CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the hottest January the world has ever seen. The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.
At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.
“Last November was the hottest November we’ve ever seen. November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.” Veteran climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change briefing, added: “It’s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven’t warmed in the past 50 years.”
His extraordinary claims came after the World Meteorological Organisation revealed 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850. But UK forecaster Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “If it is the case and it is borne out that January was the hottest on record, it is still no marker towards climate change.
“It’s all part of a cyclical issue and nothing should be read too deeply into that.
“It’s been the coldest for 30 years in Britain but we predicted that and climate change always tends t o throw up anomalies. It’s all in line with predictions and I won’t be sold on climate change at all. The data is either faulty or manufactured to make it look like it shouldn’t.”
Cripes! My head hurts.
Hey Benji—how does a worn out story about sensors located next to burning garbage cans have ANYTHING TO DO with a study based on satellite measurements?
Take a good look in the mirror. You’ve got some serious work to do.
Stop being so intellectually LAZY.
Yep, and the cause of this so called warming is the unusually warm surface temperatures of the oceans. (It’s called an El Nino.) But before all of you true believers get too smug, you had better take another look at the Argo data, which can’t seem to find all of the stored ocean heat that AGW theory says must be there.
Hmm, its cold in Asia, Europe, North America, and no build-up of heat content in the oceans. So, where does that leave you AGW believers?
Warmers are closer to the religious right than they like to admit.
One group says dinosaurs roamed the Earth with Jesus regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
The other refuses to believe the temperature variations older than 30 years regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
#21 Zybch
It has been a surprisingly mild summer in Melbourne with unusual February rain. It has also been unusually humid.
I happen to be a skeptic of human caused global warming. But looking at the “strength” of the arguments both sides use, GW is a hands down winner.
#34–Smith says there is no heat build up in the Oceans while stating El Nino is responsible for warm weather events. El Nino==warm water at the surface. One cannot give any value to such inconsistencies.
#35–Loser posits a mystical variation over 30 years ago as proof of something.
Lack of logic/common sense/ability to read and understand an argument does not mean positions held flowing from these defects is wrong—-but it doesn’t help. That part is a lot like religion, or economic theory.
Although I keep seeing in the news that there has been frightful snowfalls in North America here in Japan winter has been quite mild. We’ve had days of 20°c in january and now in february the wind feels warm already.
I’m scared, as this is the stuff that ends up in the children’s history books in schools, NOT what the people actually experienced. These studies will be here for a while because they’re documents, people die and can’t tell the story of what really happened in 50 years.
Heck there’s nazi propaganda in museums all over the place, like state-run newspapers from that time, those were kept safe in libraries and such by the government at the time for future generations. But we’re still finding (which means searching!) the accurate records of how many people actually died during WWII because those are facts the government didn’t want to get out there.
What I’m trying to say is that it’s incredibly important to get as much opinions and facts out there for the world to read IN THE FUTURE when kids are being taught about what happened. Otherwise it’s so easy to keep making the same mistakes again (yes this is true for every subject but really applies to the climate scare as well).
It all seems to depend on how good your memory is — and the memory of some climate experts seems to be very selective.
Up here in Vancouver, we’re having the year without winter. Except that in early January it was frakkin’ cold and up at Whistler they’ve had more snow than ever recorded (but still no snow at Cypress). But because it’s been warm, and snow-free during the “winter” Olympics, the experts say it’s global warming.
The bottom line is…..we don’t know shit. We could have accurate records from the last 1000 years and it still wouldn’t mean squat. Just when you think you have nature all figured out..she will come and take a dump on you.
All this posing is bullshit.
ha, ha!
“we don’t know shit.” /// Well, isn’t that true about everything under the sun? And yet you don’t consider yourself that uniformed. Why do you blind yourself on this particular subject?
If by “we” you mean we posters on this blog, I can only agree. Too small a group. Not that we nothing, but it does amount to something less than a very small mound of shit, so, close enough.
But if by “we” which I do think is the case you mean the meme of Cultural/scientific aggregation of information, then REALLY, you shouldn’t project your own ignorance onto the History of Man.
Are we Men of Science, or Devo?
bobbo- Well if you mean “science” as what is being presented by the so-called climatologists…..then we are DEVO.
..”“January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.”
EVER? Wow! That man could see the heat in January… and it’s the hottest he’s ever seen. Apparently others can see the heat because he said “we’ve ever seen”! Infrared sensitive eyes?
We have never “ever seen” a higher temperature in January? Wow. So the earth formed at an average temperature of less than 58°F then? Who knew? Those scientists are sure smart these days.
That wasn’t an alarmist statement at all. So… so factual, so unembellished. Crystal clear in its delivery.
Well you convinced me!!! I’m no longer a skeptic!
