Essay by Eric Worrall
“… Individual years pushing past the 1.5-degree limit … means we need to fight even harder to get on track. …”
Press Release | WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level
WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level
- The past ten years 2015-2024 are the ten warmest years on record
- We have likely seen the first calendar year with a global mean temperature of more than 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average
- Six international datasets are used to reach the consolidated WMO global figure
- 2024 saw exceptional land and sea surface temperatures and ocean heat
- Long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement not yet dead but in grave danger
Geneva (WMO – The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has confirmed that 2024 is the warmest year on record, based on six international datasets. The past ten years have all been in the Top Ten, in an extraordinary streak of record-breaking temperatures.
…
“Today’s assessment from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) proves yet again – global heating is a cold, hard fact,” said UN Secretary-General Antóno Guterres.
“Individual years pushing past the 1.5 degree limit do not mean the long-term goal is shot. It means we need to fight even harder to get on track. Blazing temperatures in 2024 require trail-blazing climate action in 2025,” he said. “There’s still time to avoid the worst of climate catastrophe. But leaders must act – now,” he said.
The WMO provides a temperature assessment based on multiple sources of data to support international climate monitoring and to provide authoritative information for the UN Climate Change negotiating process. The datasets are from the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Japan Meteorological Agency, NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the UK’s Met Office in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT), and Berkeley Earth.
“Climate history is playing out before our eyes. We’ve had not just one or two record-breaking years, but a full ten-year series. This has been accompanied by devastating and extreme weather, rising sea levels and melting ice, all powered by record-breaking greenhouse gas levels due to human activities,” said WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo.
“It is important to emphasize that a single year of more than 1.5°C for a year does NOT mean that we have failed to meet Paris Agreement long-term temperature goals, which are measured over decades rather than an individual year. However, it is essential to recognize that every fraction of a degree of warming matters. Whether it is at a level below or above 1.5°C of warming, every additional increment of global warming increases the impacts on our lives, economies and our planet,” said Celeste Saulo.
…
Read more: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2025/01/press-release-wmo-confirms-2024-as-warmest-year-on-record-at-about-1-55c-above-pre-industrial-level/
Anyone feel the apocalypse?
Scientists claiming their settled science models didn’t see it coming is also funny.
Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory
Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.
When I took over as the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, I inherited a project that tracks temperature changes since 1880. Using this trove of data, I’ve made climate predictions at the start of every year since 2016. It’s humbling, and a bit worrying, to admit that no year has confounded climate scientists’ predictive capabilities more than 2023 has.
For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened.
…
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
2023-24 appears to have totally messed up the planned climate narrative. The UN and climate scientists looked all set to milk each fractional advance on 1.5C, then suddenly we blow past it and they have nothing to talk about. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets failed to slide into the sea, the North Pole Ice Cap is still there, and you can still buy food in the supermarket.
There are feeble attempts to bring forward the 2.0C fear narrative, but they don’t seem to be gaining much traction. After the Covid lockdown debacle, suddenly discovering 1.5C hype was just as fake as Covid lockdown narratives appears to have killed much of the remaining credibility of climate alarmists.
2025 is going to be a very good year for climate skeptics.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The “dreadful things will happen with 1.5 degrees C increase” narrative was a crock to start with. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age, so warming from that point should be a good thing.
Which is why Michael Mann’s tendentious hockey stick was so popular with the zealots, as it eliminated having to deal with both the LIA and natural variability.
I hope that Mr. Guterres (Socialist) will be even more successful here than in preventing the Russian war in Ukraine.
Mr Guterres gives even Socialists a bad name. The man is clearly an idiot..
Who gets paid US $70 million/year…
Any proof of this, such as URLs from reputable sources?
War is good business for the UN
Yes Tom, and we have to be diligent in stopping this hoax:
WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level
The climate liars and criminals that include Banton, LiarJ, and other useful idiots on here, have sneaked in the trick of “pre-industrial” language. Then they sneak in the year 1850. They’re claiming a hundred years of natural warming which, in addition to the cheating of claiming 0.6 – 0.8C of warming pre-CO2 increases, also allows them to not have to subtract that from the baseline. These people are fkin vile.
Clouds and Upward and Downward IR Radiation
The below article indicates CO2 has a very minor role regarding the greenhouse effect
.
Increasing CO2 by 100% Reduces Radiative Cooling to Space by an Imperceptible 1%
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/increasing-co2-by-100-reduces-radiative-cooling-to-space-by-an
By Drs. van Wijngaarden and Happer
.
“An increase in low cloud cover of only about 1% could largely compensate for the doubling of CO2.” – van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2025
The physicists detail just how insignificant CO2 is as a factor in climate change, revealing that doubling the CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm – a 100% increase – hypothetically reduces radiative heat loss to space by just 1%.
It would take many decades to achieve such a ppm increase, plus there are not enough fossil fuels left over to make it happen.
Because CO2 has increased by only 50% since 1750 (280 ppm to 420 ppm), the CO2 total greenhouse effect regarding reducing upward IR radiation has thus far been in the range of tenths of a percentage point.
Such a small change in upward IR radiation, over hundreds of years, is not even detectable amid the noise of outgoing radiation measurement.
For example, the measured upward IR radiation has an error of about 33 W/m²
This negligible CO2 greenhouse effect is a calculated value for an atmosphere that is perpetually cloud-free.
As clouds are present 60-70% of the time, this clear-sky-only condition only occurs in an imaginary world – an atmosphere that doesn’t exist.
Compared to the CO2 role, the greenhouse effect of clouds is tens of times more influential.
As Drs. van Wijngaarden and Happer point out in their conclusion, all that is needed to offset the impact of doubling CO2 is a mere 1% change in cloud cover.
