Stand by for another bout of ‘Hottest Year Evah’ stories as the mainstream media pursues its campaign to induce mass climate psychosis and prepare the ground for the oncoming Net Zero catastrophe. Alas, enjoy it only a little while longer since this story may have to be retired after putting in such a sterling propaganda shift. Global temperatures are falling like a stone, while the oceans are cooling at a remarkably rapid rate. In the U.K., the year is likely to show a second annual temperature fall since the alleged ‘record’ year in 2022.
Only last May, Matt McGrath and Justin Rowlatt at the BBC were claiming that “fuelled by climate change” the world’s oceans had broken temperature records every single day over the past year. Planet-warming gases were said to be “mostly to blame”. Three days were singled out when the previous highs were beaten by 0.34°C. Inexplicably, the story, a matter it might be thought of some ongoing concern, was not followed up. The graph below, compiled from data supplied by the U.S. weather service NOAA, might help explain why.
Over a period of just a few months after the article was written, the global sea temperature over a large area of the world’s oceans has shown a dramatic reduction of 0.5°C. It is now back to the level seen in 2015. Consider what that means. Two years of relentless scare mongering about uncontrolled ocean warming from UN chief Antonio ‘boiling’ Guterres to media climate comedy turn Jim “jail the deniers” Dale has been suddenly thrown onto the ever-expanding scrapheap of failed climate scares. Further temperature reductions are highly likely in the next few months, particularly if a natural La Nina cooling variation develops as expected. In the Pacific, temperature anomalies in the Nino areas are now in negative territory. This fact and the graph above also signals an end to much of the twaddle written by the Guardian. Before we move on and reclaim sanity, who can forget this bilge from its environment editor Damian Carrington: “‘Astonishing’ ocean temperatures in 2023 supercharged ‘freak’ weather around the world as the climate crisis continued to intensify.”
Land temperatures are also falling with the UAH satellite record recently showing some significant monthly falls. Except for satellites accurately measuring the atmosphere near the Earth, we must treat most land surface temperature numbers with caution if not cynicism given how much we have recently discovered about urban heat corruption, invented data, retrospective adjustments and scandalously lax station siting policies. Nevertheless, it would appear that land temperatures are starting to fall and cooler oceans will hasten this process.
The last couple of years have seen a temperature spike and some scientists have sought to provide explanations. A recent paper from the EU weather service Copernicus argued that the warming spike was driven by a strong naturally occurring El Nino. This natural variation originates in the Pacific and transfers heat around the globe affecting weather patterns and temperatures. Interestingly, Copernicus noted that the 0.29°C spike was not unprecedented in the observation record since a slightly larger rise occurred in 1976-77. Other suggestions to explain the short temperature spike include recent reductions in atmospheric particulates caused by cleaner marine fuels, increased solar activity and the 2022 Hunga Tonga volcanic boost to water vapour in the upper atmosphere. Meanwhile, a new paper published this month in Science states that warming since 2013 and the spike in 2023 was helped by a reduction in cloud cover. This meant that more solar radiation reached the Earth’s surface.
What this latest episode of climate hysteria shows is that despite vast amounts of computer power and a huge pool of money, most climate science is stuck in a ‘settled’ dark age. Any departure from a climatic norm is seen by activist scientists and their faithful media messengers as a linear progression to Armageddon. The role of natural variation is constantly downplayed, scientists who depart from the ‘settled’ narrative of humans controlling the climate thermostat are cancelled while press-released pseudoscience is disseminated to persuade unquestioning journalists to attribute individual weather events to humans. All the while the Net Zero zealots prepare their battleplans to command and control every aspect of human existence. One such potential strike is currently passing through the British Parliament in the form of a private member’s bill that appears to have the support of almost a third of the House of Commons. Recently in the Daily Sceptic, Paul Homewood presented a worrying analysis of the hideous proposals contained in the Climate and Nature Bill. He concluded:
Net Zero is already doing great harm, but if this bill becomes law, the country will be unrecognisable in 10 years’ time. There will be energy and food shortages, industry will be decimated, private transport and foreign holidays a thing of the past. What we take for granted today will be unaffordable for most. And there will be nothing we can do about it.
