Quote:

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier? Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century. (this is what Bobby and myself have been saying for the past 2 years,.. .wake up people, you've been had... ) "The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average." Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy? In this case, it didn't warrant any news coverage. In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly."  :D Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump's face into a glacier to prove climate change "is happening." In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades. That's not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax. Two years out of hundreds or thousands doesn't necessarily mean anything. And there could be a reasonable explanation. But the drop in temperatures at least merits a "Hey, what's going on here?" story.  [smiley=thumbup.gif] What's more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven't seen any stories pinning Hawaii's recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won't be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.) We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years. Hiding The Evidence There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.  :-/ Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models." Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed. How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades? Crickets. Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden "deniers" and undermine support for immediate, drastic action. But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk. Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. "At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported." He goes on: "Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all." Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they're doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk. YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE: Scam Exposed: Donations To Clinton Foundation Plummeted After Clinton Lost The Election Climate Hoax: Not A Single G-20 Country Is Close To Hitting CO2 Emission Targets California Gov. Jerry Brown Issues Another Bogus Global Warming Prediction U.S. Cuts 'Global Warming' Gases Faster Than Anyone Else, But Media Ignore It Despite What You've Heard, Global Warming Isn't Making Weather More Extreme

wake up people ,.. you've been had...

Quote:

this is what Bobby and myself have been saying for the past 2 years,.. .wake up people, you've been had... )

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I can't believe it's almost summer in Sydney. It's cold. Usually I'm sitting under the back patio at night drinking piss at this time of year. It's too bloody cold at the moment.

The southern hemisphere is aka the water hemisphere!  ;)

Wow. Deep. ;)

When Monk is allowed back on Ozpolitic -

he can apologise to me.

Ice Age warning

But finally, while we're on the subject of impartiality and climate change, let's take a look at this wacky weather report from Sky News:

ROWAN DEAN: Now it's time for Outsiders Weather and Ice Age Watch. This week, news of the Big Chill has come as a big shock to global warming activists across the globe.

— Outsiders, Sky News, 29 April, 2018

Yes, that's Outsiders' Rowan Dean rejoicing in the arrival of the big chill:

ROWAN DEAN: And by the big chill I'm not referring to the classic '80s movie but rather the big chill which just happens to be the greatest two-year global cooling event of the last century.

— Outsiders, Sky News, 29 April, 2018

Remarkable news, eh? And a big surprise to viewers in those parts of Australia that are experiencing one of the hottest autumns ever.

But Rowan Dean was able to cite data from NASA that showed:

... from February 2016 to February 2018 global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.

— Outsiders, Sky News, 29 April, 2018

And those figures are certainly accurate.

So, is the Ice Age really just around the corner? Well, no, it's not. Or not on this flimsy evidence.

Because, as you can see here, the first two months of 2018 were cooler than 2016, but:

Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880 ...

— NASA, 19 January, 2018

And global temperatures are still way above the 20th century average, with March 2018 the sixth warmest ever. And February the same.

Now, we don't know whether Rowan expects to be taken seriously, or whether he's just having a bit of fun. But claims like that really are nothing more than a joke.

And it would be interesting to see what ACMA would make of them if anyone bothered to complain.

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/ice-age-warning/9972248

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 26^th, 2018 at 10:17pm:

Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880 ... — NASA, 19 January, 2018

Yeah. we have heard that. Global temperatures estimated from one site in Indonesia, the only represenative from the Southern Hemisphere. SST taken apparently 100km inland.

And they can estimate global temperatures to within 2 decimal places, 1/100 of a degree. That is finer than the temperature instruments used for estimating global temperatures. And all those places where there are no instruments? We can estimate that too. Out to 1200km.

They must be really accurate. ;)

BTW ...