Because cloud cover changes of much more than 1% occur routinely, both from year-to-year and
decade-by-decade, the role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect is insignificant, if not irrelevant.
During cloudy skies, downward IR radiation from cloud bottoms is about 340 W/m^2,
During clear skies, downward IR radiation is about 260 W/m^2, about 30% less
Can we please separate H2O from the ‘greenhouse’ gasses Co2, Ch4 etc?
One can start by NOT calling water vapour a gas. Then extrapolate that the so called GHE from gasses like Co2 is minimal, as in really really small. Some say it has ZERO real effect on surface temperature as it is drowned out completely by H2O as in WV. As i see it it is THEN a moot point to argue whether the GHE is real or not, although some will. H2O remains the regulator. Not perfect but then, nothing in the system is.
I vote for a re-alignment..
WV is a gas, because it behaves as a gas, per physics
Cloud cover changes are the only plausible explanation for most of the modest “secular” warming of the past two centuries. Together with ocean current fluctuations (see URLs), cloud cover changes are also the only physical mechanism that could account for fluctuating temperature changes with time scales of a few years.
.
Based on fundamental physics, one should expect some warming from increasing CO2. But this warming will be too small to account for what has been observed.
.
Cloud cover changes provide the only rational explanation that does not violate basic physics.
.
El Nino events typically produce cloud cover changes much greater than 1%, due to increased evaporation. See image in URLs.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
During cloudy skies, downward IR radiation from cloud bottoms is about 340 W/m^2,
During clear skies, downward IR radiation is about 260 W/m^2, about 30% less
You can see the El Nino image in this article
CO2 Has a Very Minor Global Warming Role in the Atmosphere
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
By Willem Post
“The climate liars and criminals that include Banton, LiarJ, and other useful idiots on here”
Really pathetic ad hom
Careful Charles is on the warpath
Really pathetic ad hom
Sounds like you appreciate the use of ad homs that aren’t pathetic. Why don’t you just condemn ALL ad homs, even by yourself?
Please provide one “by myself” that comes anywhere close to that level of nastiness.
It requires a state of anger that I in no way possess.
I find it sad that anyone can, over merely advocating the position of climate science.
It takes some serious conspiracy ideation to defeat common sense so decidedly in the first place and then express that weird belief so venomously.
Can you give me a web site that classifies the “nastiness” of ad hominems?’. I’ve not seen one.
The issue is attacking ones character to supposedly refute an argument. Whether flowery prose is used or coarse vernacular, a fallacy is a fallacy and a character attack is a character attack.
Strawman Jim, Strawman. You are putting words in his mouth
Talk about a strawman! Quote what I said and refute it with some evidence by providing a web site that discusses ranking ad hominem arguments as to their nastiness.
“The climate liars and criminals that include Banton, LiarJ, and other useful idiots on here, have sneaked in the trick of “pre-industrial” language. Then they sneak in the year 1850. They’re claiming a hundred years of natural warming which, in addition to the cheating of claiming 0.6 – 0.8C of warming pre-CO2 increases, also allows them to not have to subtract that from the baseline. These people….”
Do you really feel that this is a legitimate, well reasoned post? Many of you are hypocrites to the core. You shout and scream fraud constantly, and believe that skeptical viewpoints are never heard. Yet….. whenever anyone who disagrees with your own views, with well reasoned points, your response is to post this vile, completely biased, and unreasonable attack. If you want this site to be taken seriously, then you have to clean up your act.
Thank you neutral:
see my reply to Gorman above.
I think Charles is trying to clean up it’s act.
What on earth do they mean by ‘fighting harder’? It’s reducing CO2 isn’t it? Good luck with that- not a tremor in the Keeling curve rise since COP1 in Berlin in 1995 even when the COVID pandemic deindustrialised us. And where did this 1.5 degs come from? ‘Paris’. (bless it!) was 2.0degs. It would take too long to reach panic level so the IPCC dishonestly produced SR1.5 in time for the failed Katowice COP. Laughed out of court by proper scientists. So now we have backtracking “we never said there would be a catastrophe did we?” 1.5 is meaningless and has no basis in science. Oh and by the way if the globe is gently warming then EVERY YEAR SHOULD BE HOTTAH!
2025… El Nino effect dropping, heading into La Nina.. will not be anywhere near what 2024 was.
The real oddity for 2024 was that it was under the influence of a persistent El Nino effect for the whole year, the effect only just starting to diminish at the end of the year.
1998, 2016 were only for a few months
From start, 2023/24 El Nino had a similar peak effect in the atmosphere as 1998, and far more than 2016/17
(note horizontal axis 1, 13 are January )
“And where did this 1.5 degs come from?”
iirc, it originated from the Potsdam Asylum for Krazed Klimate Kooks.
That’s not the official title, but, yes, it does come from there using Nordhaus’s DICE model with revised input parameters.
Nordhaus’s DICE model
Is that played on Nintendo, XBox or Playstation?
“we never said there would be a catastrophe did we?”
This is what the Pentagon was saying over 20 years ago:
“Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.
Major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.
Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
Climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies.
The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism.”
… and they still don’t understand why we don’t trust them.
It’s not the job of the Pentagon to discuss anything other than its war fighting capability. Politics, for it, should be verboten. The climate thing is pure politics.
I didn’t see a link to that Pentagon report. The Observer/Guardian say it was a secret report and then publicise it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
I couldn’t find a link either, I’m presuming the report is still mostly classified.
There are other DoD reports which are available and they all align with the current climate of fearmongering. (no pun intended)
“To keep the nation secure, we must tackle the existential threat of climate change”
Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary for Policy (Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities). 2021. Department of Defense Climate Risk Analysis.
