Mears fronts an organisation that was set up to refute Christy and Spencer because alarmists thought they were untrustworthy, but found that they ended up agreeing with Christy and Spencer. I do feel slightly sorry for him. Very slightly.

Yep, Phil; it's a very inconvenient fact that the satellite series don't show the warming the surface thermometer series do.
============

Those poor wee satellites, circling endlessly, decaying but broadcasting their messages of only slight warming. Orphaned and ignored by NASA. Their tweets are a distraction to the ever-adjusted doom of their masters.

It would be amazing if the satellites agreed exactly with the surface measurements, as they are measuring different physical quantities with differing coverage.

However, trends agree to within uncertainty bands 0.17C/decade in HADCRUT, 0.13C in RSS.

http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/offset:0.2/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/offset:0.2

IPCC 1990 projected between 0.1 and 0.2C/decade. (That’s what they actually wrote, not what Christopher Monckton rewrote.)

Damn this blog software.

It would be inconvenient if it were true, but its really not.

Click

The warmest adjusted year evah. Hurrah!*
The wettest September in Australia in more than a century. Hurrah!
The greenest the Sahul has been in living memory. Hurrah!

* Savour them while we can.

Phil Clarke, will the Green Party support the use of DDT to prevent deaths from malaria?

Was Hansen involved in sabotaging the cooling and ventilation systems for a press conference?

Were you conned by James Lovelock's Gaia fantasy?

Were the satellites used to measure temperatures another waste of money because they don't produce the temperatures required by Climate Scientists?

Does your dishonesty offer a fair reflection of Green Party expertise?

Paleoclimate buff

Just finished Ellis and Palmer(2016)

Interesting paper, but speculative. Until someone does the numbers I feel compelled to repeat the sceptic advice that until the mechanism is properly demonstrated, correalation does not always mean causation.

If the dust hypothesis is correct, then it poses a considerable dilemma for the sceptics. Global temperature and ice sheets must be very sensitive to dust. Ellis and Palmer describe a 5C temperature rise and a 120 M sea level rise triggered by a little dust from the Gobi Desert.

If the post 1880 warming is due to dust, not CO2, then we are looking at massive ice melt due to black carbon and other industrial particulates.

How seriously will the sceptic community take Ellis and Palmer(2016) ? If Curry, McIntyre etc take it seriously, they will soon be campaigning to reduce fossil fuel burn before our industrial dust melts the ice sheets.

Golf Charlie

Still worrying about you. Your comments have become very sarcastic, even vindictive, recently.

Are you raging against the fading of the light?

Radical Rodent

I have made a very clear prediction. GIIS anomaly 1.4C by 2055. It is in the figures you were complaining about.

Since the 5- year average for 2013 is 0.7C, my prediction implies a warming rate of 0.17C/decade, perhaps a 5-year average of 0..87C in 2023.

Evan's predicts a decline. This is easily falsified. Look at the 2023 5-year average

If it is below 0.7C then Evans may be right and I am wrong.

If it is warmer.than 0.7C, perhaps around 0.87C, then I may be right and Evans is wrong.

Neat exposition of Popperian falsification there.

EM opines:-

“If the post 1880 warming is due to dust, not CO2, then we are looking at massive ice melt due to black carbon and other industrial particulates”.

It is very unlikely that post 1880 warming is due to dust, Black Carbon and other industrial particulates because for over 12,000 years now there have been no extensive NH ice sheets for dust, b;ack carbon and other particulates to accumulate upon and cause melting. Present day Arctic sea ice is ephemeral and subject to large seasonal variation in area due to summer melting and its permanent area is small and even summer melting does not reduce total albedo significantly.

Ellis and Palmer’s thesis is that at during glacial maxima dust deposition on NH continental ice sheets occur as atmospheric dust loading is very high because atmospheric CO2 concentrations of around 200 ppmv are too low to sustain plant growth at high altitude and latitudes peripheral to the ice sheets. The large pressure gradient between the ice sheets ( which then extended to mid latitudes) and the tropics resulted in high wind speeds which because of the cold dry air sustained and transported very large dust loads.

The present day situation is exactly the opposite, atmospheric CO2 concentration is well above plant starvation levels and the atmosphere has high humidity and relatively low wind speeds as there is a smaller pressure gradient between high and low latitudes due to high latitude warming. Consequently atmospheric dust loadings are low and in the absence of large areas of ice albedo is low.