When the global temperature anomalies go into the BLUE ... get back to us.  ;)


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201801-201810.gif 

October 2018 was characterized by warmer-than-average temperatures across much of the world's land and ocean surfaces. The most notable warm temperature departures from average were observed across the Northern Hemisphere, specifically central and eastern Russia and Alaska, where temperatures were 5.0°C (9.0°F) above average or higher. Record warm temperatures were observed in these areas, but also in the Barents Sea, the Bering Strait, the waters along the eastern coast of the contiguous U.S., and across parts of Africa, the southern Atlantic Ocean, and northern Australia. Near- to cooler-than-average conditions were present across much of North America, Greenland and its surrounding ocean, parts of southern Asia, eastern Indian Ocean, and southern Atlantic Ocean. The most notable cool temperature departure from average was observed across much of Canada and parts of the contiguous U.S., where temperatures were 1.0°C (1.8°F) below average or lower.

According to NCEI's Regional Analysis, four of six continents had an October temperature that ranked among the four highest for October since regional records began in 1910. Of note, Asia and Europe had their third highest October temperature on record at 1.65°C (2.97°F) and 1.67°C (3.01°F) above average, respectively. Oceania had its fourth highest October temperature on record. South America and Africa had their ninth and tenth highest on record, respectively. Meanwhile, North America's October temperature was 0.07°C (0.13°F) below average, marking the first time October temperatures were below average since 2009. Regionally, the Caribbean Islands, the Atlantic Main Development Region (MDR), and the East North Pacific had their coolest October since 2008, 2001, and 2013, respectively. The Gulf of Mexico had its second highest October temperature (tied with 1941) at 1.05°C (1.89°F) above average, which is 0.40°C (0.72°F) less than the record set in 2016. The Hawaiian region had third warmest October since 1910 at 0.94°C (1.69°F) above average. The warmest October for the Hawaiian region was set in 1968 at 1.23°C (2.21°F) above average and 2015 ranks as the second warmest October at 1.21°C (2.18°F).

Averaged as a whole, the temperature across the global land and ocean surfaces was 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average and placed as the second highest October temperature since global records began in 1880. The record warm October was set in 2015 at +0.99°C (+1.78°F). This marks the 42nd consecutive October and the 406th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.

The globally-averaged land-only surface temperature during October 2018 was 1.24°C (2.23°F) above the 20th century average and was also the second highest October in the 139-year record, trailing behind 2015 by 0.10°C (0.18°F). The global oceans temperature tied with 2016 as the second highest October temperature since global records began in 1880 at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above average. This value is 0.15°C (0.27°F) less than the record set in 2015.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201810.gif

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201810

So what don't you understand about paucity of data and estimations of temperature.

From John McLean's PHD thesis on HADCRUT4 data -

"For two years the entire Southern Hemisphere temperature was estimated from one sole land-based site in Indonesia and some ship data. We didn’t get 50% global coverage until 1906. We didn’t consistently get 50% Southern Hemisphere coverage until about 1950.

McLean’s findings show there is almost no quality control on this crucial data. The Hadley Met Centre team have not even analyzed this data with a tool as serious as a spell checker.  Countries include “Venezuala”,” Hawaai”, and the “Republic of K” (also known as South Korea). One country is “Unknown” while other countries are not even countries – like “Alaska”."

"The sub-parts of the datasets contradict each other. The land set and the sea set should combine up to be the global set, but they don’t always match. Which one is right?

“It seems like neither organization properly checked the land or sea temperature data before using it in the HadCRUT4 dataset. If it had been checked then the CRU might have queried the more obvious errors in data supplied by different countries.  The Hadley Centre might also have found some of the inconsistencies in the sea surface temperature data, along with errors that it created itself when it copied data from the hand-written logs of some Royal Navy ships.”

– John McLean "

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/

So those anomalies aren't worth spit. So tell me why we should trust those "blue bits"

Sing-a-long time ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57qy7MCzLXA

Yea Typical. You put your fingers in your ears and go ting-a-ling-a-loo.