Report Submitted to National Security Council
https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD-CLIMATE-RISK-ANALYSIS-FINAL.PDF
I thought 1.5C was a “tipping point.” So are we now going to experience runaway temperature increases that we cannot abate? If so, we just need to fold up our tents and go home to welcome the apocalypse.
So what is it now, superboiling, ultramolten etc?
UNhinged is what they are.
HEY! Pay attention, the Earth is heating up twice as fast as any other planets, so send us MORE money! Follow the money, keep the scare going, and the peasants will rush to the UN to be saved, at a price, of course.
Venus is such a tease.
The atmosphere on Venus is 95% CO2 and it’s hot enough there to melt lead.
Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 and it’s so cold there it snows dry ice.
Earth’s atmosphere is 0.04% CO2 which causes: National Climate Assessment
Excellent observation!
I have no idea why that factoid isn’t plastered up here at WUWT more often
Many Warmists use Venus as an example of a runaway Greenhouse Effect. Pointing this fact out will help to scotch their lie.
The Venusian atmosphere has a pressure of 95 atmospheres. The Venusian day is longer than its year. There are no natural satellites. There’s no magnetic field, which suggests that is vulnerable to effects of CMEs. It has a tilt of 3 degrees, which suggests that there’s no real difference in illumination at the poles compared with the equator.
Other than these minor differences Venus and Earth are twins /sarc.
Twins with one trivial difference. Venus has no water.
The surface pressure of Venus’ atmosphere is 9200 times that of Mars
(Venus is at 92 bar and Venus ~ 10 mbar. Earth 1 bar)
It is 0.04 % of Earth’s atmosphere but it is also 98% of non-condensing GHGs as 99% of the Earth’s atmosphere is transparent to Terrestrial LWIR.
Those reasons are why the 3 planets are not comparable re their GHE.
Atmospheric plasmafication.
Long, has it been clear that it is only MONEY about which these thieves are concerned! The end of the $Trillions is in sight.
I disagree.. there is a large element of self-entitled power grabbing by the UN involved too.
Same thing – power grabbing so they can influence the flow of the $Trillions as much in their directions as they can get away with.
He who controls the money controls.
The ‘temperature anomaly’ is a rigged game. As long as biased organizations such as WMO, Hadley, etc. are controlling the counting, you can be assured of the outcome. A difficulty arises when the ‘limit’ is surpassed, but not to worry, a reset can be made. It can be discovered, in the models, that 1.5C was not the ‘red line’, but 2.5 C. The entire scam is predicated on the idea that NO CLIMATE CHANGE can be allowed, as if humanity really had control.
Just gotta get me one of them thar thermo meters that tells me when my bedroom is 0.05 of a degree C over the 18 I set it to.
Does Amazon have them ?
Amazon does a kind of Stevenson box: a very small box inside a huge box with lots of paper packing…
I receive one of them just about every week, and I’ve just been putting them into the recycling.
Wot a silly bunt.
Oh yeah, Mr.
I have a great one of those thermometers, and she gets up all thru the night fooling around with the thermostat.
Maybe we could find all those farmers and ranchers out west that didn’t notice all the tornadoes or periods of drought or early frosts.
The more you look, the more you find, except for a few things like gold or diamonds.
Gums sends…
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
With that obnoxious little Portuguese sausage as its spokesman, how could the UN have any credibility?
Every single day that muppet demands someone stop something. Russia, Iran, fossil fuels, Israel, Hamas, Houthis, Somalia, fossil fuels, abuse of children, abuse of women, fossil fuels, big pharma, big tech, and fossil fuels.
I do not remember a single war that the UN stopped, nor a single disaster they helped alleviate. They are corrupt to the bone and when exposed they promptly investigate themselves and find themselves innocent. They are nothing more than a forum for corrupt dictatorships to point their finger at the west and call them evil.
Trump’s got a lot of things on his list to get rid of. I don’t think the UN is high on it, but I hope its there somewhere. Never before has there been a global organization this large gleefully filling their pockets with money while accomplishing nothing.
“The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets failed to slide into the sea, the North Pole Ice Cap is still there, and you can still buy food in the supermarket.”
And the seas continue to rise at the same unaltered annual rate as existed before Abraham Lincoln became president.
The Greenland ice sheets can’t slide into the sea, since the center of Greenland is actually below sea level. In order to slide into the sea, Greenland’s ice sheets would have to slide uphill.
Yes, but warm sea water sinks and then flows under the ice pack, under the sea ice, and finally under the shelf ice and melts the glacier at the grounding line.
I share your optimism about 2025. Trump will be 47. Paris will be kaput again. We will ‘drill, baby, drill’. Renewables have already pushed the EU/UK grid close to collapse. Newsom and Bass incompetently burnt toasted LA, and nobody sane is saying it is because of climate change. Loper Bright ended Chevron deference, so fed agencies will not be able to run as amok. DOGE will undoubtedly trim a lot of climate spending fat over the next two years.
Renewables are pushing the EU/UK economies closer to collapse as well.
“HUGE!”
When will climate scientists start dying off from these huge-margin CO2-caused heat anomalies?
It’s not scientifically possible to accurately measure the Earths temperature. The biggest scam going. Temperature stations are mostly in urban heat sinks.
Satellite measurements are pretty good.
Yes but we don’t what the data we are getting means. Our history of those measurements is far to short to know anything and to come to any conclusions. Maybe with a couple hundred years we will have some clue as to what going on.
You mean tape measures that tell us what the dimensions of satellites are?
What are Temps numbers provided by satellites calibrated against?
They have multiple means of calibration, including having the entire apparatus flip around backwards to look at a part of the sky with no detectable star light which is a known 2.3 Deg K. If you’ve ever seen plots comparing UAH to models, one of the other things often on the plot is temperature measurements from weather balloons and radiosondes. They agree nearly perfectly with UAH observations.
