Thursday
Jan212016
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Hot, apparently
Jan 21, 2016 Climate: Surface 
© Copyright ronnie leask under CC licence. Click for link.So the stove is on, and outside the snow is starting to melt a little. It looks as though a thaw will set in by this evening.
Meanwhile Twitter and the newswaves are awash with tales of warmest years, although I have to say most of it has passed me by. I did pick up this interesting exchange on Josh's feed though.
Which does seem to throw a fairly large bucket of water on all the excitement, doesn't it?
Reader Comments (71)
Stott wanted to partake in the headline game so delivered his money quote. It got him prime-time on the BBC so worked as intended. That he, the MO and everyone else on the alarmist side completely ignore contrary satellite data shows what we have known all along; their game is partisan propaganda not impartial objectivity. It keeps the money flowing, see?
Glad tidings of great joy. Rejoice at that news.
Nice one Josh, Betts hoist on his own petard.
I'll put 1€ (I'm a pensioner and don't gamble) on there being no reply to that.
splitpin
Long may it continue, who wants to freeze to death? Unfortunately it may be just an El Nino induced blip which will have to adjusted down when they need 2017 to be the warmest year ever.
They really believe they can measure temperature to two tenths of a degree accuracy? They never mention we're in an Interglacial, do they? Do they really want hundreds of millions of people to die with a couple of kilometres of ice on top of them?
Nice comment, Splitpin!
There must be a reason why the satellite record is not being used and according to Amber Rudd MP:
“On your constituent’s point about the apparent lack of warming over the past 18 years
shown by satellite measurements, one reason for that is that these measurements are
much more sensitive to climate phenomena such as ‘El Niño’ in the Pacific, which can
skew temperature trends over shorter periods. A more reliable picture of climate change
can be gained from looking at other measurements, such as the surface temperature
increase over the same period, ongoing sea level rise and other climate indicators, all of
which show a clear sign of warming.”
What more can you say?
Yes its rather odd that the Met office plus the BBC disciples had broad grins on announcing what they claim to be the warmest year on record.
With a doom laden outlook should they not look suitably terrified?
Still Stoat finds more reasons to rejoice with the death of Dr Robert Carter a prominent critic of climate alarmism.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/01/19/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time/
Bryan:
It shows a sickness of the soul to dedicate an article to a recently-deceased individual, when all you want to do is attack him and his work, while claiming that you are not. I had no respect for that individual before; now, he has my uttermost contempt.If other Believers do not condemn him for such a philosophy, then they shall surely join him.
If you look at 'global' temperatures since 1840 you'll see that we're slowly recovering from the LIA.
It should be no great surprise that we get a series of hottest years "ever".
Why does nobody point this out to them?
How to have your cake and eat it.
1. You can't take 1998 as the start of the pause as its higher due to El Nino
2. Highest ever annual temp 2015 (an El Nino year would you believe but we will not mention that)
Nial: you obviously do not read my posts – shame on you! Here is part of my recent reply to Lord Beaverbrook, on Unthreaded:
It is the latest in a long series where I have attempted to persuade people to get things in this perspective.RR
Not called 'stoat' for nothing. A close relative of the polecat, I believe.
Amazing, isn't it, how a mathematician with no apparently relevant qualifications can be so much more of an "expert" on climate than a geologist and palæontologist. Further evidence, if any were needed, that Science has eff all to do with it and that Connolley's real qualification is his membership of the Greens.
I'm getting the feeling that the clique has cried wolf once too often and the UK MSM are no longer interested in their shenanigans anymore.
Apart from BBC 10 o'clock news last night has their been any coverage by a major UK media news outlet?
As far as Twitter goes there seems to be Met Office led attack on the GWPF which with rather surprisingly churlish actions demeans any serious value from the report whatsoever.
Bryan,
There are some lovely people over there on the Stoat bog. That lovely woman from HotWhopper graces the blog with her profound thoughts.
Lord Beaverbrook:
"Apart from BBC 10 o'clock news last night has their been any coverage by a major UK media news outlet?"
Unfortunately yes, the same guff was on the ITV news. I turned over from David Shukman only to find the same stuff on ITV a few minutes later, so I turned to RT for a different perspective, where it wasn't even mentioned.
I expect the Guardian will be full of it, haven't done my daily penance there yet.
Capell:
Quite!
