Last month was the warmest June since records began being kept in 1880, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

What's most disturbing is that we are still waiting on the the start of El Niño.

http://s.imwx.com/dru/2014/07/8a143ff7-8290-4824-a4e1-95d73a02ac4a_320x180.jpg

GISS adjusted data. you've got to love it.

The others of course show no such thing.

0.72 degrees adjusted since 1880. IPCC says no CO2 induced AGW until the second half of the 20th Century. So 0.7C total since 1951. Only some of it human induced. But we haven't measured the natural emissions so we don't know the human emissions.

I think MOTR forgot the disclaimer

Warmest homogenised cooling the past warming the present adjustment's ever.... and ever,,,,, and ever. Just wait till next month

So why are sea levels rising, progs.

You really are a nutter. If it's fine by you I'll take my advice from the experts in the field.

Alternatively you could link us to a peer reviewed study that supports your perspective.

As always I won't be holding my breath.

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 2:14pm:

So why are sea levels rising, progs. You really are a nutter.

That's obvious. Coming out of an ice age. The current gauges show nothing out of the ordinary.

El Niño is a big fizzer like all your other nonsense.

Lol at sea level rise - you need to keep up with the recent studies.

Rider wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

El Niño is a big fizzer like all your other nonsense. Lol at sea level rise - you need to keep up with the recent studies.

That's the point, rider. We haven't yet experienced El Niño conditions and still we are experiencing record high temperatures.

How about you refer us to these new studies on sea level rises. Again I won't be holding my breath.

NOOA time series-  Global, Annual, 2001 - 2013, Display trend /Century.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

I checked it does give this image.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ncdc_loti_2001-2013-percentury.png

I must admit yours looks a bit like a sine wave.

MOTR wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 12:16pm:

We haven't yet experienced El Niño conditions and still we are experiencing record high temperatures.

But is the trend above the long term trend due to increased CO2, or merely natural warming that seems to have been occurring since about 1910, before CO2 is postulated to have increased temperatures.

The graph for this century from NOOA seems to indicate a slight global cooling.

'Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3, 4, 5, 6, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.'

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

So it appears warming oceans aren't the cause. Increased Antarctic sea ice would also seem to deny it.

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 3:36am:

Last month was the warmest June since records began being kept in 1880, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What's most disturbing is that we are still waiting on the the start of El Niño.

There's nothing disturbing at all.

No reliable conclusions can be drawn from only 134 years of records.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 2:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 26th, 2014 at 3:36am: Last month was the warmest June since records began being kept in 1880, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What's most disturbing is that we are still waiting on the the start of El Niño. There's nothing disturbing at all. No reliable conclusions can be drawn from only 134 years of records.

So what you are saying, greggery, is that it doesn't matter how much warming we experience over the next few decades, your position won't change.

lee wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 1:46pm:

NOOA time series-  Global, Annual, 2001 - 2013, Display trend /Century. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global I checked it does give this image. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ncdc_loti_2001-2013-percentury.png I must admit yours looks a bit like a sine wave.

Not sure how when the data you linked us to looks like this

2001      0.55°C      125
2002      0.61°C      127
2003      0.55°C      125
2004      0.49°C      120
2005      0.68°C      133
2006      0.64°C      130
2007      0.51°C      122
2008      0.51°C      122
2009      0.63°C      129
2010      0.69°C      134
2011      0.61°C      127
2012      0.66°C      131
2013      0.63°C      129
2014      0.72°C      135

A bit more honesty is required here, lee.

lee wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

'Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3, 4, 5, 6, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.' http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html So it appears warming oceans aren't the cause. Increased Antarctic sea ice would also seem to deny it.

Shame you didn't read to the end of the abstract you posted, lee.


Quote:

Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

You do realise that the authors of this paper are focussing on the surface temperature of the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Perhaps you might refer me to where in the paper they provide evidence of our oceans cooling.


Just another example of bits of a scientific paper being cherry picked by the denier blogosphere to make it say something it isn't.

It's a bit hard to sustain the myth you are a skeptic when you outsource your thinking to idiots like Watts.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 5:48am:

A bit more honesty is required here, lee.

So did you go to NOAA website and plug in those parameters?

I am not to blame for any perceived shortcomings of NOOA.