You mean you don't like data? oh dear. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I like data alright.

You focus on one minute item of data as if that negates the broader picture that emerges from thousands of data points.

Are you sure you're not Malcolm Roberts in real life?  ::)

  https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ScreenHunter_10659-Oct.-04-06.22.gif
  [url]  https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html[/url]

Then of course you could look at the map from the First Assessment report at page 216, Map A  headed 1950-1959 SurfaceTemperature Anomalies. (or 22 of 44 of the pdf). Then have a look at all those areas showing "Insufficient data". Arctic, Antarctic and the Southern Ocean.

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf

Now of course with your vaunted superiority you can probably tell us how they arrived at an ESTIMATE of global temperature.

Or perhaps you would prefer the email from Phil Jones at CRU East Anglia? it says in part -

"Tom,
        The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
      of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
      5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
      we didn't have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH
      between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is
      very little ship data there."

https://web.archive.org/web/20131101144134/http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

It is supposed to be Global Temperature isn't it?

Is that one minute item of data. Is the Southern Hemisphere that minute?

That's the data you proclaim to love.


Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 27^th, 2018 at 10:45pm:

Are you sure you're not Malcolm Roberts in real life?

What was it you thought Roberts said wrong?

Roberts, just like you, focuses on an obscure small percentage of the data and ignores the overwhelming evidence from the vast majority of data that paints the picture of Global Warming.

Perhaps he is far advanced along the Autism Scale?

Maybe he suffers from Asperger's syndrome?

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 12:49pm:

Roberts, just like you, focuses on an obscure small percentage of the data and ignores the overwhelming evidence from the vast majority of data that paints the picture of Global Warming.

Yes The small percentage of the data? The small percentage of the data from the Southern Hemisphere forms a large part of the uncertainty that is forgotten about.

It is supposed to be GLOBAL isn't it?

With you it is like beiing in an arse kicking competition with a one legged man. You really cannot admit the paucity of data in the Southern Hemisphere.

LOL

To state that there is less data south of 30⁰ is stating the obvious isn't it?

Not many highly populated land masses down that way!

The majority of land is in the Northern Hemisphere.

However, there are more remote temperature sensors than in the past.

Like I said, all well and good to focus on a small issue and ignore the overwhelming evidence.

That's typical Malcolm Roberts stuff.  ;D

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

To state that there is less data south of 300 is stating the obvious isn't it?

yes petal. So answer the question. How do they average global temps with the paucity of data, which you acknowledge?


Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

Not many highly populated land masses down that way!

That's why Sea Surface Temperatures are so important. Oh that's right there is a severe lack of data for that as well. You do know they combine both to come up with a hemispherical estimated temperature?


Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

The majority of land is in the Northern Hemisphere.

No sh!t Sherlock. It doesn't help to work out a global temperature, it merely weights it more to NH temperatures.


Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

However, there are more remote temperature sensors than in the past.

So now they may be getting close to getting good data coverage. It doesn't help the past from which your graph relies.


Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

Like I said, all well and good to focus on a small issue and ignore the overwhelming evidence.

It is only a small issue in your tiny brain.

Even if the data points are relatively fewer than elsewhere ... how does that negate the data telling us that there is record warming taking place?

You miss the wider picture by continuing to focus on irrelevant points.  ::) Just like Malcolm Roberts.  ;D

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 2:41pm:

Even if the data points are relatively fewer than elsewhere ... how does that negate the data telling us that there is record warming taking place?

Relatively fewer? Shouldn't the data points be relatively the same so that there is no bias? ;D ;D ;D ;D


Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 2:41pm:

You miss the wider picture by continuing to focus on irrelevant points.

You have trouble seeing the picture. ;D ;D ;D

Let's say there are 50 data point locations. Those 50 data point locations have been recording temperatures for over a hundred years.

Those 50 data point locations are telling us that the minimum and maximum temperatures are increasing over time.