Want to know why you have been fed a diet of runaway temperatures and boiling oceans of late? Look no further than the current antics of virtuous clueless fools indulging their luxury middle-class beliefs while determined to pursue a collectivist agenda whatever the human cost.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
“Planet-warming gases were said to be ‘mostly to blame‘.” The last I knew “plant warming gasses” cannot have much of an effect on water temperature because their emissions (all infrared) are opaque to water and are adsorbed in the first few molecules at the surface leading to increased evaporation. Seawater heating is controlled by sunlight and cloudiness (lack of sunlight). But then, I must be wrong because the BBC said it.
When I was a small child in the late ’50s, I’d listen to the BBC on my grandparents ancient stand up wood radio (like a piece of furniture). The man (always a man) had a great baritone voice- very, very impressive. You just had to believe him. I think back then- what they said was generally true.
Like, listening to the UK sea weather, “Dogger, German Bight, North Utsire, South Utsire, Rockall, Shannon, Bailey” etc. I often wondered where they were.
Sadly, the BBC, is now just propaganda.
The Family Guy cartoon- once did a skit of the main character, Peter, listening to the old BBC as I described it. One of the funniest comedy skits ever. I wish I could find a link to a short of just that.
As far as temperature goes, the ocean rule, the atmosphere drools….
That’s good, I like
The sun warms the oceans, always has, always will.
However, the rate at which this sun supplied heat escapes from the oceans is controlled by the atmosphere. The warmer the air, the more the oceans have to warm up in order to dump this heat.
This has always been my argument against AGW, the oceans have been warming first, hence CO2 not the cause.
The temperature of the atmosphere is controlled by the oceans.
Needless, incomplete technical correction of a needless, incomplete technical correction: Neither the atmosphere nor the oceans source the heat energy that temperature is supposed to quantify. Created/destroyed/change form + Entropy + etc.
As Eric Hoffer noted in the early 1950’s, mass movements act very much like preaching religions, as it is people doing the activity. Political parties or purportedly secular moral crusades or jihads act out as if they were a religious cult.
Milenarianism looks very much the same, whether the predicted doom is The Rapture, space aliens hiding behind a comet, or runaway feedback Climate Change.
I fondly remember the Hale-Bopp nonsense of the ’90s, there was a guy who claimed to be an ex-CIA “remote viewer” (i.e. extrasensory perception), who, along with a “team” of “technical remote viewers” (TRV), claimed they checked out the “alien pod” headed for Earth and hidden in the comet’s tail. “Major” Ed Dames’ story was the pod had a “pathogen” that was going to eliminate the worldwide food supply, and in just a few years time, humans would be eating algae grown in big vats to survive.
For $$$$ you could buy his home course in TRV!
I pay attention to the UAP “phenomenon”. The topic of remote viewing often comes up. It’s the one part of the topic I have the least confidence in. Just can’t imagine how it could be valid.
Rotating Flying Saucers don’t make any sense to me.
What purpose would rotating a craft have?
Of course, not all UFO’s appear to rotate, and I’m open to the idea that Alien lifeforms may be visiting the Earth.
We never can get a good picture of a UFO. We get good pictures of rotating UFO’s on Facebook, which just means we are looking at fake UFO video.
I can’t rule UFO’s in, and I can’t rule them out. There are a lot of unexplained things going on.
The one I saw in ’84 (part of the Hudson Valley flap) looked exactly like as shown in an artist’s rendition for one of Joe Rogan’s videos- a V shape with several unblinking white lights on each part of the V- as in the attached image. In this video, they were discussing the Phoenix Lights. As the years go by- people see different sorts of UAP. It made zero sound.
TA, what do you think they’d come here for?
No doubt the Major was a graduate of the P. T. Barnum School of Human Psychology.
He had a regular microphone thanks to the old Art Bell radio show, who would always introduce him with the mil. rank. In internet circles, his nickname was “Major Head Games”. He and Bell called the alien pod hoax the “Hale-Bopp Companion”.
