temperature represents. That’s never included in the calculations. In fact, one never knows that value. So another possible solution is to expand the error bars. Alas, the error bars are never included either.
In the case of satellite data, I believe we are dealing with millions of readings on a regular basis. Whilst the exact data positions will vary their huge number means they should average out consistently, and it’s the relative changes in the daily-weekly-monthly numbers that should be comparable to provide info on warming and cooling.
This is presuming nothing else becomes a factor, like satellite orbit changes or technical glitches that provide a drift but are not detected or allowed for.
Thus, the satellite data should be regarded as the best existing baseline to detect global temperature change and computed global averages.
The number of readings is irrelevant.
The more readings, the lower the error bars.
They aren’t irrelevant.
They are irrelevant as far as averaging temperatures from different locations.
Bob days:”… best existing baseline…”
We have no idea of what the baseline should be. It is a guess. Why don’t we average all of the temperatures for the last 4.5 billion years? As you say the huge number will average out consistently.
You can’t do any SPC or stats if you don’t know what the real answer is supposed to be.
And suggesting we ignore physics to do statistics is odd.
so, their fear porn is still very strong. it does not have to be true to work its magic
Global temperature is junk science.
If you are measuring temperature with a thermometer or something that acts like a thermometer, then you are utilizing the thermodynamic definition of temperature. A thermodynamic temperature is an intensive policy. Despite what individuals like Mr. Mosher say, you can’t average intensive properties. To do so is nonsense. The result is meaningless.
Which I’ve been saying for many years here.
In this context, what do you mean by intensive and extensive?
More than two years ago a CBC report found that extreme cold was responsible for nine times as many deaths in Canada as extreme heat. As well, Britain’s The Lancet in research covering the period 1985-2012 reported that Canadian and international researchers found that extreme cold killed twenty times as many globally as extreme heat. In addition, he US Center for Disease Control claimed the period from December to February is historically the deadliest of the year, while the summer months are the safest regarding weather- related deaths. Another source for these facts is the American Council on Science & Health. How often are we likely to find such information publicized by the mainstream media which are obviously in the pockets of governments and environmental groups trying to sell the climate catastrophe hogwash to the general public?
If anyone knows where this much talked about Global Warming is hiding, can you let us know here in the UK as we would like to buy some.
We are still wearing winter woollens here coming up to mid July. The temps are so cold central heating is in use regularly which is almost unheard of at this time of year.
We have had one week of summer weather so far this year, actually make that a heat wave if we are to use BBC terminology. The temps went up to high 20 deg.C in many parts of the country.
That was a brief exception during this summer of chill.
I would like to see our temperature records kept listing rural and urban stations separately because the hype that is attached to temperature records are not being seen outside the urban heat centres.
The other feature that is being projected into the chat about ‘average’ temperature increase is the night time is warmer while day time is normal?
That simply endorses the suggestion that global warming is an urban heat island phenomena and is not a climate event per se.
I am thinking of becoming a postman. It would be the only way to justify wearing shorts which I have managed to get into for about five days this year. Our postmen/women by contrast wear shorts even when it is snowing??
Excellent dose of truth and reality, as opposed to the media lies. Well done.
Three week of heatwaves formally known as Summer.
I find this very hard to read
Fortunately, the BS starts almost immediately so I can stop reading
“In contrast, the real-time surface station temperature record of Temperature.global reports cooling since January 2015.”
Total BS.
I also noticed the 80% of the warming since 2020 was caused by reduced shipping SO2 emissions in 2020
More total BS
Conservatives are getting more desperate after the record warm year of 2023. They too often accept any warming theory that excludes CO2, with no investigation.
The good news for the There is No AGW Nutters who comment here, is that some formerly rational writers are joining their science fiction delusion. This is the first time I’ve noticed conservatives increasing their junk science since 1997.
Conservative CO2 does nothing junk science will never refute leftist CO2 does everything junk science.
Oh dear, that scientifically unproven CO2 warming myth again, RG.
Always following the AGW mantra.. why is that ??
You seem to be very deep into junk science and AGW delusions.
AGW was proven long ago, bnice2000. Time to wake up.
Well, Wazzza, it wasn’t proven at the time that Prof Kevin Trenberth penned his Climategate email that secretly asked his AGW co-promoters –
“What if we’re wrong? They’ll probably hang us.”
bnice2000 is one of those people who desperately cling to the myth that since the CO2 signal can’t be discerned from within the very noisy weather data, that proves that CO2 has no affect whatsoever.
Or maybe he grasps that experiment has shown CO2 has no emissivity at atmospheric temperature and pressure so it can’t do what claimed. Or he understands specific heat tables that show CO2 can’t do what is claimed.
That as well 🙂
You are welcome to present your scientific evidence.
If you can’t… not my problem.
What you are saying is that any effect is so tiny , it is immeasurable.
Well done. !
And yet all you continue to do is waffle.
ZERO SCIENCE.
Surely if you had any evidence of CO2 warming , the easiest thing to do would be to post it 😉
But you can’t !!
I agree, lots of BS all around.
Personally my take is that we just don’t know if CO2 has much of an effect at all. But many people have deluded themselves into thinking that they can see a CO2 signal in all the noise. I don’t see how that’s possible.
Regarding Afghani farming.
Historically one of the first things dictatorships do when they first take over is to confiscate land, including farm land, in order to give it to their supporters. In other words, they replaced people who knew what they were doing, with people who’s only skill lay in knowing which butt to kiss.
When Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, it went from being the breadbasket of Africa to a country that could no longer even feed itself. Had nothing to do with weather, had everything to do with political corruption.
“We remind you that the notion of “average global temperature,” however guesstimated, has no physical meaning and there are many significant problems associated”
Just curious what people mean when they use the term. Are they just averaging what numbers they have from land stations and are they considering the size of landscapes? That is, the ocean is the majority of the planet- so are they averaging all of it? I suppose if they mean the average of the entire planet based on satellite data- that would be relatively easy.