I read a very detailed article on satellite calibration, by Roy Spencer IIRC. I think it as on his web site. I came away satisfied that the measurements are reliable.
My real problem is people that try to compare to surface temperature. Different things are being measured using a totally different device.
Which goes directly to the PROBITY of the “global” temperatures inputs.
(and we haven’t even gotten to considering the PROVENANCE of the GAT inputs.
Note I didn’t say ‘data’, because by this stage, various treatments of the inputs stopped being “data” quite a few fiddles ago.)
Unfortunately Roy Spencer doesn’t know what “radiation” means, any more than Willis does. And the number of variables involved in trying to determine Earth’s surface temperature from space by measuring radiant power is more or less astronomical. (For one thing, Earth isn’t a blackbody, and it isn’t even consistently not a blackbody.) Even so, it’s probably still a better guess than thermometers in urban heat islands…
“Satellite measurements are pretty good.”
60-odd years is a laughably short period of time for collecting data and exteapolating it to the multiple different climates over the entire world.
But they’re not measuring the entire globe at once. It’s still a nonsense metric.
Thin stripes space at 25 km. with data between stripes filled in by interpolation?
The area a CERES measures is less than the width of my driveway.
Sloped surfaces do not emit straight up.
It goes on and on.
Pretty good?
“An increase in low cloud cover of only about 1% could largely compensate for the doubling of CO2.” – van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2025
The physicists detail just how insignificant CO2 is as a factor in climate change, revealing that doubling the CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm – a 100% increase – hypothetically reduces radiative heat loss to space by just 1%.
It would take many decades to achieve such a ppm increase, plus there are not enough fossil fuels left over to make it happen.
Because CO2 has increased by only 50% since 1750 (280 ppm to 420 ppm), the CO2 total greenhouse effect regarding reducing upward IR radiation has thus far been in the range of tenths of a percentage point.
Such a small change in upward IR radiation, over hundreds of years, is not even detectable amid the noise of outgoing radiation measurement.
For example, the measured upward IR radiation has an error of about 33 W/m²
Satellites are the best we have today. But satellites are very far from good enough.
Acquisition angle limits what they can see, what they can cover. Analog linearization circuits and filters all insert error into the results. Calibration is good for first use, but long term diminishes. How much is unknown but it is not zero. Analog to digital converters introduce quantization error. 16 bit converter has a 6%+quantization error.
Ceres has listed its errors in the NASA pamphlet and it is larger than the calculated energy imbalance.
Michael,
Did you mean “stoves” when you typed sinks?
Maybe dishwashers?
Climate models are essentially linear projections using child-like computer games., they don’t do “El Nino” events, or HT eruptions
They didn’t show the 1998 or 2016 El Nino events, why should they project the change from the 2023 El Nino.
Gavin will always be working from a position of ignorance.
UN Scrambling to Save the Credibility of the Paris Agreement
Britain endures coldest night for 15 years as temperatures drop below -18C https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/11/britain-endures-coldest-night-15-years-temperatures-18c/
In a warming world?
10th January 1982 it was -27.2C at Braemar.
And in Holland we had the 11 cities 200+ km skating competition, won by the same guy who won it a year later. The previous one was held in 1963. Extreme winters. They may come again. Of course there was no Co2 back then..eh.mmm.
On Newsmax, the AP reports that “paradoxically global warming causes colder temperatures.”
Then again, I think everyone knows they are an outlet for socialist/communist propaganda. DNC and UN organizations feed them talking points.
Everything trickles down from the 2 ‘news’ agents: AP and Reuters. See my post w the linked video..
According to the IPCC, the warmening causes encolderization. Do keep up.
Encolderization? Is that the inverse of thermalization?
Ah the limits, the limits!
So, now we’ve exceeded the 1.5 deg limit. They kept moving the goal posts lower because the world was not warming up as fast as their models predicted. They’ve now reached the limit… of their limits. Quoted from the article:
Individual years pushing past the 1.5 degree limit do not mean the long-term goal is shot.
So now the narrative is truly screwed. They have begun to walk back their own limits. Oh, we didn’t mean 1.5 was the limit per se, we meant some number of years, more than one. We don’t know yet how many years more, but we will soon have “expert opinion” on that, following which we will produce science to confirm our expert opinion.
I expect I will live long enough to see them move the goal posts back to 2.0 perhaps even 2.5 with the doom from breaching each one announced to be even greater, to accelerate faster, than the one before. Yes we know nothing bad happened, that’s why its going to be worse when it does you stupid peasant, we are confiscating your car.
The great march of the goal posts has begun.
Nailed it!
…. well, except David allowed them to steal the 0.6 – 0.8C that happened between 1850 and 1940-ish when carbon dioxide increase really started. They also then can steal a new baseline, like it’s flat. Frauds.
The real warming above the natural warming baseline is somewhere between ZERO and maybe 0.4C, and likely closer to ZERO since the advent of real carbon dioxide emissions.
Given that we’re on the Holocene downslope, we may not see +1.5C for over 100,000 years, although I assume that grown-ups will take over before that happens and engineer warmth for real.
Oh yes agreed…. but let them steal it!
Make THEM back down and put it on the table if they want. They can’t because it would be obvious that they lied about it all along. They are caught between a rock and a hard stop. Make them defend their 1.5 limit, make them move the goal posts again and again until we breach 2.0, taunt them the whole way.
A cynic would say that if it wasn’t for the tampering with historic records and falsified current temps there wouldn’t be any warming at all. Sorry.. cynic, I meant realist. Damned predictive text..
But, but, but we have to solve it NOW!
/sarc
Reminds me of Veruka.
The UN needs to worry about it’s own credibility first.
The UN needs to go back to its core purpose – preventing the next World War.
