July was either 8th or 9th warmest since 1979, not the “hottest month ever” as the criminals at NOAA claim. Global warming theory demands that the lower troposphere warms faster than the surface – the exact opposite of the fraudulent claims being made by NOAA.
Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.
Those pesky satellites again! Something needs to be done about them before the meeting next month in Paris.
It seems that RSS and UAH have been diverging with RSS showing warmer. Is this due to “adjustments”? Or is there a technical explanation? For the first 2/3 of the record the two were tracking closer together though RSS always ran a little warmer.
Both should go down importantly in the next 12 months. The strong spike of the PDO is fading.
Could be more than one though.
I agree, but it already had a “smaller spike” last year
http://www.climate4you.com/images/PDO%20MonthlyIndexSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
I’m tending to believe that the big drop has started.
In the above graph it looks similar to a mirror image of the 1997-98 oscillation.
The amplitude of the present oscillation though is baffling, for me.
There is some chance that it’ll become *the largest ever recorded*, larger even than the one in 1950’s, cycle C19.
I still can’t think of any good explanation for it.
Cause & Effect? The warm blob and the ongoing El Nino.
NOAA scientists are doing the “dirty work” of adjusting temperature data to fit the fraudulent “Standard Climate Model”, just as
1. DOE has adjusted measurements and observations to fit the fraudulent “Standard Nuclear Model” and
2. NASA has adjusted measurements and observations to fit the fraudulent “Standard Solar Model.”
Like Dr. Michael Crighton, I did not really want to get into this mess, but felt a moral obligation to do so. See Dr. Crighton’s reasons here:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/state-of-fear/
NASA, NOAA & DOE scientists are doing exactly what the US National Academy of Sciences sends them public funds to do:
DECEIVE THE PUBLIC ABOUT-
THE SUN
THE CLIMATE
NUCLEAR ENERGY !
The powerful, whether politicians or popes, have never liked to hear the truth: Politicians and Popes are as powerless as the rest of us over the force that created and sustains every atom, life and planet in the Solar System – NEUTRON REPULSION IN THE SUN’S PULSAR CORE.
Popes objected when Copernicus reported the giant fountain of energy at the gravitational core of the solar system in 1543. Four hundred years later in 1945, when atomic bombs explosions revealed the source of energy in the core of the Sun, frightened world leaders agreed to unite nations (UN) and the national academies of sciences (NAS) in order to prohibit public knowledge of that source of energy – NEUTRON REPULSION !
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/STALINS_SCIENCE.pdf
omanuel, can you please just stop? Your comments are wildly off topic, and you are repeating yourself endlessly. Why do you do this and can you please stop leaving these comments so the rest of us don’t need to suffer through them? Thanks.
I agree..
I would like to see him use his talents to argue the point at hand.
His posts are a massive diversion from the topic, which doesn’t help anyone.
Updated my reply.
Current – The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record, at 0.81°C (1.46°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.08°C (0.14°F).
=> 0.81°C + 15.8°C = 16.61°C or 1.46°F + 60.4°F = 61.86°F
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507
May 2015 – The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for May in the 136-year period of record, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F),
=> 0.87°C + 14.8°C = 15.67°C or 1.57°F + 58.6°F = 60.17°F
(1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index “The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997” = 16.92°C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
(2) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature “The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)= 0.69°C above 13.9°C => 0.69°C + 13.9°C = 14.59°C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
16.61 >> 15.67 >> 16.92 << 14.59
They cannot even keep the same 20th century average of 15.8°C or 14.8°C or 13.9°C the same 15 years after it was over?
Which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. Failure at 3rd grade math or failure to scrub all the past. (See the ‘Ministry of Truth’ 1984).
It’s hard to keep your story straight when you lying your ass off!
Even the satellite data is misleading, because of the cherry picked start date of 1979, at the end of a period of global cooling that started around 1940.
Only misleading if you don’t understand the cycles.
Yes there was some small warming from 1979 to 1997, what does anyone expect at when there is a series of very strong solar cycles.
But after the release of solar forced energy from oceans during the 1997-2001 El Nino, which raised the atmospheric temperature by about 0.26, the Earth started to cool. (Again, as expected as the sun’s energy stalled somewhat.)
There is absolutely no signature of any CO2 warming in the whole 36 years of satellite data. None what-so-ever.
The rather stupid IDEA that CO2 causes atmospheric warming should be filed in the circular bin where it belongs.
You will note that the AGW farce is now considered an “idea”…
…. barely reaching to the dizzy heights of a FAILED hypothesis.
What does this mean?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:%20/normalise/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/normalise:1979/from:1979
Red is temperature, Blue is atmospheric CO2, the Green is a linear trend line showing that while the “normalized” temperature of the RSS satellite is trending down even while atmospheric CO2 has continued to climb.
In short it is strong evidence that CO2 is NOT the potent “green house gas” that it has been claimed to be and thus the AGW hypothesis is dead wrong.
It means you are missing a multiplier for climate sensitivity.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:%20/normalise/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/offset:-366/scale:0.007
There. So about 0.4C warming relates to ln(396/336) / ln(2) * sensitivity of 1.7C/doubling. You need to have at least a multiplier to compare the ppm change to temp change Without the right multiplier you are basically drawing temperature and ppm in the same picture on different scales. In this case, the other scale is logarithmic. The common scale could be C/doubling, if we purport to present the theory that doubling CO2 has a defined effect.
Note: the multiplier 0.007 C/ppm is an approximate conversion factor between scales of 0.4C and 60ppm, so it is by definition wrong in AGW theory as such.
Now can be better seen.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:%20/normalise/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/normalise/trend/plot/rss/to:1998/trend
In 2001 was the peak of the previous solar cycle.
The temperature has responded to the increase in strength of the solar wind in 2014 and 2015.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:2009
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2009&starttime=00%3A00&endday=18&endmonth=08&endyear=2015&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Even their own NCEP data shows this was the 9th warmest…
Amazing the debit and deception they are going with.