That's about as honest as you can get.

edit: from my post with the graph -

"I checked it does give this image."

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 5:55am:

You do realise that the authors of this paper are focussing on the surface temperature of the tropical Pacific Ocean.

You do realise Trenberth is saying the heat is hiding in the deep ocean, with links to ENSO?

Of course I realised it was a warmist site, I like to quote those so I can't be accused of cherry picking.

From your quote " tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. "

Temperatures again may go up and they may be tied to GHG's. But that's supposition and not science.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 5:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27th, 2014 at 2:29pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 26th, 2014 at 3:36am: Last month was the warmest June since records began being kept in 1880, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What's most disturbing is that we are still waiting on the the start of El Niño. There's nothing disturbing at all. No reliable conclusions can be drawn from only 134 years of records. So what you are saying, greggery, is that it doesn't matter how much warming we experience over the next few decades, your position won't change.

that's exactly what he's saying: deny deny deny...............

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 5:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27th, 2014 at 2:29pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 26th, 2014 at 3:36am: Last month was the warmest June since records began being kept in 1880, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What's most disturbing is that we are still waiting on the the start of El Niño. There's nothing disturbing at all. No reliable conclusions can be drawn from only 134 years of records. So what you are saying, greggery, is that it doesn't matter how much warming we experience over the next few decades, your position won't change.

That's correct.

154 years is no better than 134 years.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 1:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2014 at 5:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27th, 2014 at 2:29pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 26th, 2014 at 3:36am: Last month was the warmest June since records began being kept in 1880, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What's most disturbing is that we are still waiting on the the start of El Niño. There's nothing disturbing at all. No reliable conclusions can be drawn from only 134 years of records. So what you are saying, greggery, is that it doesn't matter how much warming we experience over the next few decades, your position won't change. That's correct. 154 years is no better than 134 years.

Good thing you aren't the jury then...

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 1:24pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 28th, 2014 at 1:20pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2014 at 5:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27th, 2014 at 2:29pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 26th, 2014 at 3:36am: Last month was the warmest June since records began being kept in 1880, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What's most disturbing is that we are still waiting on the the start of El Niño. There's nothing disturbing at all. No reliable conclusions can be drawn from only 134 years of records. So what you are saying, greggery, is that it doesn't matter how much warming we experience over the next few decades, your position won't change. That's correct. 154 years is no better than 134 years. Good thing you aren't the jury then...

I'd be a hung jury, if I was.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 5:48am:

A bit more honesty is required here, lee.

I tried to post the image from NOOA - but my computer skills aren't adequate enough.  :'(

When you do the graph with the plugins can you post it for me?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 1:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2014 at 5:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27th, 2014 at 2:29pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 26th, 2014 at 3:36am: Last month was the warmest June since records began being kept in 1880, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What's most disturbing is that we are still waiting on the the start of El Niño. There's nothing disturbing at all. No reliable conclusions can be drawn from only 134 years of records. So what you are saying, greggery, is that it doesn't matter how much warming we experience over the next few decades, your position won't change. That's correct. 154 years is no better than 134 years.

http://cgcarwein.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/frogs-cartoon.jpg

When the experts are virtually certain of something it's beyond madness not to act.

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2014 at 6:06am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 28th, 2014 at 1:20pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2014 at 5:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27th, 2014 at 2:29pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 26th, 2014 at 3:36am: Last month was the warmest June since records began being kept in 1880, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What's most disturbing is that we are still waiting on the the start of El Niño. There's nothing disturbing at all. No reliable conclusions can be drawn from only 134 years of records. So what you are saying, greggery, is that it doesn't matter how much warming we experience over the next few decades, your position won't change. That's correct. 154 years is no better than 134 years. http://cgcarwein.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/frogs-cartoon.jpg When the experts are virtually certain of something it's beyond madness not to act.

When virtually certain of one thing. All they are certain of is that man has caused some warming. For the scary stuff you are talking about, that's the Mann-made stuff where they are relying on failed models and amplification that just isn't bearing out in the real world nor does it exist in the realm of real climate scientists, only to pseudo scientists.

Fail.

Not bearing out in the real world. Really, progs.