Six foot distance between people, same as 1.5 degrees C. Arbitrary
I like a 6 foot, or better, 2 metres, separation of people from me. Not because of covid or anything, just because of people.
__________________________________________________________________
So What?
There has been a global warm-up since 1850. It should come as no surprise
that recent years are the warmest for those 175 years.
“Today’s assessment proves yet again – global heating is a cold, hard fact,”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Whether it is at a level below or above 1.5°C of warming, every additional
increment of global warming increases the impacts on our lives.
That’s right, more rain & CO2, warmer weather, longer growing seasons,
and more arable land are positive impacts on our lives.
I have it on good authority (the BBC and Richard Greene) that it’s warmer now than at least the past 100,000 years…
Yet most of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than now.
BBC has zero credibility.
“Yet most of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than now.”
Err.
No……
“BBC has zero credibility”.
Uness you can come up with evidence that “most of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than now”….
It is you bnice that has “Zero-credibility”
No kidding, the earth’s population continues to grow along with concrete and asphalt as major cities get larger and larger.
If you think that any UHI affects the atmospheric layer that is sampled by the satellites of UAH and RSS – then you are sadly absent on any concept of the heating required.
Why don’t you show us evidence that higher temperature at the surface is not diffused upward to increase temperatures throughout the troposphere.
I have seen papers describing limited diffusion horizontally. I have not seen one showing limited vertical diffusion, perhaps you can give us one to provide some resource to your unsupported assertion.
“to your unsupported assertion”
Oh, for god’s sake.
The amount of energy required to heat the total atmosphere continuously by over 1C is enormous.
If that is not common sense to you, then I am at a loss !
Aside from that the Earth is 71% Ocean and it heats the atmosphere – not the other way around. We know it does due the copious convection that takes place in the tropics and where cool, high latitude sourced air is advected over it.
How can that be if the entire atmosphere is exhibiting your supposed UHI ??
You are definitely at a loss for a cogent argument!
You just confirmed that you think thermals don’t exist. Why am I not surprised?
Why do you think square miles of concrete and dark roofs can’t generate a thermal warmer than the surrounding countryside?
Nothing you have posted as an answer address the vertical direction. Do you think satellites don’t measure the vertical?
I asked for some papers covering the vertical UHI effects. Why didn’t you just say that you couldn’t find any. Your common sense would not be considered very scientific!
On record. And the record started when? And how long have the current technologies been used to record?
Story tip
My new dark red climate stripe for 2024 shows it’s the hottest year yet – Ed Hawkins
The data is in…
https://theconversation.com/my-new-dark-red-climate-stripe-for-2024-shows-its-the-hottest-year-yet-246914
This guy really is bonkers.
Older maps of the USSR were colored red, and school kids were taught how to hide under desks. If he thinks a vertical red line is going to get my attention — he needs to think again.
Somebody should tell Mr. Hawkins that the temperatures are now cooling and he should stop worrying. The current temperatures are currently cooler than both the 1998 high point and the 2016 high point.
Hawkins said “The data is in. 2024 was the warmest year on record,”
What you said “The current temperatures are currently cooler than both the 1998 high point and the 2016 high point.”
Is irrelevant to that.
Yearly data is the average of the whole year.
Would you like peeps to jump on the band-wagon and an loudly state that April 1998 was the warmest “evah” by nearly 0.4C (since Dec 1987) ?
That is coming down from a peak period of warm NV does not a meaningfull statement make in evaluating averages over the instrumental history of climate.
I went to the link and what stood out also was this figure, below.
At first, I thought that this might be some more scientific fraud, then I remembered Hunga Tonga. Jeez, did it really do that? … and what’s with the quite dramatic decrease in the previous 8 years?
2016/17 El Nino event.. warm oceans add a lot of H2O to the atmosphere.
It then started to ease off, but then got hit by the 2023 El Nino which was probably helped along considerably by HT region water warming
I was thinking it might be vastly more water vapor, ejected by HT, into the higher regions of the column. Given that I don’t know the definition of “total column water vapour”, is that thought incorrect.
Whatever, are the climate nitwits looking at that data still trying to conclude that there’s a monotonic increase in positive feedback from CO2-induced water vapor increase?? Oooooh errrrr Betty !!!!!
I have no idea what the climate nitwits might be thinking.. if at all. 😉
HT sent a lot of WV up into the stratosphere, but that can’t happen without sending a lot into the troposhere on the way through.
I don’t have the data yet, but I suspect that there was also a lot of energy put into the Western Pacific around the HT area, which would have been delayed then released to the atmosphere as part of the El Nino event.
Bnice:
Any WV injected into the Troposphere by HT will have condensed out ages ago.
It did … but does not seem to have added any more relative to previous large EN events ….
https://climate.metoffice.cloud/humidity.html
Should also note that there is a surge in the rate of CO2 increase trailing El Nino events.
Yes, there always is – for these reasons ….
“The prevailing hypothesis explaining why CO2 rises during El Niño has to do with processes in both the ocean and land. First, due to the weakened trade winds, less of the cold, carbon-rich water makes it to the ocean surface, suppressing the amount of CO2 the ocean would normally release to the atmosphere.”
“El Niño events cause severe droughts and heat waves in the tropics, which affect plant growth and thus reduce carbon uptake. In times of El Niño, vegetation even releases large amounts of carbon that would otherwise be sequestered in the soil or forests. This causes the CO2 content in the atmosphere to increase.”
https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/en/pm-elnino-carboncycle#:~:text=El%2520Ni%C3%B1o%2520events%2520cause%2520severe,in%2520the%2520atmosphere%2520to%2520increase.
It’s The Conversation, what did you expect?
Is that like “The View”?
“This guy really is bonkers.”
So what he says is wrong then in your eyes?
