Not the “hottest”

Global warming campaigners have a tough sell on their hands.

They claim that climate science is “settled” and beyond discussion, yet the computer models the whole thing depends on have called for warming which has not occurred since before the turn of the millennium.

Now they’re trying to claim that 2014 was the “hottest ever.”

This is absurd.

There was not very much warming during the second half of the 20th century and none since then.  Only a few years managed to come in around 1/2 a degree Celsius above baseline — Not enough to cause extreme anything.

Now team warming is trying desperately to cobble together a few hundredths of a degree above 1998, while they know full well that a few hundredths are meaningless.  Measurements are not that accurate.  Hundredths are too small to matter.  We’re still WAY under what the computer models project.

Hundredths warmer is like pennies richer.

More importantly, for them to make even this shallow claim, they have to cherry pick their data and completely ignore the U.S. and U.K. satellite data which they know full well is the best available.

Why ignore the best available world temperature data?  Because it does not show any warming.

That’s where science ends and propaganda begins.

Rupert Darwell lays it all out quite nicely over at National Review and of course there are full details from Marc Morano, as they break, at CFACT’s Climate Depot.

The next time a global warming campaigner tries to tell you that 2014 was the “hottest ever,” tell them to cool off — And stick with the satellite data they based the models on (the one’s with no warming).

No switching umpires in the middle of the game.

Arctic ice equals 30 years ago

Share on Facebook

Categories

About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • My Yoga Video

    hmmm … you realize that you should be talking abut heat and not temperature … right? The ocean is like a radiator … pulls heat from the air/land and traps it at depths (not just the surface) … that is how the climate models all work … delays are created in the temperature as long as the heat sink it working … just like engine heat and the radiator … so those heat numbers are what counts … but you are reporting something else … it looks like you just reposting something you saw somewhere else posted by someone who does not understand climate models.

    • Scottar

      Temperature is an indicator of heat. You have to consider the substance that you are measuring from. You have lower troposphere temps, surface temps of land and the ocean and finally sea temps of various deep. The RSS and UHA are the best overall temp indicator as is polar ice. The rest have too many ambiguities and inconsistencies.

      But there are ambiguities and climate monitoring using current instruments is fairly too young to predict long term near trends only accurate data of 1,000 years or more could reveal. What remains is the combined paleontology and geology proxie data of what most likely is coming or likely to occur in the long range future. We also have near recorded history going back some 2,000 years.

      • My Yoga Video

        That would be the temperature and mass of polar ice correct? Or else you are just repeating what I originally stated. Confusing heat with temperature which the the problem with focusing on the RSS and UHA. Are you sure you understand what I am talking about?

        • Scottar

          No, but then all temperature data would not be a good indicator of climate as they don’t seem to convey the heat content of the air masses. We are then left with polar ice mass and amount of snow or precipitation.

          • Pinot Noir

            And with this cheap banner they proved that climate change is just a joke.
            Come-on people, it is like I watch Fox News, those journalists are paid to lobby against environmentalists, against climate change and anything related to the environment.
            They simply want to move ahead polluting as much possible and without caring about others who live here on Earth.
            I hope President Obama will teach them a lesson.
            http://www.alternative-energies.net/obama-vs-republicans-on-climate-changes/

            • Scottar

              You are another talking dumbass, Cfact has very credible people with integrity and they get their money from many, non- lobby donations, unlike many of the greenie sites which get substantial monies from Sorros proxies and recycled grubmint grants.

              I don’t depend on Cfact for all the info, they are just a convenient site to go to for what’s happening now. And I don’t use Fox for almost none of my references, I don’t really go there at all.

              Obama, Algore, Hillary, Raj Pachauri, etc…. they are all a bunch of Pinocchios. And renewables pollute more then fossils.

              • zn

                Hi Scottar. No, all renewables don’t pollute more than fossil fuels. That is a made up statement. You made that up. It is not true. Thnxbye.

                • Scottar

                  “No, all renewables don’t pollute more than renewables. “

                  What kind of dumbass statement is that? I implied that renewables that power the grid actually pollute more then fossils due to infrastructure requirements. That‘s is because the ‘fuel’ is so diluted and anemic that it requires massive infrastructure costs. That means the energy required will comes from fossils to mine, refine, manufacture and assemble the infrastructure. And I’m not even including the backup costs, dumbass!

                  http://nucleargreen.blogspot.ca/2013/01/truth-speculation-and-energy-future.html#links

                  http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/21/75-of-international-experts-view-germanys-energiewende-as-a-threat-to-european-power-supply-stability/#sthash.WEEOVtbp.dpbs

                  • zn

                    I think you need to re-read my comment.