In these conditions Ellis and Palmer say…”at the peak of an interglacial, where high CO2 and low albedo results in cooling.” When orbital eccentricity and obliquity result in low levels of TSI at 65ºN latitude continental ice sheet accumulation is triggered.

We are currently in a position where the high CO2 and low albedo prevail and their thesis would suggest that when TSI at 65º N latitude falls below a critical level , as it will within a few thousand years, NH continental ice sheets will reappear.

EM, very worried that you have lowered your standards to Green Party / Phil Clarke's level.

It is better that someone tries to work out if 97% of Climate Projections and associated fabrications need to be incinerated or landfilled. Recycling poses the risk of future cross contamination with science that justifies tax payer funding.

Paleoclimate buff

If you are correct, there is a minimum ice cover below which the dust effect stops. It must be considerably higher than present levels.

Unfortunately a present day link between boreal forest fires, black carbon, Greenland albedo and ice melt has been demonstrated. The dust effect is not just on Great Summer revalidation. It is an ongoing minor ingredient in the glacial/ interglacial recipe.

Radical Rodent

Do you accept my 1.00 comment as a valid test? If not, why not?

There is no doubt as to the reality of the greenhouse effect, or that manmade activity has increased the burden of greenhouse gases and therefore placed the planet into a radiative imbalance, we have good estimates of the magnitude of the imbalance. Objects with a positive radiative imbalance must get warmer or break the laws of thermodynamics.

The only real wriggle-room for contrarians is how much warming will occur, the climate sensitivity, and there paleoclimate evidence would seem to rule out low values; positive feedbacks predominate.

Phil Clarke, no, there can be a lot of doubt about a "science" that can not prove itself, and according to EM does not need to either.

Fudge Factor X, the secret ingredient, is clearly an area that needs more work. The more people say it doesn't probably confirms it.

You are now confirming Climate Science's inability to identify it's own defective work, and making the case for a 97% drop in funding, which is something politicians in the US, UK and Australia are being pushed towards, as the electorates don't like being lied to either.

Meanwhile James Hansen has just had published his latest scare stories, in a Non-Peer Reviewed article to support a US Legal Claim. The publishers have a Jim Lovelock as an advisor. Would he be related to James Lovelock who has just denounced his own Gaia concept, that triggered the rise of the Green Blob? Fitting if he triggers it's fall too.

Nothing about climate science is reliable.

Phil Clarke, politicians are only getting negative feedback about Climate Science. This trend is rising to unprecedented levels. Where do you think you got it so wrong?

Well, no, Phil; negative feedback rules and paleoclimatology does not support high sensitivity to CO2. Further, observations support sensitivity low enough that we'll never break into net harm from anthropogenic warming. Anthropogenic greening is all benefit and no harm.

Nonetheless, the scare tactics continue. Since climate catastrophes will never appear, a reckoning and a recovery of sense about climate will eventually appear. By then, the damage done by unnecessary alarm will itself be catastrophic.

Destruction and death from alarmism is present in the world today. The BRICs understand this but hope the developed West will continue to destroy itself over misplaced guilt.

It's all pretty tragic.
============

Note with E&P it is low CO2 that causes the desertification. I could hope anthropogenic CO2 might prevent that, but our little aliquot is a drop in the bucket, and most likely completely insignificant next time the desertification returns.

EM, there's not enough ice @ 65N to be much worried about black carbon.
=============

gc, I think the manipulation was just opening the windows to the hearing room in 1988 by the crooked Senator(?) from Colorado. It's a little amusing to remember that Hansen then claimed the heat wave that was all over the Southeast US at that time, including Washington DC, was a manifestation of anthropogenic warming, basically claiming regional skill for the models. Regional skill is something they still don't have.

The only thing sensible about that man is his recognition of the need for nuclear power. He is, was, and will always be remembered as a fanatic.
================

Oh, well, Paleoclimate Buff has already covered it pretty well. Read and understand.
===============

Another sad thing is that volatility of climate and weather is a marker of exit from glaciation and of onset or reglaciation. If we really do see increased storminess, which we don't yet, it will be a mark of the onset of reglaciation.

Alarmism, in its present form, is a hazard. It's a madness of the crowd.
==================