Would you like to provide the evidence for that statement ?
Taking into account the graphs I posted above (including the UAH one).
If you cannot, then it is you and strati who are “bonkers”.
Very nice Eric. These CAGW people are despicable. Number one the way to measure the success or failure of their programs is the concentration of CO2 in the troposphere. Their goal is to reduce the concentration of CO2 and they have failed miserably. They have pissed away trillions of dollars, disrupted billions of people’s lives, taken away our freedom to purchase what we want, raised the cost of energy both for transportation and households not to mention business and manufacturing, given us an unreliable electric grid and any number of other things. They are the definition of failure yet they parade around like we are still supposed look up to and follow them. They are dead wrong and can go to hell.
“Their goal is to reduce the concentration of CO2 and they have failed miserably.”
Not “failed miserably”
Rather starting a very long process …..
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere
“When scientists give estimates for how long carbon dioxide (CO2) lasts in the atmosphere, those estimates are often intentionally vague, ranging anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years.1 The reason for the murky timeline is that CO2 molecules, once they enter the air, follow different paths and can last for radically different amounts of time.
Unlike some other atmospheric gases, CO2 mostly does not break down into smaller molecules while in the atmosphere. Methane, for instance—another important greenhouse gas—reacts with oxygen to turn into CO2 and water within a matter of years, and that process can be observed and measured. But CO2 molecules typically linger until something absorbs them from the air.2 Some are quickly taken up by the ocean, plants, and soil.3 Other atmospheric carbon sticks around for generations.4
“The first 10% goes quickly, but it’s not very much of it. The second part goes on a scale of centuries to millennia, but that only gets 80% of it,” says Ed Boyle, a professor of ocean geochemistry at MIT. He says the last of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere takes tens of thousands of years to leave.
You and others love to show temperature trends that are increasing with no end in sight.
The trend of CO2 shows no decrease. When do you expect the trend to bend downward if ever? Do you have a paper that is based on evidence that China, India, and other developing counties are quickly moving to reduce CO2?
.
As it states above:
Anywhere from 100’s of years to millennia.
It all depends on when we humans stop putting it into the atmosphere.
You should do your part and stop breathing. You emit 1 litre of air with 20,000 ppm CO2 multiple times per second.
15.10C they say. Gotta love those decimal points. 59.18F. Still seems a bit chilly.
They mean “about 1.55C above Little Ice Age level.”
“Pre-industrial” is all of time before industrialization – and there were long periods where the climate was much warmer than today and the earth did not burn up, nor did the oceans boil.
…. and carbon dioxide increase didn’t start becoming significant until 1940s-ish
Have you ever seen how they merged the ice core data to Mauna Loa? It the reports are accurate, they shifted the ice core data until it ligned up with Mauna Loa data.
Has Guterres ever gone to China to demand they slash their “carbon pollution”?
Never.
Guterres knows he would be wasting his time. So he spends his time badgering the West, who are the only ones who will listen to him.
Western politicians are really stupid.
Nor is the global population dropping, nor are life expectancy rates, nor is agricultural output or worldwide GDP. What is in steady decline is the credibility of the climate alarmists whose proclamations inevitably try to tie every disaster to climate change, human-induced, of course.
Dear Eric,
I don’t know what proportion of global datasets is represented by weather stations in Australia, but it’s clear that under the guise of data homogenisation, all the warming in individual ACORN-SAT datasets (Australian Climate Observations Reference Networks – Surface Air Temperature) used to monitor warming has been created by the various Bureau of Meteorology “scientists” who have fiddled the data to agree with the narrative.
As most historic changes in weather station locations have involved a move to improve their exposure (out of the way of new buildings and extensions that accommodate telephone exchanges, microwave towers and the like, and away from watered lawns) most were also accompanied by slight increases in temperatures measured.
Homogenising warming trends into ACORN-SAT is achieved by combinations of:
· Ignoring site changes that affected data, thereby pretending effects were due to the climate
o Easily achieved by generating fake metadata, including pretending not to know the original location of Stevenson Screens and when and where they moved to.
· Adjusting site changes that happened, but which made no material difference to data.
o Examples include adjusting for the presumed effect of time of observation changes from 3 am to 9 am at airports and lighthouses; rounding differences due to metrication; the change from 230-lite to 60-litre Stevenson screens.
· Selecting neighbouring site data whose first-differenced monthly values are highly correlated with that of the target (the site to be homogenised) to test for and make adjustments.
o As highly correlated data are likely to embed parallel faults, their use as covariables in any form (directly or as anomalies) is guaranteed to reinforce, rather than unbiasedly adjust faults in ACORN-SAT.
Unraveling what has happened at individual ACORN-SAT sites requires deep-dives into data and also careful cross referencing of BoM metadata with other sources such as archived Royal Australian Air Force files and RAAF and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) aerial photographs and files, state government and Geoscience Australia APs. Museums etc.
Most major Australian airports were photographed at various times pre- and post-WWII and many of those APs are held by Australia’s National Museum and National Archives as well as state and city archives. While analysis is the easy part, developing a catalogue of evidence for specific sites is a tedious and lengthy process.
There is no 1.5oC of anything – it is all made up by data homogenisation.
It is clear from analysing, documenting and reporting-on multiple ACORN-SAT sites from across Australia that BoM scientists have invented trends that don’t exist and that based on those, CSIRO has produced State of the Climate reports that are totally bogus (see http://www.bomwatch.com.au).
CSIRO spends far too much on marketing BS-reports and too little on undertaking the science Australia needs to remain competitive and to defend itself against the socialist white ants decaying the nations hard-fought freedoms from within.
There is no trend, no change, nothing of note in any Australian datasets that suggests the climate is warming. Furthermore, all the extremes, and trends in extremes and all the record heatwaves are due to the staged replacement of 230-litre Stevenson screens with 60-litre ones, which accelerated over the past two decades.