Dames act was to sound deadly serious. Even after his ridiculous prophecy was buried when the comet was long gone, Bell continued to have the guy on with more insane crap he discerned via “remote viewing”.
Much like the alien crap pervading the Discovery Channel. Same crew of demented ‘physicists’ with a loose grip on reality peddling paranormal explanations straight out of a ‘tickey-terrible’ comic book.
Actually, there may be space aliens visiting our planet. Read “Imminent” by Lou Elizondo. As I’ve mentioned before – I had a great view of a UFO back in ’84. I don’t think I was abducted. 🙂
Of course you were. That explains a lot! 🤣😇
The most grown-up version of science fiction alien contact literature I’ve found is summarized in “The Dark Forest” by Cixin L, who only updated older ideas going back centuries through LR Hubbard and Von Neuman – destroy us lest we might destroy them. I liked the Star Trek model political universe but it seems unlikely. Technology advances to the point of “computer” and “arch” but the captain is still human?
Every religion, in this case human caused catastrophic climate instability, has it’s apocalyptic vision of the future which can be avoided by doing what the current generation of it’s leaders demand. ie. net zero etc.
are we expecting “hottest year evah” stories to rely on data now?
Why should they rely on data now? They never did before.
Here is the UAH satellite chart below. NASA and NOAA claimed that from the temperature high point in 1998, there were 10 years between 1998 and 2015, where NASA and NOAA claimed each year was “the hottest year ever!”, and they claimed that each one of these 10 years during this period was hotter than the previous year, otherwise they couldn’t declare all 10 years as being “the hottest year ever!”, one right after another.
So NASA and NOAA were trying to scare the public into believing the world was getting hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter, one year after another and the current year was the “hottest year evah!”.
Now, keep in mind that NASA and NOAA, when they claim one year was hotter than the last are only talking about a hundredth of a degree temperature difference between these years, but that’s just enough for them to declare that year as the hottest.
The only problem is if you look at the UAH satellite chart for the period from 1998 to 2015, you will see that NO years during this period were hotter than 1998. Not one. It only got as warm as 1998, in the year 2016.
So NASA and NOAA use their computers to bastardize the surface temperature records to make it appear that the temperatures are steadily getting hotter and hotter and hotter.
NASA and NOAA are LYING to us. They mannipulate their computers to push their Climate Crisis Agenda.
But the UAH satellite chart puts the lie to NASA and NOAA’s mannipulation of the temperature record for political purposes.
NASA and NOAA are just a bunch of gd Liars when it comes to the climate.
UAH satellite chart:
See any years between 1998 and 2015 that are hotter than 1998? Of course, you don’t, because there are none, according to the UAH satellite chart.
If the go-to method for making this time hotter requires making last time colder, then eventually the US civil war will have to be fought on glaciers.
Stop using global average anything. They are meaningless when it comes to temperature.
This summer we were told it was sooo very hot! Yet in my region it was very cool. Others commented on the same sort of thing. Relying on a global average gives you zero useful information.
“Relying on a global average gives you zero useful information.”
____________________________________________________
Beware of averages. The average person
has one breast and one testicle.
Dixie Lee Ray
and half of the human race have an IQ of less than 100
Probably more than half of adults have an IQ less than 100 when you take into account wounded veterans and survivors of severe automobile accidents who suffered traumatic head injuries, binge drinkers and alcoholics who have killed significant numbers of brain cells, and long-time users of recreational drugs who are almost certainly experiencing long-term effects.
Oh, I forgot to mention all the democrats who are obviously out of touch with reality. Maybe, they just account for the original 50%, however.
The average person has almost two legs.
Probably less than one of each, especially testicle as there are more females than males and the other 47 known genders.
Especially since nobody really knows what temperatures were for much of the planet a century or more ago- despite some claims- so if some places are very hot on some days- it’s probably not abnormal at all.
The lesson of the average USAF pilot has never been learned by climate science.
I presume you are referring to the imaginary, and non-existent pilot.
The story goes that in the late 1940s the Air Force wanted the best design for aircraft cockpits, so they went and measured the physical characteristics of every pilot and crew in the service, then averaged them to get the size of the average pilot. Cockpits were then designed to fit this averaged person.
