*Or Maybe the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index is Redundant.
In the post Alarmism Cranked Up to Absurd Level, we discussed the misleading media reports about the temporary February 2016 El Niño-related uptick in monthly global surface temperature data from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. There have been numerous new same-topic news articles since NOAA released its February 2016 global temperature data a few days ago. The NOAA/NCEI data show an uptick similar to the one we recently saw with the GISS data. See Figure 1. (A similar graph of the GISS data is here.)
(Data can be found here.)
Let’s focus on the AP story Beyond record hot, February was ‘astronomical’ and ‘strange’ by Seth Borenstein. It begins:
View original post 984 more words
With the El Niño-related uptick in the February 2016 GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index, Figure 1, alarmism has reached beyond the Spinal Tap11 volume setting, up to 20. (For those in need of a chuckle, the YouTube video of related portion of This is Spinal Tap is here. Thanks to Rob Reiner and Christopher Guest for that very funny scene.)
View original post 2,594 more words
Gavin Schmidt wrong again…
Bishop Hill writes:
Over at Climate Audit, Nic Lewis has outlined the latest developments in the saga of the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is low, but appeared to have a whole series of problems, not least of which that it had got its forcing data mucked up, leaving out land-use changes entirely.
In a typically erm…robust article at RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt ignored all the evidence Lewis had presented showing that land-use change had been overlooked, and said that Lewis’s critique was made…without evidence. However, it now seems that he has decided that this position is not tenable, at the journal at least,and a correction has been issued admitting that land-use was indeed missing.
The historical instantaneous radiative forcing time series was also updated to reflect land use change, which was inadvertently excluded from the forcing originally calculated from ref…
View original post 188 more words
Kenneth Richard presents a list of 250 peer-reviewed papers published in 2015 supporting the skeptical position that natural factors are in fact a dominant climate driver, and the publishing pace seems to be accelerating with nearly 50 papers already published in 2016 showing that CO2 climate science is exaggerated and that natural factors are indeed dominant climate forces that will not be tamed by man emitting a trace gas.
Here’s a small sampling of some of the conclusions:
“Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes.” geology.gsapubs.org
“Solar minimum conditions reinforce the high pressure above Greenland together with a weakening of the other two North Atlantic pressure centres.” ann-geophys.net
“There have been many studies noting correlations between solar cycles and changes in the Earth temperature.” rxiv.org
“Ocean heat content anomaly (OHCa) time series in some areas of the Pacific are significantly correlated with the total solar irradiance (TSI). ” sciencedirect.com
While there is scientific consensus that global and local mean sea level (GMSL and LMSL) has risen since the late nineteenth century, the relative contribution of natural and anthropogenic forcing remains unclear.” nature.com
“Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus.” nature.com
“Positive (negative) phases of the AMO coincide with warmer (colder) North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. The AMO is linked with decadal climate fluctuations, such as Indian and Sahel rainfall, European summer precipitation, Atlantic hurricanes and variations in global temperatures. It is widely believed that ocean circulation drives the phase changes of the AMO by controlling ocean heat content. “ nature.com
Polar bears are doing just fine thank you despite all of the alarmist nonsense from 10-15 years ago about their imminent demise due to melting sea ice around the north pole.
Guest essay by Dr. Susan Crockford
Grim predictions of the imminent demise of polar bears – their “harsh prophetic reality” as it’s been called – have been touted since at least 2001. But such depressing prophesies have so widely missed the mark they can now be said to have failed.
While polar bears may be negatively affected by declines in sea ice sometime in the future, so far there is no convincing evidence that any unnatural harm has come to them. Indeed, global population size (described by officials as a “tentative guess“) appears to have grown slightly over this time, as the maximum estimated number was 28,370 in 1993 (Wiig and colleagues 1995; range 21,470-28,370) but rose to 31,000 in 2015 (Wiig and colleagues 2015, [pdf here] aka 2015 IUCN Red List assessment; range 20,000-31,000).
These ominous prophesies have been promoted primarily by Ian…
View original post 1,385 more words
Guest essay by Sheldon Walker
A quick recap for anybody who missed my first article.
My first article can be found here.
I have developed a new technique for analysing global warming (and other things). It is called Multi Trend Analysis, or MTA. It analyses the data in a time interval, by calculating the trend between every possible pair of points in the interval. The trend includes all of the data points between each pair of points as well. This can involve a lot of trends. To analyse the interval [January 1975 to December 1999] involves 16,920 trends. A trend is basically a linear regression.
I have developed methods that allow large numbers of trends to be analysed quickly, and the results displayed either graphically or in a table. A trend has 4 main attributes, a start date, an end date, a length, and a slope (with global warming, the…
View original post 1,125 more words