Is this the highest temperature ever adjusted to, above which, Climate Science as we know it, can not survive?
Peak Adjusted Temperature?
https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/overview
Question what is the minimum age to claim fuel payment ?
Current cold snap only the elderly effected ,some may beg to differ
@ Lord Beaverbrook - Not that it could, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a "major" UK news media outlet, but this record was reported today by the Eastern Daily Press in Norfolk. However, considering their editorial offices proximity to the UEA, this is hardly surprising!
Interested that Richard Betts originally tweeted that the El Nino contributed a few tenths of a degree to 2015's temperature but when asked if a few tenths of a degree should be taken off the 2015 figure to demonstrate what 2015 would have been without the El Nino. Now he says he can't do that because he would need to look at the physics.
This is the scientific equivalent of heads you win, tails you lose. But never mind. He won't be able to add anything on to the temperature of a future La Nina year, because of err...the physics.
What a scientist.
Where are the famines?
Where are the shattered cities by the oceans?
Which islands are sinking in the ocean?
Where were the brownouts due to over use of air conditioning?
Where are the storm ravaged forests?
Where are the great droughts?
on top of all that, the prediction is that sun activity is going down for the next 20y ?
I asked my colleague Adam Scaife for his view on the relative contribution of El Nino and anthropogenic global warming to the 2015 global temperature. He thinks the contribution of El Nino is rather smaller than the couple of tenths of a degree that I'd guessed at on twitter. Adam thinks it's a few hundredths of a degree, because El Nino has only just reached its peak so was having less influence earlier in the year. A larger contribution can be expected next year, more in line with my couple of tenths of a degree.
As I said in my follow-up email to Josh, it's important to look into the actual processes that are involved.
SandyS
That's a bit of an odd statement. I answered Josh's perfectly reasonable scientific question in good faith, based on a quick off-the-cuff estimate. Are you suggesting I should be more wary of talking to Josh in case he's trying to stitch me up? I hope not….
Being "hoist on my own petard" suggests I have some sort of agenda. I think you may be making some unjustified assumptions about me there.
Where are the great droughts?
http://ca.gov/drought/
Hi Richard Betts,
This morning the BBC briefly reported the result that 2015 was the hottest year ever since records began. They then commented that scientists say this is (in part) caused by climate change.
Would you like to contact them and ask them to correct that statement to say, in addition, that it is also partly as a result of the natural warming phenomena known as El Nino?
Also, could you give the appropriate information so they can correctly report whether the statement "hottest year ever" is statistically significant compared to the previous "hottest years ever" (say the top 5)?
Is part of your job to properly communicate the science to the media, or is that someone in else in your organisation? If someone else, please can you tell me who that is and how I contact them please?
"Hottest year ever" is propaganda. Stating statistical significance and recognising compounding factors is science.
Ughhhhh!
I've just visited the 'Stoat Blog' and feel I now need heavy decontamination treatment!!
What a delightful group.
This morning the BBC briefly reported the result that 2015 was the hottest year ever since records began. They then commented that scientists say this is (in part) caused by climate change.
Would you like to contact them and ask them to correct that statement to say, in addition, that it is also partly as a result of the natural warming phenomena known as El Nino?
El Nino gets a prominent mention on the BBC news website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35354579
And the NASA press release indicates that 2015 set a new record with 94% certainty, at 0.13C above the previous high.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/
'hottest year ever since records began' seems to be self-contradictory, who used that construction?
Phil,
There is credible evidence of multi-decade droughts in the same region.
The California drought is not untypical or unprecedented in historical (climate terms). It is also largely being terminated by the el Nino event. As typically happens to West coast droughts.
Richard Betts
What you've got no agenda and as result of 2015's temperature you're going to reduce your carbon footprint still further?
A serious question, can't you easily access the data to know within a few hundredths of a degree the contribution of El Nino without two of you making guesstimates? You expect me to take what you say seriously?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought
Andrew,
Is the disgusting post by William Connelly at his site (and the equally degenerate comments) worth a post here? On second thought, why expose people to such filth.
Are global droughts increasing in quantity? Are they lasting longer than historically recorded events? Same question for storms, floods etc. What level of confidence can be associated to any such claims?
Would someone please explain to a non-climate scientist how it is possible to talk about hundredths or even tenths of a degree when the temperatures under discussion cannot be measured that accurately?