Afterwards, they were deluged with complaints from crews that the cockpits were uncomfortable and terrible in terms of fit.
As a result they went back and compared the averaged pilot will all the crews, and were amazed to discover that not a single pilot matched the “average”.
The solution? Ergonomic adjustable cockpits.
I don’t know about “zero.” If the average is outside physical bounds then you can be sure that it is wrong.
The issue was that no pilot met ALL the dimensions of the average. The variance of of each dimension was what needed to be met through adjustability. Maybe the word uncertainty wasn’t in the original designers Lexi on!
On average a man with his head in the oven and feet in the freezer is quite comfortable.
Same in my neck of the woods in Australia … daily warnings of impending Armageddon … it was as hot as usual in the usual hot places in the Outback and surprisingly mild along the eastern seaboard.
“Standard Deviation” was invented to determine how meaningful your data point is compared to the “average”.
In May 2022 in my Sun-Climate Symposium (SCS) poster I exclusively claimed solar cycle #25 (SC25) would cause the warming above the 1.5°C ‘limit’ after specified targets were reached, based on my sun-ocean decadal warming threshold system. Since it happened I’ve reported the successful prediction results at the 2023 SCS and recently at the 2024 AGU meeting this month.
The Earthly reason for this spike was the El Niño – while strong SC25 irradiance forced the El Niño.
The OISST2.1 World SST (by 12/27) the 2024 average is at 20.94°C vs 20.89°C for 2023. Why?
I described in my 2018 AGU poster the relationship between the annual SST change as a function of the annual TSI change during the sun’s active phase above the warming threshold of 1361.25W/m2.
By applying this principle we can conclude the reason for the 2024 SST similarity to 2023 SST is due to the fact of very similar TSI for 2023 & 2024, the two highest CERES TSI years since 2000 and the highest TSI years since 1991, with a bit of lagged carryover from 2023 into 2024 via OHC upwelling.
It is essential to know that the atmosphere is dominated by the ocean’s SST, which is on average 6°C warmer than the atmosphere, leading World T2m by one month, and by seasonal sunshine.
Below, the daily SST and daily 2-meter temperature (T2m) are compared. The 9.8x T2m/SST average max-to-min ratio implies that seasonal sunshine is the main atmospheric amplifying factor, not CO2.
Other than a slightly greater trend in T2m over SST, if the difference is even real, there is not much room for CO2 radiative atmospheric forcing after seasonal sunshine and ocean-air forcing.
Bob Weber,
Excellent comment.
I would like to add a few additional points for your consideration.
Thanx for your input. Below is evidence for your second point, of an 8 months lag for T2m from the equatorial Pacific ocean heat content anomaly; note the CO2 anomaly has the longest lag amongst the set.
As for the second peak at 10-15 years, this is the approximate time range of solar cycle lengths, and usually after a cycle exceeds 95 v2 SN, a decadal warming step ensues in SST that results in net warming by the end of the cycle. I interpret your second peak as the net after such a solar cycle generally.
Have you shared this with Willis E?
I was just thinking about this today. That is, how to tease out subtle variations that might be hidden by trends and seasonal variations.
Bob Weber: You say ‘As for the second peak at 10-15 years, this is the approximate time range of solar cycle lengths’
You can check the bi-modal nature of the correlation between T2m and ENSO by running regressions of T2m vs moving averages of ENSO of varying lengths (exponentially weighted moving averages are the easiest to work with). The correlation is impressive for moving averages that cover greater time frames of greater than 12 years.
There are also several papers that show how global ocean temperatures are correlated with ENSO (although using a CUSUM to deal with the significant lag), such as Willis Eschenbach’s WUWT paper ‘Adding it Up’ (2021-04-09). And in a WUWT article from June 14, 2019, ‘A Second Look at Radiation vs Temperature’, Willis states: <After thinking about that, I realized I’d left one factor out of the calculations above. <What the El Nino phenomenon does is to periodically pump billions of cubic meters of the warmest Pacific equatorial water towards the poles>.