Quote:

Last month was a scorcher for global temperatures with warmth over land and sea breaking records for June while sea-surface temperatures posted their largest departure from long-term averages for any month. Combined average temperatures over land and sea were 0.72 degrees above the 20th century average of 15.5 degrees, making it the hottest June and adding to the record May and equal record April, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/june-a-global-scorcher-as-records-melt-20140722-zvhzq.html#ixzz38nWBxUog

http://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/june-2014-blended-land-and-ocean-temperature-percentiles-map.gif

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2014 at 6:39am:

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/june-a-global-scorcher-as-records-melt...

So now SMH is a scientific organisation?

Don't you just love those colour schemes that don't have temperature bars attached?

How honest is that?

http://cgcarwein.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/frogs-cartoon.jpg

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2014 at 6:06am:

When the experts are virtually certain of something it's beyond madness not to act.

Really?


http://www.hermes-press.com/WMD5.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 29^th, 2014 at 11:39am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 29th, 2014 at 6:06am: When the experts are virtually certain of something it's beyond madness not to act. Really? http://www.hermes-press.com/WMD5.gif

You are comparing GWB to the virtual entirety of the world's scientific community?

Really?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 29^th, 2014 at 11:39am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 29th, 2014 at 6:06am: When the experts are virtually certain of something it's beyond madness not to act. Really? http://www.hermes-press.com/WMD5.gif

http://cgcarwein.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/frogs-cartoon.jpg

MOTR, BTW my area of WA is not warmer than average.

http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_062014.png

Map by weatherBELL based on NCEP/NOOA data.

I don't know how to shrink this. It gives a temperature scale on the right hand side if you click on the image.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 29^th, 2014 at 11:39am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 29th, 2014 at 6:06am: When the experts are virtually certain of something it's beyond madness not to act. Really? http://www.hermes-press.com/WMD5.gif

Don't quite get the analogy. If you recall the arms inspectors at the time were telling us that there were no WMD.

It's why I marched against our invasion of Iraq.



Quote:

HANS BLIX: Well, at the time, we were saying that we had carried out a great many inspections and that we did not find any weapons of mass destruction, and we also voiced some criticism of the some cases that the US Secretary of State Colin Powell had demonstrated in the Security Council. My colleague, Mr. ElBaradei, who was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had revealed that the alleged contract between Iraq and the state of Niger in Africa for the import of uranium oxide was a forgery and that the — also the tubes of aluminum, which had been alleged to be for making of centrifuges to enrich uranium, they most likely were not for that purpose. So while the evidence that had been advanced from the US side and the UK side had been very weakened, we had carried out some 700 inspections without finding any evidence at all, and we had actually been to something like three dozen sites, which were given to us by intelligence, and had been able to tell them that, no, there was nothing in them, so that all allegations had been weakened very much, but not to the point of saying that there is nothing, because to prove that there is nothing is really impossible.

lee wrote on Jul 29^th, 2014 at 3:45pm:

MOTR, BTW my area of WA is not warmer than average. http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_062014.png Map by weatherBELL based on NCEP/NOOA data. I don't know how to shrink this. It gives a temperature scale on the right hand side if you click on the image.

That's why it is called global warming.

...
“What’s the take home message, if you ask me?” Dr Box writes.
EARTH 2.0: Can we find it fast enough?

“Because elevated atmospheric carbon from fossil fuel burning is the trigger mechanism poking the climate dragon. The trajectory we’re on is to awaken a runaway climate heating that will ravage global agricultural systems leading to mass famine, conflict. Sea level rise will be a small problem by comparison. We simply MUST lower atmospheric carbon emissions.

“There are still questions, of course, but the precautionary principle makes clear we have to keep this dragon in the ground.”

source: http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/are-siberias-methane-blowholes-the-first-warning-sign-of-unstoppable-climate-change/story-fnjwvztl-1227006746397

MOTR wrote on Jul 30^th, 2014 at 5:11am:

That's why it is called global warming.

And yet it shows at best regional warming. The Blue areas are below average. With the white at average.

Most of the oceans show some heating but they are all satellite data.

It has been noted that there are some problems with satellite data as the measure brightness, clearer skies mean more reflectivity, means higher readings.