It would appear that NOAA have tripped over their own shirt tails having announced that this year was the hottest evaahhh. GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 57°F = 58.62°F whilst they announced the hottest year evaaahhh in 1997 as 62.45 degrees F. That makes 1997 a full 3.83 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 2015.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/failed-math-in-1997-noaa-claimed-that-the-earth-was-5-63-degrees-warmer-than-today/
You might hope not. You might also be dissappointed :-)
Gavin Schmidt has considered the impact of the El Nino and suggests that 2015 would still have been the warmest year.
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/690271546829586433
Your agenda, Richard, whether you know it or not, is to preserve the alarm. You should stop it, whether you want to or not.
========================
How odd British wine production has grown without pause for the past quarter century .
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/06/mark-steyn-and-grapes-of-wrath.html
...and Then There's Bullsh:
So Betts and Scaife go public (this blog is a public resource) with 'quick off-the-cuff' and 'thinks' responses about the contribution that El Nino makes to warming, that differ by an order of magnitude
- there is a serious lack of credibility in the 97% certain warmist camp.
Paul Homewood has a post which adds to the one at WUWT.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/01/21/warmest-year-evah-maybe-but-not-according-to-noaa/
...and Then There's Physics
I don't suppose you're old enough to remember Mandy Rice-Davies?
Alternatively, sometimes people (let's imagine these people are scientists) decide that they will attempt to answer a question that's been posed, and they assume that if they do happen to get something wrong, that they won't be judged for doing so and that it won't be used against them. In many situations, this would be an entirely reasonable assumption (until a few years ago, it was what I assumed). In the context of climate change, it clearly is a poor assumption. It, of course, reflects more on those who do choose to judge and use it against them, than it does on them.
...and Then There's Bullsh;
Speaking as a 'scientist' (two degrees and three postgrads, just to twist your bowtie) an 'attempt to answer a question' that differs by an order of magnitude is definitely wrong - Betts should have checked his 'facts' before responding.
Salopian
Indeed. The perils of twitter!
Just goes to show - be careful about what you read on the internet. Mistakes happen.
Looking at Gav's Graph(tm), 1998 seems to be the new Mary Jo Kopechne.
Richard Betts
As an ex-Civil Servant, I suggest you leave social media/internet to your press officers, they are paid to put your foot into your mouth,if necessary; but they won't take the blame if you choose to do so by yourself.
Looking at GISTEMP the effect of a big El Nino peaking is to boost global temperatures by about 0.3C above the long term trend.
The long term trend without ENSO (red line) shows an increase in temperature from anomaly 0.4C in 1998 to 0.75C in 2015. That is an increase of 0.35C in 17 years, That is an underlying trend of 0.205C/decade.
Salopian,
I've no idea why your appeal to your own authority should even tweak, slightly, my metaphorical bowtie. Well done, anyway.
In an ideal world, yes, we should all check everything thoroughly. In the real world, people are busy. I'm also not sure why someone who is a regular on a site like this somehow thinks they have some right to lecture others about checking things in case they end up being wrong. Also, why do you keep saying "an order of magnitude"; it was probably a factor of a few.
Another appeal to your own authority? Other than that, it's a bizarre thing to say. Press Officers are there to promote research results to the media/public, not explain science to, and engage with, the public; they don't have the expertise. Of course, your behaviour here is probably a reason why some scientists might choose not to engage with the public, but the possibility that some might make silly errors when doing so, is a very poor argument for discouraging it.
Phil Clarke says:
Even more surprising then that the BBC didn't state the caveats in the news piece. The general public listens to the news headlines while eating their breakfast, only climate wonks like ourselves read articles on websites. So the general public is neatly misinformed and the BBC cleverly constructs their pass by saying "well its on the website" when challenged. My points are important caveats because they give a true picture of the meaning of the number. Missing out the caveats gives a biased picture.
Great! Same comments as the first point above.
Anyone with GSOH would see the irony, its a play on "evvah" as other commenters have also used. You'll notice the words are in inverted commas, you know, like Americans do to indicate irony or sarcasm. Try watching Borat and maybe getting yourself a sense of humour/irony transplant sometime to improve your comprehension.
Note how Richard Betts disappears spontaneously after his two comments and doesn't engage again. I cannot recall him ever responding to a direct question that I have put to him. And that's also "evvah" for Phil Clarke's benefit.