<What the El Nino phenomenon does is to periodically pump billions of cubic meters of the warmest Pacific equatorial water towards the poles>.
It is this that gives the characteristic step temperature change associated with major El Nino events.
“…global ocean temperatures are correlated with ENSO…”
Yes indeed, nearly perfectly using 30-year averages of integrated MEI & SST:
“…pump billions of cubic meters of the warmest Pacific equatorial water towards the poles”
Evidence for this statement is in the previous cross-correlation plots, where HadSST4 (global) lags the EqOHCa by 7 months (both in 12ma∆).
Good discussion!
They’ll concoct an excuse to “adjust” the temperatures.
“Land temperatures are also falling with the UAH satellite record recently showing some significant monthly falls. “
November UAH land anomaly for November was 0.95°C above the 1991 -2020 average. Almost identically to last November, and 0.9°C warmer than November 2022.
As an anomaly it’s about 0.25°C below the peak in August, but still higher than it was in June this year.
2024 has been under the effect of the 2023 El Nino + HT event for every month of the year, only starting to drop off a bit in November and December, so yes the average will be higher.
Has been more than +0.7C above its starting point every month.
El Nino peaks in 1997/8 and 2015/16 were much more transient.
But it is nothing to do with human caused climate change or AGW.
Nick has clearly shown the effect of the El Nino is now gradually subsiding, so 2025 will not be anywhere near the same average temperature.
“so yes the average will be higher”
Thanks for agreeing it has been the hottest year on record,m and this article is full of hot air.
Thanks for agreeing that it is nothing to do with human caused climate change or AGW.
Here’s the UAH Land record:
And here’s the view since the start of 2015.
Thanks again for showing just how strong and long lasting the effect of the El Nino has been.
Still no evidence of any human causation.
This is a naturally cause (increased absorbed solar + El NIno + HT) event, which is absolutely nothing to do with humans.
Highest UAH Land anomaly was in September 2023 (1.23°C )
The 0.95°C is lower than any month since June 2024.
November 2022 was not part of the El Nino event, so why bring it up. !
Just disingenuous. !
“In the U.K., the year is likely to show a second annual temperature fall since the alleged ‘record’ year in 2022.”
Why scare quotes for “record”, but it got “fall”?
The fall was 0.06°C. compared with the record set on 2023 which was 0.15°C above the previous record set in 2014.
And the data linked to by this article is for CET (central England).
Not the UK.
It will be mild through to the new year and will run 2022 close for there.
I have no data for te UK as a whole, however …
“Christmas Eve 2024 has become the warmest on record for Northern Ireland.
Temperatures provisionally reached 14.3C at Magilligan on the north coast on Tuesday afternoon.
That surpasses the 13.9C record set in Armagh 82 years ago, in 1942.
The unseasonably mild conditions are striking given that the average temperature for Christmas Eve is normally about 7.5C.”
Also it’s a bit sad if Morrison thinks that temperatures in a tiny part of the world, let alone globally, should incrementally increase every year (as seems to be what is inferred).
“And the data linked to by this article is for CET (central England)”
Maybe it’s been changed, but I’m finding it links to the MO UK data.
It looks like CET is going to come around 3rd or 4th, about 0.1 – 0.2 below the last two years.
“Also it’s a bit sad if Morrison thinks that temperatures in a tiny part of the world, let alone globally, should incrementally increase every year (as seems to be what is inferred).”
Sad that people fall for it.
Yep, naturally variability totally swamps any mystical CO2 warming at all time scales.
That is why you will never be able to give any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
PANIC!
Is there even a weather station at Magilligan..
Would love to see where it is, and a picture of it.
When it was established etc.
I’m guessing that “provisionally reached” means the political adjustments haven’t been done yet.
Note that Banton was unable to provide weather station info.
Probably measured in the middle of a tar road. !
One day weather is not proof of climate change.
Here in North Lincolnshire l recorded a max temp of 10.5C on the same day which felt more realistic of the conditions at the time.
Indeed (I live in N N Lincs too)
Why would you expect to be!?
( more realistic)
Were you a spilt-person on the day and were present in NI at as well.
