No.

El Ninos cause the world warm, La Ninas cause the world to cool. When they end there is not an instantaneous reversion to the pre-El Nino/La Nina temperatures.

When you boil a kettle then turn it off does the water go back to room temperature immediately? Takes time doesn’t it? 

You mean NASA, so you have been wrong twice tonight. Taking the stupid pills again Lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2018 at 10:30pm:



Nope. What I posted is GHCN from NOAA (NCEI) showing the gray areas in the map of the world. Look at Australia as a part of that map. Now look at the BoM smearing of the data compared to the no data from GHCN.

That makes you wrong.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2018 at 10:30pm:


No I leave that to you.

No, you have clearly developed an addiction for them.

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 4:53pm:


This would have to be one of the stupidest posts I have seem from lee (and he's posted a few stupid ones)

He's implying that if a single glacier of the 198,000 glaciers on Earth is advancing that this disproves global warming.

Seriously lee are you just taking the pi$$? Do you have a good laugh after you post this garbage. Because clearly there is no way that you could possibly believe it.

This is a fantastic resource:

https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/04/24/2100Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/o...

Winds over the whole globe—you can resize and rotate the globe any which way. I *think* I can see how temperature data can be derived for the globe even if there isn’t a weather station every square kilometre as Lees seems to think is necessary. Winds and precipitation etc all determined by satellite.

Just want to come back to the shift that BuMet has found in the distribution of temperatures:



The mean of the maximum temperature distribution has moved to the warm side. That has resulted in, as the notations on the figures show, an increase in the proportion of very hot days from 2% to 11%. Since the world is warming because of AGW that is not a surprising finding. The shift is not happening because the distribution has became more skewed the shift has happened because the distribution of maximum temperatures has moved towards the higher temperature part of the X axis.

Average maximum temperature (the peak of the bell curve) has shifted to the warm side.

Now let us look at the minimum temperature distribution. It has moved even more to the warm side! 1/3 less extreme cold temperatures! The distribution of minimum temperatures has become narrower as we have moved on from the 1950s to 2016. By contrast, the distribution of maximum temperatures has widened (hence the peak of the maximum temperature distributions declined a tad from the peak of the 1951–1980 maximum temperature distribution: the tighter a distribution is the more values are near the mean and so the higher the peak of the distribution.

So, the minimum temperature distribution has less variation (less dispersion, less variance, a smaller standard deviation) so minimum temperatures are more constant between the years. There still is a part of the “tail” of the distribution in the very cold part so some very low minimum temperatures can still happen just more infrequently. So, Booby, if there are cold temperatures here and there in the world they will still be in the minimum temperature distribution, not a sign of an ice age.

The maximum temperature distribution is the opposite, more variance, more chance that maximum temperatures can be hotter or colder than the average.

64 years of reading in total, this is not a short term fluctuation.