To which you say: "Nah, isn't happening."  ::)

To which I say: "You're an idiot."  ;)

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 3:16pm:

Let's say there are 50 data point locations. Those 50 data point locations have been recording temperatures for over a hundred years. Those 50 data point locations are telling us that the minimum and maximum temperatures are increasing over time.

Let's see - The Southern Hemisphere is one half of 510 MILLION square kilometres (255M sq Km).

50 data points? About 5 MILLION square KM represented  by each - assuming they are all equidistant.

And you could discern an average temperature from those 50 data points? ;D ;D ;D ;D


Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 3:16pm:

To which you say: "Nah, isn't happening."

Nope I don't. I say we have no way of knowing because the data is too sparse.


Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 3:16pm:

To which I say: "You're an idiot."

Yes. That's what tends to happen when YOU are losing the debate. ;)

The data is not too sparse.

As to the number of data stations actually used around the planet:

The NASA GISTEMP record is the most detailed of the four datasets, with grid boxes two degrees longitude by two degrees latitude.

The other three have grid boxes measuring five by five degrees. They also differ in how many land stations they have around the world, too. HadCRUT4 has about 5,500, GISTEMP takes middle place with about 6,300, but MLOST has the most of all, with about 7,000 land stations.

They all come up with very similar results:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/media/368812/nasa_tempdatasets_575x271.jpg

Global average temperature anomaly from 1880 to 2012, compared to the 1951-1980 long term average. Source: NASA Earth Observatory.

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 10:20am:

The data is not too sparse.

At your proposed 50 stations it is. What be be the level o uncertainty inolved for a mere 50 stations? ;D ;D ;D ;D


Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 10:20am:

The other three have grid boxes measuring five by five degrees. They also differ in how many land stations they have around the world, too. HadCRUT4 has about 5,500, GISTEMP takes middle place with about 6,300, but MLOST has the most of all, with about 7,000 land stations.

All the way back to 1880? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The earth's circumference is about 40,000 Km. To find the arc distance 5/360*40000. About 550km. So if we assume a box 5ºx5º it would be 302,500 sq km. And you are going to assume that the same conditions apply uniformly in that area.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

hese 5x5 grids? What happens when there is no landmass? The ocean is vast, especially in the Southern Hemisphere.

So what didn't you understand about the sparseness of the data in the SH?

"Tom,
        The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
      of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
      5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
      we didn't have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH
      between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is
      very little ship data there."

https://web.archive.org/web/20131101144134/http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729...

That email was in 2009. So how good was the "made up" data prior to that?

Or this-

"
From John McLean's PHD thesis on HADCRUT4 data -

"For two years the entire Southern Hemisphere temperature was estimated from one sole land-based site in Indonesia and some ship data. We didn’t get 50% global coverage until 1906. We didn’t consistently get 50% Southern Hemisphere coverage until about 1950."

So just how much of this "global data" just made up?

You keep going back to 1880 as if the "data" actually existed.

Captain Nemo wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

LOL To state that there is less data south of 300 is stating the obvious isn't it? Not many highly populated land masses down that way! The majority of land is in the Northern Hemisphere. However, there are more remote temperature sensors than in the past. Like I said, all well and good to focus on a small issue and ignore the overwhelming evidence. That's typical Malcolm Roberts stuff.  ;D

Assymetry is always an argument in real life data collection: it's a political problem but science has always been political in essence- and thus the technology it serves as a basis for.

That is why battery technology was ignored for the bulk of the 20th century because it didn't power the industrial complex that first world countries needed to secure their borders!

...it's all valid argument until the poo hits the fan because people do what works... the people that get heard that is!

THUS THE MEDIA HAS BEEN LAUGHED AT BY THE BIGGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD FOR A GOOD DECADE BEFORE TRUMP HIT THE SCENE: EVEN IN AUSTRALIA WE GET OUR NEWS DELIVERED BY COMEDIANS  :D