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
(story tip)
The temperature series thing is all a big joke as far as I’m concerned. Even if they weren’t making numbers up with homogenisation, the instruments themselves have big problems – digital vs mercury is not like for like.
Dear Eric,
As a former met observer, and scientist who compared daily temperature observations using thermometers housed in Stevenson screens with electronic thermometers, my take is that although electronic thermometers detect smaller variations, provided both instruments are true to calibration, the change rarely affects trend.
The problem with electronic thermometers is that output may exceed their calibration range, but mostly in the extremes (values greater than or possibly less than the 5th/95th to 1st/ 99th percentiles). Many daily values that exceed those limits are outliers anyway.
We could argue this all day, but it is not the instrument that causes differences in means (daily, monthly or annual) upon which ‘trend’ is calculated, but the rollout of 60-litre Stevenson screens in place of 230-litre screens, which accelerated over the last two decades.
In analysing daily temperature datasets using http://www.bomwatch.au protocols, I summarise multiple data attributes per year. Amongst those I pay close attention to the ratio of high vs low extremes (daily values greater than and less than 5th and 95th dataset percentiles). Invariably the log of the ratio steps up when the screen size changes, indicating that upper-range extremes have increased.
While this can occur without a change in the mean, in most cases when the BoM replaces a screen, they move it somewhere else like at Halls Creek and Townsville, or do something that causes a step-change, such as spraying out local groundcover like at Amberley and Richmond RAAF and Mount Barker WA, remove topsoil like at Marble Bar, they grade a firebreak around the enclosure like at Bourke, cultivate the whole surrounding paddock like at Badgerys Creek or install wind profiler arrays close to where temperatures are measured like at Devonport, Tennant Creek and Sydney and Canberra (and other) airports.
Ignoring the effect of site changes allows scientists at the BoM (most recently Blair Trewin), CSIRO and those who rely on models, to pretend the change in data reflect the true climate.
While the change to more sensitive instruments may affect extremes and trends in extremes, long-term trend is mainly due to the change from 230-litre to 60-litre screens (and changing from wooden to plastic 60-litre screens).
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Thanks for all you do, Bill.
Apparently, Temperature Data Mannipulators think they are doing the world a favor by lying about the temperatures in such a way as to support the climate alarmist narrative. I say this because this happens all over the world, and I don’t think they are all conspiring, so it must be that they are True Believers and are just trying to help their process along.
The Temperature Data Mannipulators do it here in the U.S. and in the UK and in Australia, to name a few.
The one Saving Grace is we still have the original data, for the most part, although the temperature bastardizers are working on changing that all the time.
It’s bad when they have to lie to support their scientific theory. Lies are not evidence of anything, other than the lack of character of the persons telling the lies.
Dear Tom,
According his bio Blair Trewin “was a lead author for Working Group I (physical science) of the recently released Sixth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is a member of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Expert Team on Climate Monitoring and Assessment, and has led a number of WMO annual global state of the climate reports.”
Under the auspices of the WMO, all the “independent” agencies essentially sing from the same song-sheet.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
A while back it was noted that in the US, they changed the paint from white wash to latex and that introduced a difference.
RE: The late John Daly’s website: “Still Waiting Greenhouse”
Please go to: http://www.John-Daly.com. From the home page, scroll down to the end, and click on: “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on “Australia”. Shown below is a chart of the average annual temperature for Adelaide from 1857 to 1999. There was overall cooling trend.
Check out the chart for Boda Island. This is the only chart that has plots for Tmax and Tmin. These charts show there was no global warming in Australia up to 2002.
1n 1900 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca. 295 ppmv (0.58 g of CO2/cu. m.) and by 2,000 it had increased to 390 ppmv (0.77 g of CO2/cu. m.). The reason there was no warming in Australia is that there little CO2 in the air.
John Daly obtained the temperature data from the GISS and CRU databases which have the original unadjusted temperature data. Do you how to obtain the temperature data for Adelaide? It would be of interest to compare John Daly’s temperature data to the BoM temperature data.
At your website you should add a link to John Daly’s website.
Dear Harold,
As data were never observed at the same site over time, data for Adelaide is highly suspect.
This from the ACORN-SAT catalogue:
History
Between 1977 and 2018, the site (23090) was located over grass in the grounds of the Bureau’s then South Australian Regional Office, which is in the inner eastern suburb of Kent Town. There were no buildings or roads in the immediate vicinity (within 10 m) of the site, which was near a back street and away from heavy traffic, but it was still a built-up area.
Prior to 1977, the Regional Office (23000) was located at West Terrace, on the western edge of the central city and 3.2 km west of the 1977–2018 site, and observations were made there, continuing until early 1979. The site was on the edge of the main Adelaide parklands and appears to have been near the top of a small slope. There were site moves in 1944, November 1951 and a small move (15 m west) in 1962.
Until 1948 there were two sets of observations made at Adelaide, one using a Glaisher stand and one using a Stevenson screen. The Glaisher stand observations, which generally had higher maximum temperatures (especially in summer), were the ones publicly reported at the time but the Stevenson screen observations are the ones used in the ACORN-SAT data (and in the Bureau’s database more generally). The widely-quoted (pre-2019) record high temperature for Adelaide of 47.6 °C, set in January 1939, was measured in a Glaisher stand; the Stevenson screen value on this day was 46.1 °C.
An automatic weather station was installed at Kent Town on 26 October 1992 and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996.
Taking data and tossing it against the wall using Excel ignores that the site was not homogeneous – the site moved from here to there, which changed exposure of the Stevenson screen over time. They did not mention that developments at Kent Town including sealing of a nearby car park and exhaust plumes from roof-mounted air conditioner heat-exchanges caused warming of the data.