Did you deliberately not read the “we’ve ever seen” bits??
# 2
It’s GLOBAL Warming, not local weather
Tip’ O’Neill “All politics/(weather) is local”
You youngins will be for a wild ride
I’ll just be glad to have those Polar Bears off my back
This just in…
“The British Meteorological Office has been forced to correct its global temperature records after a science blogger discovered that Australian weather data had been misused or discarded.”
…
”The site with the greatest error was Napier Nelson Park, in New Zealand, where the average temperature was off by more than 1 degree. That’s a lot given that the total warming seen since the 1970s is less than 1 degree and for this location the Met Office had it more than 1 degree hotter than it is. Had the error I’d found been more widespread, it could have had a real effect on the overall picture.”
He said that when the office checked his findings it discovered similar problems with US weather data, with 121 stations assigned to the wrong location or overwritten in the calculations.”
http://bit.ly/cocVI0
I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes. I refuse to believe that climate scientists have been making big mistakes…
Nope. That didn’t work for me.
Anyone on either side of this “debate” should be sentenced to death if they are ever caught referencing local temperatures, or small scale time periods.
Ahhhh McCullough. — why?
Experts aren’t like you and me.
Just watch tv. Something maybe I am an expert at? (snark!)
Some palentologist walking down a dry wash of nothing but dirt and erosion and 15 feet away he notices some of the dirt is actually a bone. Not any bone though, the scarapatuluous of a wading bird extinct for 50 million years.
I know nothing of that, just dirt to me.
Is that BS, or a measure of my own ignorance.
Don’t confuse science with politics. Much like confusing getting used like a tool with religion. Its a bummer.
There is real science of climate==exactly like the scrapula bone to you and me. Then there is the politics that you and I make a religion of.
I refuse to believe that dumping millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere has any effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
No effect at all.
Gee, I’m seeing stars. Is that you god?
bobbo stop looking at me you are getting acid rain in your eyes
There are no other facts than we’ve been told numerous exaggerations and outright lies, and been fed enough biased and faulty data that would make a lawyer blush.
Bobbo, millions of tons is nothing in comparison to the volume of air you are “dumping” into. Why don’t you use percentages? The numbers are tiny… but honest.
Still, it’s probably doing something. How much? We’ll never know as long as we have retards and shysters running the show.
Skeptic–so true. But we are not experts in climatology. co2 percent is a small number. DNA is a made of small molecules. What could they possible do to a large elephant?
No, I am a skeptic on climate science because I see the faulty arguments. In the main for pro: that a model proves anything. It doesn’t. In the main for con: reference to weather only.
I can admit that which I am qualified to comment on. Epistemology–yes. The nuts and bolts of specialities composing what we know?–no.
Your skepticism slops over to advocacy. Thats ok, you just mislabel yourself in the same manner you lament of others.
Sloppy. Should be easy/fun/rewarding to fix that?
“IIn the main for pro: that a model proves anything. It doesn’t. In the main for con: reference to weather only.”
Really? You compare to Scientific models in the real world to comments about weather on a blog. There are a lot of scientists who actually disagree with the extent and/or reasons attributed to GW.
Now you sound like the advocate.
Skeptic–you have an unusual catechism. I state what causes me to be skeptical of both sides of an issue and you say that makes me an advocate?
Is English your first language?
Logic in your repertoire?
I think you’ll find the “most scientists” or any other sufficiently vague and undefined reference to who knows who are not convinced of GW will include the position that the models are not proof of the affirmative position. That being the case, how can me saying the same thing be taken by you to have the opposite effect?
You do know skeptic is rooted in the term “skepsis”–or “doubt”==not confusion?
To that end, I did not “compare” the pro and con of the issue, rather, I contrasted the two sides. A small usually irrelevant distinction made relevant only by your obstinacy.
#33 I’m afraid that they decided what the numbers they were getting from the satellites meant based on what the numbers from the weather station next to the chimney were telling them. It would appear they need to trash about 80% of their data stations and the crap data that came from it in the United States and start over. Oh excuse me they are going to “correct” the data which amounts to making a WAG because the data was invalid.
It would further appear that in a mere 30 years they might have enough valid data to make some some very tentative suggestions about climate trends at that point using data from the United States. I have my doubts that data from other nations is any more valid.
Nothing you are getting from heat island cities is going to tell you jack about climate because you are getting man made warming though how global it is must still be regarded as dubious.
The guy who was head of the British climate data base just got through saying at a news conference a few days back that so far as he was aware there had been no significant warming during the last 15 years. He further noted that the medieval optimum may have been warmer than the present.
He added for good measure that he didn’t have a clue what had happened to the raw data his climate pontifications had been based on adding that he wasn’t very good at keeping up with records. Something a lot of people have been noticing about a lot of these guys. They are not competent to do the work they claim to be doing. The math, the record keeping, and the data collection is beyond their abilities. They don’t validate jack.