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 30th, 2014 at 5:11am: That's why it is called global warming. And yet it shows at best regional warming. The Blue areas are below average. With the white at average. Most of the oceans show some heating but they are all satellite data. It has been noted that there are some problems with satellite data as the measure brightness, clearer skies mean more reflectivity, means higher readings.

And there are far more red areas than blue areas.

That is why it is called global warming.

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 30th, 2014 at 5:11am: That's why it is called global warming. And yet it shows at best regional warming. The Blue areas are below average. With the white at average. Most of the oceans show some heating but they are all satellite data. It has been noted that there are some problems with satellite data as the measure brightness, clearer skies mean more reflectivity, means higher readings.

the uncertainty principle... perhaps you should never post about science if you don't believe in it!

But people are absolutely convinced of AGW, by the models.

The models are not science but a series of 'what ifs'.

The IPCC has admitted the models are running hot.

Two graphs from data of related entities, and, if you look at Australia only, a large (or apparently large, because we don't have a metric), discrepancy.

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2014 at 12:47pm:

But people are absolutely convinced of AGW, by the models. The models are not science but a series of 'what ifs'. The IPCC has admitted the models are running hot. Two graphs from data of related entities, and, if you look at Australia only, a large (or apparently large, because we don't have a metric), discrepancy.

..you don't believe in science: why do you post about it!??!

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

That is why it is called global warming.

So you use a misnomer to convince people. It obviously is not warming GLOBALLY.

It looks to me to be more green, blue and white, but that's only a Mk 1 eyeball analysis.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 30^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

.you don't believe in science: why do you post about it!??!

I do believe in science. The ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) factor is not science. And that is the step where they go from the science to estimating the effect of increased CO2.

'Climate scientists use a range of approaches to estimate ECS and TCR, including using climate models
that represent the relevant physics and chemistry and by analysing recent climate records and
paleoclimate reconstructions.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/09_2013/Factsheet_climate_sensitivity_CSIRO-Bureau.pdf

And seeing as the climate models are run on predictions of increased CO2, it becomes a circular argument.

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2014 at 2:02pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 30th, 2014 at 12:17pm: That is why it is called global warming. So you use a misnomer to convince people. It obviously is not warming GLOBALLY. It looks to me to be more green, blue and white, but that's only a Mk 1 eyeball analysis.

- unfortunately it is!

The Guardian admits to 'the hiatus'- Excuse 31 (i think). Edit: #38

'The slowdown of average surface temperature rises in the last 15 years after decades of rapid warming has been seized on by climate change sceptics and has puzzled scientists, who have hypothesised that everything from volcanic eruptions and sulphur from Chinese power stations to heat being trapped deep in the oceans could be the cause. Several studies have focused on the Pacific as potentially playing a major role.

The new study, published in the journal Science on Thursday, concludes that the Pacific alone cannot explain the warming “hiatus” and that much of the heat being trapped by greenhouse gases at record levels in the atmosphere is being sunk hundreds of metres down in the Atlantic and Southern oceans.'

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/21/global-warming-slowdown-answer-lies-in-depths-of-atlantic-study-finds?commentpage=1

and a very cold july/august

lol MOTR you follow an emperor with no clothes

My statement that we experienced the hottest ever homogenised, manipulated, fraudulent temperature ever what ever month and many more to come, stays and is defined in fact.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/australian-met-office-accused-of-manipulating-temperature-records/

Among others.

lee wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2014 at 12:36pm:

The Guardian admits to 'the hiatus'- Excuse 31 (i think). Edit: #38 'The slowdown of average surface temperature rises in the last 15 years after decades of rapid warming has been seized on by climate change sceptics and has puzzled scientists, who have hypothesised that everything from volcanic eruptions and sulphur from Chinese power stations to heat being trapped deep in the oceans could be the cause. Several studies have focused on the Pacific as potentially playing a major role. The new study, published in the journal Science on Thursday, concludes that the Pacific alone cannot explain the warming “hiatus” and that much of the heat being trapped by greenhouse gases at record levels in the atmosphere is being sunk hundreds of metres down in the Atlantic and Southern oceans.' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/21/global-warming-slowdown-answer-lies-in-depths-of-atlantic-study-finds?commentpage=1

It's all heat-engines!

But I was told CO2 has the most dominant, causative effect on climate. You mean natural variation can explain warming, cooling and hiatus? Amazing.