If you can read a synoptic chart …
Notice the long draw of SW’ly winds affecting NI on the day.
Coming north over warm (though cooling as it comes) seas.
Also the tightness of the isobars – windy.
Now Lincs:
Notice that we were under a ridge of HP which caused overnight cooling under clear spells and light winds.
In December the lower boundary layer does not regain that lost heat given the above conditions.
It’s called meteorology.
Chart did not copy … will try another source
Thanks for the WEATHER maps, dopey !!
Not “climate” maps. !
Do you even understand the difference !!
What am saying is that the temp of 10.5C was the more typical max temp across mainland UK during that day and not this claimed high of 14.3C which was likely due to localised conditions.
Amazing how well that matches the England sunshine graph, isn’t it.
Sunshine in England.. OMG !!!
No evidence of any human causation, though, is there.
Correlation does not imply causation. And why are you showing English sunshine rather than the UK, and why do you stop in 2020..
Here’s the relevant graph. Note that whilst 2022 was quite sunny though hardly record breaking, 2023 was quite a bit duller, yet 2023 was virtually the same temperature.
In general however, you do see quite strong correlation between the two, but it’s difficult to see how all the warming could be caused by increased sunshine. As well as then leaving the question as to why the UK has become sunnier over the last few decades.
One reason I’m a bit skeptical of the idea that all rise in UK temperature is caused by increased sunshine, is that you see by far the best correlation between sunshine and temperatures during the summer months (not surprisingly). Yet Summer has not seen much of an increase in sunshine.
Thanks for showing the large increase in sunshine over the whole UK 🙂
And it takes a very silly person to think that extra sunshine isn’t a causal factor for temperature.
But then, you are a very silly person.
And of course it is nothing to do with human caused climate change or AGW.
The reason why 2023 was duller but had the same temps as 2022.
Was because the winter months of February and December played a large part in the warmth of that year, and these 2 months were dominated by SW winds. Which here in the UK brings very mild but rather cloudy weather during the winter.
Also where is there any evidence that increased sunshine amounts in the UK are caused by CO2 levels, and that a rise in sunshine amounts would not have a impact on temps in the UK.
2024 is provisionally 9.78°C for the UK, 0.25°C below 2022, but still the 4th warmest year on record.
It was the dullest year since 1998. Possibly related to this there was quite a divide between max an min temperatures. Minimums were equal warmest with 2023. Maximums were 0.64°C down on the record set in 2022.
“Over a period of just a few months after the article was written, the global sea temperature over a large area of the world’s oceans has shown a dramatic reduction of 0.5°C”
Yes. And if you look at the dashed lines, which are multi-year averages, you can see why. It happens every year. It is mostly just seasonal. Summer/winter. It drops when it is winter/spring in the SH, because there is a lot more ocean there, so it swamps the contrary behaviour in the NH.
The way to get a proper view is to de-seasonalise by subtracting a multi-year average for each day. (1991-2020) Then you see that the drop is only about 0.1°C.
So much Carbon wasted for nothing (of value) said.
How do you sleep at night?
Numbers.
Wonderful things that can be arranged and re-arranged any ways we like.
And like colors, there’s no point in debating which selection is “right”.
Right?
Thanks for showing that the effect of 2023 El Nino is finally subsiding.
Well Done NIck. 🙂
Absolutely no human causation behind that extended El Nino event is there.
Maybe the reason the drop is about 0.1°C is that you didn’t de-seasonalize the the record correctly.
Maybe you are wrong.
“Then you see that the drop is only about 0.1°C.”
Has actually dropped about 0.3C since the beginning of the year
… and the trend is still downwards, exactly as expected as the El Nino + HT subsides.
Unless, of course, CO2 causes cooling trends.. 😉
UAH anomaly has dropped about 0.3C since the peak in April
Funny, I’ve made the same point about the GAT. Averaging two hemispheres with different variances because of opposite seasons and physical different geography really makes little sense.
GAT is an average anomaly – seasonality has been removed.
If it is based on surface station data, at all, it is meaningless.