Next you have his former allies claiming the last ten years set records for hot. This is a bunch of BS. How can you even talk about setting records when you numbers are invalid?
I don’t mean to disparage the religion of the church of man made global warming but it has become painfully obvious that it is not based on sound data or traditionally accepted scientific practices.
It has become faith driven with many of the players having a vested interest in the outcome. Further the solutions being suggested would not in fact resolve the problem if it were to exist even according to most of the alarmist climatologists but would certainly serve to transfer vast sums of money from one group to another.
Bobbo, you can’t see what you are doing? I thought I was pretty clear. You’ve sneakily chosen the pro AGW side and promote it by comparing a lame excuse (dumb weather references) with a valid excuse, the questionability of modeling? Hmmm, which one would a moderately intelligent person not really paying attention lean towards? Nice try.
In a similar way you think you’ve made a point in implying that changing a small amount of DNA might be dire in the same way that a small amount of CO2 might be dire. The fact is that changes to DNA are made made at the moment of every new life, billions of times a day… rarely with any dire consequence. There goes that analogy.
As far as skepticism goes, mine is at least genuine.
Seems to me the skeptics aren’t really motivated by the issue of whether or not climate change is a scientific fact. They’re worried about how it would affect their lifestyles to have to do something about it. So it’s blah blah blah until we start losing entire harvests and there isn’t enough food in the supermarkets. Then they’ll take out their shotguns and kill their neighbors to take their food.
Skeptic–I wish we could connect. I find every statement you have made reasonable in tone, but gibberish in meaning. Are you doing this on purpose or are we that rhetorically disparate?
Its raining here tonight and that will slow down the bar scene, so:
Bobbo, you can’t see what you are doing? // Honestly no. Or, nor can you. Or – – both of us. OR==it’s just YOU as I see the clear logic of my position and the illogic of yours. How to resolve?
I thought I was pretty clear. /// You are clear to me: clearly wrong as shown.
You’ve sneakily chosen the pro AGW side and promote it /// thats not my intent. That is expressly not my intent==but I can see that if you “go back” to earlier posts taken in a vacuum, you could think that. But when I expressly deny it and state my skepticism of BOTH positions, the subtlety should be cleared up? Sneaky indeed to argue the negatives of a position and be seen as being positive. THAT seems like a perceptual/spin problem on your part.
by comparing a lame excuse (dumb weather references) with a valid excuse, the questionability of modeling? /// In MY VIEW, both are “faults.” What makes one lame and the other valid except your own desire to twist?
Hmmm, which one would a moderately intelligent person not really paying attention lean towards? /// I have no idea. My own loose observation would be that such people divide up on either side or become skeptical, or hold all opinions in abeyance until more evidence is in. Thats leaving the field on an issue that is making 100 year trend analysis.
Nice try. /// Thats all we can do?
In a similar way you think you’ve made a point in implying that changing a small amount of DNA might be dire in the same way that a small amount of CO2 might be dire. The fact is that changes to DNA are made made at the moment of every new life, billions of times a day… rarely with any dire consequence. There goes that analogy. /// Well, I’m no “expert” life scientist but I don’t think YOU understand DNA mutations at all. I know I don’t and even I can tell you are more wrong than right. But why open that can of worms? My “argument” was only to parallel your own to coax your understanding you were being ridiculous. “Obviously” the impact of small changes in the DNA code has ZERO CONSEQUENCE in understanding the impact of small changes in the co2 level. Do you think calling something “small” shows any understanding at all? Silly on its face, yet you argue for it.
As far as skepticism goes, mine is at least genuine. /// Hah, hah. You call your last 3-4 posts a demonstration of skepticism??????? Not even close.
OTOH: skeptic – definition of skeptic by the Free Online Dictionary …
skep·tic also scep·tic (sk p t k). n. 1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted …
So==I’m using the first two definitions, and you are using the third?
As you will.
I kept waiting for you to post a story about the warm weather and lack of snow has screwed up the Olympics but it never came! It’s only the stories about unusually cold weather that prove your point I guess.
You should start basing you economic analysis on how you and your neighbors are doing – my buddy next door just bought a Chrysler, the US auto industry is back on top!
Dictionary online: “a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.”
I use the above definition. There’s nothing habitual about my skepticism with the debacle of AGW and it’s pundits.
As for my last 3 or 4 posts… they were argumentative to your opinions, and were not meant to be skeptical of anything except perhaps of your claim of skepticism, which I still believe so minute and shallow regarding AGW as to be practically non-existent. And you question MY understanding of English? HAH!
Anyway, this can’t go on forever… although I know you love it. It’s very late here. Go ahead and take the last kick. 🙂