While all data relating to Adelaide is available online at Climate Data Online – Map search, none can be stitched together or taken and analysed at face-value. Data-shopping using Excel is an issue. I can show you raw data that shows warming; alternatively, do you want cooling with that?
Nothing less than a deep-dive into factors likely to affect observations will resolve issues of trend, extremes and trend in extremes.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Thank you for the info on Adelaide weather station. Can you post some data showing heating and cooling?
Do GISS and CRU databases contain information on a weather location, instrumentations and history? I wonder if John Daly knew of the site history and why he only used data up to 1999.
What is Boda Island? If there is “global warning” we might it would effect Tmin more than Tmax.
What is your opinion of John Daly’s website? Did he get everything right for the most part?
Alice Springs has a long record and is a fairly remote site, and it would be of to bring the chart up to date. If there is no significant warming, we could use this data to convince politicians in Canberra that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Thanks Harold,
I am currently examining homogenisation of ACORN_SAT sites across Western Australia’s Pilbara region and into the Kimberley.and northwestern Queensland. In this series I am also looking at second-tier sites, which the ones used to homogenise ACORN-SAT. While I completed Tennant Creek before Christmas, the report is not yet available at http://www.bomwatch.com.au The latest second-tier site site is Mount Isa, but as I took a break over Christmas, the report is unfinished at this stage. (I have also completed a report on Cloncurry, Qld,, which was posted before Christmas.)
ACORN-SAT is so full of holes and misinformation it is a joke!
After Mount Isa, I’ll analyse Alice Springs using the same protocols, I have a lot of information for Alice Springs including WWII-era aerials.
Unfortunately, although I looked briefly at Adelaide in 2019, I have not prepared a detailed report. I expect it will be some time before, after working down through South Australia, I’ll get to it again.
All the best,
Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Yesterday, I went to the ACORN-SAT and was able to obtain a bar chart of the average annual temperatures for Alice Springs.
Today, I went to the site, but I was unable to obtain that chart.
Could you provide a step wise procedure for obtaining this type of chart? I would to obtain a chart for Brisbane so I can compare it to the John Daly’s chart.
I live in British Columbia, which was the first jurisdiction in North America to levy a carbon tax on fossil fuels. The tax is now $80 per tonne of CO2eq and will rise to $95 on April 1.
I trying determine if recent empirical temperature can be used
to falsify the claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes Global warming.
Shown below is a chart of the plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. Since the plots are fairly flat, it can be concluded that the increasing concentration CO2 in the air did not cause a corresponding increase temperature and thus CO2 does not global warming as claimed by the IPCC.
.
Here is the temperature chart for Death Valley
You are doing what I have been doing. I have stored land surface graphs from locations all over the globe that have little to no warming.
Global warming should mean global warming, not just some places. The answer I got? The GAT is an average. Whoopie! Let’s hide everything under an average so we don’t have to explain the piece parts of the average.
Could you post some of graphs in the next open thread? Do you have any graphs for weather stations in Canada?
Dear Harold,
I don’t know where you obtained ACORN-SAT annual averages (as a graph) for Alice Springs from the Bureau’s website, but then I don’t know everything!
If you go to here: Climate Data Online – Map search select Text Search, choose monthly temperature, Maximum, then type “Alice Springs” as the location. A text box will confirm the selection. Check off “Only show open stations”; then a bunch of stations will open-up.
There are three datasets (15540, 15634 and 15590).
If you highlight 15540 (Post Office), you actually get a composite of the Telegraph Station and the PO (1878 to 1953) with a value missing for Sept 1890 (fill that with the long-term September mean, and recalculate the annual average). Forget 15634, which was the original town aerodrome, and check 15590 (WWII AP, or the “7-mile ‘drome) data from 1942 to current.
Fun starts now.
Downloaded datasets have to be joined. Data for 15590 started as the Aeradio office. The precinct was regularly watered, then I’m pretty sure the site moved at least twice …
Acirding to ACORN-SAT:
The original site (15540) was at the Telegraph Station, 3 km north of the town. There is no known documentation of the screen type at the Telegraph Station but the observations are consistent with a Stevenson screen having been used there. The site was enclosed by a rock wall about 1 m high and painted white that would have interrupted wind flow and reflected heat. Observations moved to the Post Office on 23 January 1932.
The Post Office site continued until 1953 but data after 1942 were not used in ACORN-SAT as there appear to have been changes at the Post Office site around the time that the airport site opened.
Measurements have been taken at the airport (15590) since 1941. There was a site move (550 m east-northeast) in July 1974. An automatic weather station was installed on 21 March 1991 and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996. The site moved a few metres west on 27 May 2002.
#########
I start with daily data and use a program that I wrote for the Stats package R to do the grunt work of extracting the data I want in the form of annual summaries. I look at much more than averages, including variability, various ratios, decimal rounding proportions and so on, which provide insights that simple averages cannot.
So while not discouraging you, analysis of any datast is a complex task, especially if one is interested in comparing previous homogenised datasets with raw data. Simply drawing a line through a series of points using (say) Excel is highly likely to provide a spurious outcome.
Sorry I can’t assist you more at this time.
All the best,
Bill
Exactly.
I put the latest statement from the UN to be a grade 4 on the Guterband scale of climate alarmism.
The UK continues to stay at the 0 deg. C level today continuing its cold week with no wind and the 30+GW turbine fleet producing just over 2GW of power for the grid. Gas supplies are down to just one week of storage left, while this chill is happening Rachel from accounts remains absent somewhere in the Far East and government bonds interest rates are heading dangerously higher.
Hey ho, a new year new opportunities. Thanks to the UN we have a warm fuzzy feeling to look forward to,…apparently. .