GAT is a nonphysical nonsense, especially if it comprises temperatures from both hemispheres.
What a load of hot air… oh wait…
2025 will be the year of molten, flooded, burned, droughted, blown down etc etc etc
Like never before, of course.
You are ranting (what’s new) – well perhaps just that it is not on the tails of the the niceman.
About the media.
Who – guess what – hype-up stories that whenever possible, err, because it sells.
No climate scientist has said that.
I take it that you are unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm.
Actually I am, we Brits are noted for it.
That is why it is called ” the LOWEST form of wit”
“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.”― Oscar Wilde
pity you missed out on the intelligence part. !
It was not you that did the sarcasm. !
“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.”― Oscar Wilde
pity you missed out on the intelligence part. !
It was not you that did the sarcasm. !
“No climate scientist has said that.”
Maybe you are right, but the head of the UN has said similar things..
.. and the climate glitterati never come and tell him to stop being a moronic idiot !
Next time he says some moronic over-the-top anti-science comment, I expect to see you come out with heavy criticism.
But you won’t will you !
Sea level dropping:
Global Mean Sea Level | Key Indicators – NASA Sea Level Change Portal
The rate of mass transfer and associated energy transfer (temperature drop), and the rise 2 years ago, is way out of line with what models can predict so something else is going on i.e. the science is not settled.
True. Real science is never settled.
And neither is climate science.
What is settled is that anthro GHGs are causing the biosphere to warm.
That was settled in the previous to last century
Who “settled” what?
What specific disciplines were applied in “climate science” in the previous to last century?
Had “climate science” (whatever that term has been tortured to define) even been invented back then?
Was the revelation of such “settled” anthro god-like powers delivered by a grey-bearded bloke in long robes carrying a set of slate tablets?
It has been settled by all the experimental evidence that CO2 is a GHG, which goes back to the century before last.
Many, many someone’s.
Then we have the fact that humans have increased the content of said gas in our atmosphere by 50%.
Ergo that known GHG is causing GW.
That you are either wilfully ignorant of it or are wishfully so, in the real world outside of this website that is a proven and accepted fact.
Sorry about that.
Que mr nice man to have a brain-cell fart.
More anti-science BS from Banton.. been drinking again, have you ?
Has probably never even bothered looking at the so-called “science” from way back, and found how lacking in evidence of CO2 warming the atmosphere it is.
Even more lacking than he is, and that is a major accomplishment…
Hasn’t the brains or comprehension to realise it was PURE CONJECTURE, based on erroneous formulas, dumb physics and fake anti-realistic models.
ie Just like it is today.
Still waiting for some of your very elusive “evidence”….
…. you are still FAILING to find any.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
Your brain resides between your lower cheeks !! All it does is fart.
CO2 absorbs IR radiation.. That is all. You have never offered any evidence of its influence on temperatures. Never.
“What is settled is that anthro GHGs are causing the biosphere to warm.”
GARBAGE anti-CO2 cult mantra. !
This event had absolutely zero human causation.
There is no empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
There is no evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH data, just El Nino events,
Arrhenius made a baseless conjecture based on a simplistic totally unrealistic model using equations that didn’t even have dimensional validity
He proved absolutely nothing.
I have looked really hard but I have failed to find any evidence that the increase in CO2 has done anything but improve plant growth worldwide.
Me, too.
There is no evidence CO2 is adding any detectable warmth to the atmosphere.
Anyone who claims CO2 is noticeably heating the atmosphere should be asked this question: Based on what?
I have asked many AGW-apostles/trolls.
And still nothing, nada … zip !!
And gees, don’t the run around like headless chooks, while trying desperately to present zero evidence.
The more they FAIL, the more people see that they have FAILED. 🙂
The current upward bulge (and subsequent decline) in the sea level rise looks very similar to what happened in 2016 and 1998. That suggests to me that what we are seeing is the thermosteric increase in volume caused by the transient El Ninos. So much for the much heralded “acceleration” due to CO2.
2024 has been under the effect of the 2023 El Nino + HT event for every month of the year, only starting to drop off a bit in November and December, so yes the average will be higher.
