Deniers Scurry to Rationalize Soaring Temps
April 5, 2016
Ever turn on a light switch and see cockroaches running for cover?
Thank God HotWhopper has been monitoring the denio-sphere so you don’t have to.
In the future dramatization of this collapse, who will play the generic climate denier? Johnny Depp as Lord Monckton?
This is a selection of comments from the WUWT (Anthony Watts blog, HQ for online climate denial lunacy) copy and paste of Roy Spencer’s latest article about the UAH lower troposphere record. There was much speculation about the reappearance of a “pause”.
ralfellis was the first hopeful:
April 4, 2016 at 11:49 am
The question is – when will the pause reappear? With the inevitable cooling after the el Nino, I would expect the regressively calculated pause to be back by the end of the year.
I think when george e. smith talked about the “third warmest” he was referring to the third biggest anomaly, not the actual temperature. Roy Spencer would have confused people with the way he expressed things. (When he wrote the “third warmest month overall compared to seasonal norms” I think he meant the third biggest monthly anomaly not the third warmest month).
April 4, 2016 at 12:57 pm
Well only third warmest; we’re already in a cooling trend !
I don’t think the Monckton Pause ever ends; but I guess it can go to zero months or maybe one month.
Has Christopher given us a recent run of his algorithm; or did it just all fade away except for the grin ??
Nick Stokes informed WUWT readers that the trend won’t go negative until/unless the monthly anomaly drops below 0.26 C, which is unlikely.
April 4, 2016 at 1:20 pm
“when will the pause reappear?”
Here’s a way to think about it. Here is a WFT RSS plot since mid-1997:
The regression line currently is about 0.26°C in 2016 and near flat. Every new month above that increases the trend, which became positive in Feb. The trend increase is proportional to the new residual (excess over 0.26). It won’t start decreasing until temperatures go below 0.26. And then, for the trend to go negative, the cumulative sum of deficits (below 0.26) since Feb 2016 would have to exceed the sum of excesses which is currently building fast. Not this year, maybe never (and not within the life of RSSv3.3).
emsnews is not only banking on a La Nina, he or she thinks it will be very cold. (The Australian Bureau of Meteorology isn’t so sure.):
April 4, 2016 at 1:23 pm
I am betting on a very cold la Nina. This el Nino is fading very fast.
Some are being cheerful about the spike in lower troposphere temperatures. Latitude wrote:
April 4, 2016 at 11:50 am
beats the h$ll out of freezing to death…. 😉
Patick B is complaining about the lack of error margins. I don’t know if he makes the same complaint with every other article at WUWT:
April 4, 2016 at 12:03 pm
One more time – how can you possibly announce such “results” without including properly calculated margins of error. Then once you have margins of error, how does the ranking look? Lots of tied months?
No science without margins of error. You can’t understand anything if you don’t know what you measured.
Greg picks up on Roy Spencer’s sloppy wording about the “third warmest”:
April 4, 2016 at 12:04 pm
“March 2016 was the warmest March in the satellite temperature record and the third warmest month overall, when compared to seasonal norms,
So it is NOT the third warmest month but the third largest “anomaly”.
Let’s get our facts right. The hottest months are the ones which are …. hottest.
Tom Halla needs to sack his optometrist:
April 4, 2016 at 12:29 pm
By this UAH database, it looks like the temperature is indistiguishable from flat since 1998.
Slipstick is amused by the inconsistency of deniers at WUWT:
April 4, 2016 at 1:07 pm
I find all the “this means nothing” naysaying amusing, especially when it is from the same people who use the very same dataset as evidence of a “pause” (which did not, by the way, occur in the oceans, hence the large atmospheric temperature spike from the El Nino).
David S is deluded. Where do people like him get their crazy notions from?
April 4, 2016 at 2:56 pm
I know that highlighting that this is the third warmest month since the start of satellite data may be of interest but it adds nothing to the climate debate. Unless one extends the analysis to the 19th century and assesses the pre industrial CO2 days and post CO2 days the comment is in fact largely irrelevant to the debate and in fact misleading in the hands of Warmists. Wasn’t the temperatures experienced in the 1930s and 1890s higher than those experienced today? So what benefit to the overall debate ( discussion) is the fact that the last 2 months have been 2 of the warmest in a limited time set?
The 1890s average was 1.1 °C colder than the average for 2015. The 1930s average was 0.98 °C colder than the average for 2015.
Figure 7 | Surface temperature showing the average for selected periods. Data source: GISS NASA
When asked for evidence, deniers fall back on “lots of” while providing no data or evidence, and weave a conspiracy theory. Gloateus Maximus wrote:
April 4, 2016 at 4:46 pm
Lots of data show higher temperatures in the 1930s than now, but the books have been cooked beyond recognition.
Gloateus Maximus does dig up what he calls “evidence”, but it’s not. It’s only some data for maximum temperatures set in some states in the USA. Nothing to do with global temperatures or long term trends. You’ll also notice the inconsistency. Are the books cooked or aren’t they?
TA lives in an alternate unreality. He or she referred WUWT readers to Steve Goddard’s denier blog. Good grief! How desperate are deniers these days? He or she also confused US temperatures with global temperatures when writing about what James Hansen said. Is it any wonder TA didn’t provide the link, which would not have supported his claim? When you have to accuse scientists all around the world of fudging every single temperature data set, then you’ve lurched into Lizard Men territory.
April 4, 2016 at 6:45 pm
seaice1 April 4, 2016 at 4:38 pm wrote: [David S wrote:“Wasn’t the temperatures experienced in the 1930s and 1890s higher than those experienced today?” seaice1 wrote: “No, not according to the data we have.”
The data you refer to must be the adulterated NASA-NOAA temperature data. You are correct that the NASA-NOAA data show the 1930’s as much cooler than today, but we all know that is a BIG LIE! Or most of us, anyway.
seacice1 wrote: “Do you have a data set that says otherwise?”
Here you go: http://realclimatescience.com/
You can find all sorts of charts there that show the 1930’s was hotter than 1998. But I guess if you dismiss vukcevic’s chart, then you probably won’t like the charts on this webpage either, because they pretty much say the same general thing: The 1930’s was hotter than any year that has come afterwards.
And if you need an expert to verify that the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, we can turn to none other than Hansen, who said 1934 was hotter than 1998, before he conspired with other climate scientist charlatans/criminals to modify the surface temperature records and erase the fact that the 1930’s was hotter than any subsequent year. If the 1930’s is hotter, then that blows up their human-caused global warming/climate change theory, so they changed the temperature record to make it conform. Where’s RICO when you need it?
This temperture data modification was done in order to make it look like the Earth’s atmosphere was getting hotter and hotter with each passing year, to assist them in perpetrating the fraud that humans are causing the climate to behave abnormally because humans burn fossil fuels.
This, plus NASA’s prestige has pretty much convinced the gullible in the world, that the climate charlatans are right. Unfortunately for them, the thermometer is not cooperating with them, at least not much. They may be able to falsify some history, but they can’t falsify the data going forward, so the time of fudging the figures is over.
These rewriters of the surface temperature record have done great harm to humanity. They better hope the temperatures rise in the future.
Deniers just love a good conspiracy theory.