                    Diluted and anemic? How do you explain renewables providing over 50 per cent of Germany’s electrical needs on certain days last year? Or wind energy providing for over 100 per cent of Scotland’s? You need to update your logic. You’re on the wrong side of history, my friend.

                    • Scottar

                      I think you need to reread the article links. Renewables are not 24/7, they can’t be effectively, economically stored for what they produce for later use. And when you get past 15% the energy flow gets so erratic that it’s costs become horrendous for the grid owners, more money and fuel to compensate for it. It’s not sustainable and won’t prevent climate change LOL. Energy is not when it appears, it’s got to be 24/7 (how many times have you been told this?), is why greenwashed idiots like you are dumbasses as they can’t figure out how the grid really works, much less the economics. Like Obamacare saves money and provides healthcare, in name only.

                      Your on the stupid side of reality. What if your car ran on such energy. You get halfway to work and all of a sudden the energy craps out and you have to wait 2, 6, 20 hours, perhaps 2 days for the energy to comeup? How long would you keep your job? Idiot you are such a joke! ROTFALMAO!

                    • zn

                      Ha ha ha, where you have been for the last five years? Look around you. What do you see? I see the world’s biggest economies – the US, China, Germany, UK, Japan all going hard on renewables; I see the world’s biggest investment banks repeatedly forecasting the ascendance of renewables over FF; I see Gulf oil producing nations admitting the price of new solar already undercuts oil on a cost per MW/h basis, and shifting their policies accordingly.

                      You seem like a smart guy, but your politics is fucked up. This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s not a New World Order. It’s technology and it’s progress and if you don’t like it then keep on commenting on CFACT with Dad’s Army and the chemtrail guys and pretend like it’s still 1970.

                      The rest of us will be living our normal lives with solar on the roof and cold beer in the fridge.

                    • Scottar

                      Yeah, I have looked around and I see Europe and Great Britain backing away form renewable subsides as they find they don’t deliver as advertised. G.B. is now looking at nuclear. It’s the dumbass politicians who have drank the koolaide of renewables as being sustainable and fighting bogus AGW. And all the gullible sheeple like you have bought in to it without doing hard core research. Ever hear of corporate media? Eisenhower warned the US about that.

                      China is building coal and nuclear plants like gangbusters, the renewables is just PR. And India told BO to piss off when he tried to get them to an emissions agreement, they are building more coal plants then ever along with Germany. Denmark for all it installed wind has not retired one coal plant.

                      The only reason renewables exists on a grid scale is due to government mandates and heavy subsidies due to lefty progressives and whacked enviros. Your claims are just more sheeple buttspew from the Orwellian grubmint. It’s your politics and technical understanding that are fucked-up. And yes, agenda 21 does exists and is being implemented.

                      http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/decarbonization/us-china-climate-deal-underscores-need-for-substantial-energy-innovation

                      US-China Climate Deal Underscores Need for Substantial Energy Innovation
                      http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/energy/renewables-and-nuclear-at-a-glance

                      Renewables and Nuclear Energy At A Glance

                      http://blog.heartland.org/2015/01/government-phony-science-waste/

                      Government + Phony Science + $$$$ = Waste

                      http://euanmearns.com/the-appalling-truth-about-energy-subsidies/

                      The Appalling Truth About Energy Subsidies

                      http://notrickszone.com

                      Subheading energy.

                      Read all the top 10 articles to get the real situation.

                      I give you the facts and you reply with the buttspew, can’t even provide links. LOL! You are like the politicians with all their promises and claims, after-all it’s their livelihood, selling bullcrap with promises. Give me some facts treehugger!

                      And just what country do you reside in per center?

      • My Yoga Video

        I am happy to work with you on these issues until you understand. The folks here at Scripts Institute who were the original researchers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle) into CO2 and climate change in the 1950’s have many people who are confused until they understand the actual math involved in heat. If you have an open mind we could dive into that information.

        • Scottar

          You link produced no results. Most of the heat in the oceans would come from the sun, not the air nor land. In fact ocean heat would affect land masses, not the other way around. Try heating your bathtub with a hair dryer.

          But then other researchers speculate that undersea volcanic activity is also contributing to the ocean heat. And explain why the troposphere humidity has gone down for the last 30 years.