But it is nothing to do with human caused climate change or AGW.
Nick has clearly shown the effect of the El Nino is now gradually subsiding, so 2025 will not be anywhere near the same average temperature.
But they don’t look at average temperatures, instead they look at averaged temperature differences.
instead they look at averaged temperature differences.
Which, as Nick pointed out, has some severe issues due to different seasons and geography.
Maybe using a global average baseline temperature would help. Like 15°C for ALL anomaly calculations.
“ Meanwhile, a new paper published this month in Science states that warming since 2013 and the spike in 2023 was helped by a reduction in cloud cover.”
Another recent paper reached a similar conclusion.
No-one has yet been able to produce any empirical evidence that CO2 causes any warming at all in the atmosphere.
Theoretical values based only on radiative calculation and ignoring all the other forms of energy transfer are totally invalid as actual proof.
You must have missed it >…..
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/598930
”The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.
The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet’s energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at the Earth’s surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.
They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2sources around the world.”
That you do not/will not accept it is a given mr niceone.
The Feldman travesty.. Hilarious. !!
Where they derived the CO2 “forcing” from temperature, (which in 2000 was the base of a La Nina, and in 2010 was the top of an El Nino.
See attached..
Also “Clear sky” DOES NOT mean no H2O !
and he forcing is “tiny” anyway, and there is no evidence it leads to any temperature change, because is actually a result of the temperature change due to the La Nina-El NIno shift
But then, there is Dong, Xi, Minnis 2006, under “ALL sky” conditions, that found the reverse.
”Similar to the clear-sky study, we also provide the all-sky upwelling SW and LW fluxes to study the surface radiation budget under all-sky conditions. The rates of net SW and LW fluxes are −0.07 W/m^2 [per year] and −0.37 W/m^2 [per year], respectively, resulting in a decrease of 0.44 W/m^2 per year in NET flux at the surface (Figure 3b). The decline of NET flux, however, does not correlate with the increased surface air temperature as illustrated in Figure 3a. The surface air temperature is determined by the sum of NET radiation fluxes (downwelling and upwelling SW and LW fluxes) and nonradiative fluxes (sensible and latent heat fluxes, ground heat flux and energy flux used for melt), as well as the large-scale advection [Wild et al., 2004]. Wild et al. [2004] investigated this counterintuitive result and concluded that it may be due to a decrease of surface evaporation and associated reduced evaporative surface cooling.”
”… using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that an annual increase of 0.04°C air temperature each year corresponds to an increase of 0.4 W/m^2 per year in upward LW upward surface emission. However, the measured change is a decrease of 0.26 W/m^2 per year”
attachment didn’t attach
Again it is a given “That you do not/will not accept it is a given mr niceone”.
Banton again proves he has neither read nor understood the Feldman paper.
Becoming more and more apparent that he is a total laggard when it comes to scientific comprehension.
When the many issues of a paper are shown to him….. he has nothing.
You FAILED yet again, Banton… thus is your life.!
They also used supercooled sensors, thus creating the conditions for fake back-radiation to exist.
Don’t you understand anything about basic physics of energy transfer ??
OOPS !!
They basically had to fake the results they wanted.
Oh and the term “forcing” has zero meaning wrt CO2.
Read and learn .. if you are capable of letting down your brain-washed sludge barrier.
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why a new paper does not provide evidence of an increased CO2 greenhouse effect
New result shows CO2 has almost no effect on temperature | Tallbloke’s Talkshop
Very nice Chris, two thoughts.
One the hype about hottest year ever is deceitful in my view. How much hotter is it? My guess is that the new record only beat the old one by tenths or hundredths of a degree which to me is meaningless. The problem is most people probably think it was several degrees.
Two the other side is not wasting it’s time trying to convince knowledgeable climatologists that we are in trouble. Their message is directed squarely to the average guy who most likely doesn’t understand a fraction of the lies he is being fed. We have to change that, we must inform the average guy that the things he has been encouraged to fear are primarily lies, misinformation or half truths.
The other side has no proper science to support their extremist claims and no one knows that better than them, That is why they have targeted the average guy.