          • My Yoga Video

            Yes, exactly, the ocean heat comes almost entirely from the sun and the system is enclosed in terms of land and ocean heating one another. Even the volcanic heat is part of the enclosed system and the humidity of the air which stores a relatively tiny and short term amount of heat … the key is to add them all up … any researcher that talks about volcanic heat or humidity and does not come up an actual number by consulting or citing domain experts is in my mind, not actually a researcher because those numbers require a little research via seismic data etc. So if they don’t consult the real seismic geologists (like my father when it comes to the ionosphere) with the most anthropological seismic research experience then they most assuredly have alternative motives and should be ignored simply because it is obvious they are going for an emotional reaction from the public. Wisdom focused researchers don’t do that. My father was one of the true ionosphere researchers in the world having flown at high altitudes and measured the ionosphere from the north pole to the south for 50 years. People like my father are who I listen to. He was a devout republican he never got into the us versus them mentality regarding science. He was the president of his church and also installed solar panels on his roof in the 70’s before everyone else. My father was very intelligent, could do complex math in his sleep, and never sold out. I see so many people clinging to obviously incomplete or irrelevant data points when it comes to climate change. In fact an old friend is the director of a research wing at George Mason university who only studies how people are making decisions regarding climate change … the results are facinating. They simply ignore obvious data point they don’t like. Completely ignore them. Hmmmmm Ignoring heat data calculations in favor of simple temperature data is exactly this. Heat matters. Even when the mainstream media mentions temperature it is basically irrelevant unless you know the heat formulas involved. Heat involved in radiation into outer space, heat involved in ocean depths, heat involved in change of state from water to water vapor. Some people talk about these numbers like they know what they are talking about but they never come up with numbers. These people need to be ignored if you want the truth. This is a numerical problem in the short term and a human life problem in the long term. People who do not live and breathe numbers and can put aside their political party are irrelevant. The heat content of the ocean is enormous and completely dwarfs other data points. Focus on that and the enclosed system’s potential to re-radiate back into outer space. Find those numbers instead of wasting time with temperatures measurements at various land points. If you cant find them in the media then you get my point. The us versus them mentality has hijacked rationality.

            • Scottar

              Basically, I agree with you and I am impressed by your background. But I think the task of monitoring every square foot of the ocean would be a monumental task, beyond the resources of any budget. I have read where volcanologists and oceanographers continuously find new volcanic sources on the floor and under the ice fields. So it seems the best they can do is satellite measurements of the lower and upper troposphere. Also of significance is the ionosphere where the sun energy interacts with it.

              To get a better overview of the RSS network you should go to their site: http://www.remss.com
              I think this also covers UHA satellites. And they do measure humidity in the atmosphere and SST among other things.

              I think we both know the shortcomings of the surface stations measurements and how they get perverted by GISS, HadCrut, NCDC, etc. Still satellites seem like the most accurate approach, especially RSS.

          • zlop

            “And explain why the troposphere humidity has gone down for the last 30 years.” — More CO2 removes H2O, lowers clouds, per saturated greenhouse effect.

            • Scottar

              Do you have a link or citation to your claim? Otherwise it’s hearsay.

        • zlop

          “confused until they understand the actual math” — Math here; “Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible increase 0.065 °C in 45 years” http://motls.blogspot.ca/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html

          • My Yoga Video

            read the comments at the bottom of the article … it is all about the heat not the temperature … the guy who wrote that is still focused on temperature … his mistake … at the bottom real investigating going on … according to climate models it seems the negligible is not so negligible when you consider how huge the ocean is and to keep the ocean warming at that rate would correlate with significant gains in air temp over the long run. You gotta start thinking about heat … like a cars engine that has no radiator fan … the earths radiator (ocean) does not have a fan, and the engine is getting more and more heat because of gasses trapping sun energy, and the earths crust is actually keep the molten lava core’s heat away. So where we live is on the coolest part (the ocean is warmer than winter and cooler than summer on land). So we are entirely dependent upon the heat content of the ocean to regulate our temperature (not the ocean temperature), because heat is what gets radiated back into outer space. And that outer space radiation from the ocean is our big radiator for the Sun’s energy. So, a small temperature increase in the ocean is a large reduction in it’s absorbing capacity of the atmosphere’s heat. The article you posted has one alarming characteristic to it. The .065 increase in the oceans temperature correlates to a .5 increase in the atmosphere temperature almost perfectly. That is really bad news for all the coastal cities like NYC and Miami and New Orleans over the next 100-200 years. Really bad.

  • zlop

    “Now they’re trying to claim that 2014 was the “hottest ever.”

    After hockey sticking the data, NOAA and NASA are not 97% certain http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf