Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« A "substantial" error in GISS Model E | Main | The daft and the non-daft climate model runs »

Probable cause - Josh 358

Where does one start with a topic like "The Hottest Year Evah"? Probably with a climate expert - happily we have one right here

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (52)

Let's not get carried away here. It is quite warm compared to the Victorian Age

Just not dangerously warm.
And getting less dangerously warm as our economies and technologies advance quicker than the Apocalypse.

But it is quite warm.

Jan 22, 2016 at 10:38 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Possibly this comment is more appropriate here:

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.

Jan 21, 2016 at 8:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterIvor Ward

Jan 22, 2016 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterIvor Ward

It's certainly warm - and wet, M Courntey, but we can accept that is what weather and a naturally changing climate can do. However, when faced with the witterings of such as Dame Helen Ghosh in a letter to the DT today you have to wonder the intelligence (or ulterior motives) of some people:

I have said that climate change is the biggest long-term challenge to our conservation work. That does not mean we have become “political”. The damage caused to our buildings and land by the recent storms and floods, most notably in the Lake District, serves to underline this threat.

Jan 22, 2016 at 11:02 AM | Registered CommenterHarry Passfield

Pure class!!

Jan 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Jones

M Courtney
Only warm in the current glacial period. For the Cretaceous it's pretty damn cold. I think that some species did rather well at that time.

Jan 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS


Jan 22, 2016 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

SchmidtMann accountancy allows any conclusion to be arrived at, if the money is right.

Jan 22, 2016 at 12:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

M Courtney: "It is quite warm compared to the Victorian Age"

Impressions can be very deceptive. If we look at the average CET for the 65 years of the Victorian era, we find an average temperature of 9.09 deg C. If we take an average temperature for the 65 years back from 2015, to 1951, a period where there has been an increase of around 30% in atmospheric CO2, there has been a rise of just 0.64 deg C to 9.73 deg C.

Some warming, less than 0.1 degree per decade.

The warm period has been from 1997 to 2009, which was followed by four colder years, with a spike in 2014, to 10.95, but down again in 2015, supposedly the hottest on record, to 9.87 deg C.

In the Victorian era, from 1879 at 7.3 deg C to 1898 at 9.85, it was exceedingly cold, with average annual temperature hardly touching 9 deg C for a lot of the time. Is that what we should aspire to?

This period and the recent warm period are the main reasons for the 0.64 deg C difference in temperature between the two periods, not an exponential rise and certainly little relationship to rising CO2.

In the 20 warmest years on the Met office site, we have 1868, 1779, 1733, 1834, 1921, 1959, 1989, and 1949, all with temperatures similar to the last few years.

Jan 22, 2016 at 12:56 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

The point is, the temperature records are adjusted; in fact, they have been systematically, fraudulently and blatantly adjusted. For example:

"U.S. Temperatures Have Been Fraudulently Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere"

And the global temperature measurements are incompetent to begin with:

"The Awful Truth About Global Temperature Records"

There is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists. Even the temperature records--the fundamental data required for intelligent consideration--cannot be taken seriously, in the face of the precise confirmation of the century-old Standard Atmosphere, by comparison with the temperature-vs-pressure profile of the Venus atmosphere (taken much more recently, in 1991). All of the "experts" who say the global mean surface temperature today is 14°C or 14.7°C, after a century and more of supposed "global warming", are spouting nonsense, since that temperature has been known for over a century, in the Standard Atmosphere model, to be a stable 15°C (and this was precisely confirmed by my 2010 Venus/Earth comparison). Some "experts" try to get around this sorry fact by claiming the global mean surface temperature today is 15.7°C, but the Venus/Earth comparison does not support that either; 15°C (288K) is precisely indicated to be the true (and utterly unchanging) global mean.

And the fact that in just the past year, the "authorities" have suddenly adjusted their records yet again, to simply "erase" the long-running (and critically inconvenient) "global-warming pause", can only be taken as proof of their fraudulent adherence to their failed science. The facts don't fit, so they change the facts, blatantly and time and time again (in the same way Barack Obama lies to the people, continually, habitually, and blatantly).

Jan 22, 2016 at 12:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Dale Huffman

Done a bit of tidying on the thread. Someone left a mess.

Jan 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

If we didn't have this kerfuffle every January, I'd miss it, as I now miss the annual January Sterling crisis. They make up some fibs, get a headline from what's left of the climatically smitten MSM and we get to bash them over the head with data.

Nice move with the resident irritant - it's now a three-cornered game of rope-a-dope.


Jan 22, 2016 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterPointman

I would have set a sub 10 second 110 yard sprint record, if they had allowed me to recalibrate the yardstick 40+ years ago. But with computers, there is nothing to stop me doing it now.

I might even beat Roger Bannister to the 4 minute mile.

Jan 22, 2016 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I missed the mess so if the comments were aimed it my opening thread-jacking, I'm sorry but I can't comment.

However, many comments here are seemingly implying that the warming since the Victorian Age is negligible. I disagree.
The warming is not dangerous.
The warming is not proven to be correlated with CO2 emissions
And the warming is not even measurable (well, not by NOAA apparently).

But if your business plan involves exploiting an Ice Fair in London...
Then you have the wrong century.

(PS. I just got a 403 while trying to revise the comment for a typo. Is this back again?)

Jan 22, 2016 at 1:47 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

M Courtney, nothing wrong with your comments, or any responses!

Jan 22, 2016 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Good to see JD acknowledged as a "Climate Expert".
He's been at it long enough !

Jan 22, 2016 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered Commentertoad

NASA could do a nice little money spinner, selling genuine NASA Certificates, recognising YOUR NAME PRINTED HERE as the first person to set foot on PLANET OF YOUR CHOICE. With the help of someone who models planetary climates, you could even select the weather when you land.

Jan 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Jan 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM | golf charlie

They could sell sticks of rock, with "Saturn" through the middle and rings round the outside, and a twig from the Definitive Tree.

Jan 22, 2016 at 3:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterOwen Morgan

Remarkable, Oi, Oi: " the hottest year since records be adjusted."

Oi larfed did oi.

Nice one Josh.

Jan 22, 2016 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Silly me... In tribute to an earlier bit of Josh genius, there could be only one "stick" of Saturn rock.

Jan 22, 2016 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterOwen Morgan

Very nice one liner, Josh. Very apposite. Made me laugh anyway. :-)

Jan 22, 2016 at 4:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterCheshireRed


NASA rewriting of climate history

Jan 22, 2016 at 9:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

“2015 smashes the record for climate bullshit”.

Bullshit is the IPCC’s unacknowledged climate forcing factor.

Jan 22, 2016 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris Hanley

How long will they leave 2015 adjusted temperatures alone, before they accidentally forget some of the adjustments, and inadvertently adjust the temperature down, so another year can be adjusted up, to set up another unprecedented record?

Could some of these useless computer climate models be used to forecast the need for adjustments? This would enable some credibility to be reclaimed in the 'scientific method'.

Jan 23, 2016 at 12:41 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

1. We show a record as well ( not using Karl )
2. Without GLOBAL adjustments the trend of warming would be greater
3. without adjustments 2016 will still be a record.

Now with the sun headed to the minimum.. you'd think the next 5 years would be cooler.. if the sun were the knob

Jan 23, 2016 at 2:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteven Mosher

Mosher, the sun isn't the knob. You are.

Jan 23, 2016 at 4:47 AM | Unregistered Commenterjolly farmer

JF - as always, the master of lucid and considerate debate.

Jan 23, 2016 at 8:48 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I am stunned that there remains a single doubt regarding this topic.

How many records need to be broken? HOW MANY??!!!

I despair.

Jan 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterAila

Well, Aila, it's not about "records". It's about evidence - and the quality of "evidence" supposedly supporting your precious "records" is dismal. It's based on selective temperature readings, from thermometers whose sitings are both geographically and topographically biased. It's based on ignoring more dependable sources of information completely, such as satellites. It's based on wild assumptions about the oceans. And it's based on all those famous "adjustments", to which every inconvenient temperature reading is subjected.

So calm down and take up bowls, or something. The world isn't going to end.

Jan 23, 2016 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterOwen Morgan

Steven Mosher: and if the next 5 years DO prove to be cooler, what will you say, then? Or do you have some insider knowledge that this scenario will never be allowed to happen?

Jan 23, 2016 at 11:36 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I despair too.
I despair that trillions are being spent on a manufactured hysteria about mere hundredths of a degree in temperature fluctuations.
Future generations will look back and laugh at you and others such as Ken "blogging on company time" Rice. That's a rather hopeless future reputation to have.

Jan 23, 2016 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

Oh, and Alia:
No records have been broken. it's been warmer in the past.
It's the truth, deal with it.

Jan 23, 2016 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

Teletubbies, Global Warming Publicists.

In the UK, there are young adults (some at University) that grew up with the Teletubbies, being indoctrinated into the concept of normal weather. The sun always shines, it never snows or rains etc. The teletubbies never featured anything other than normal weather, so anything remotely different has to be expressed as 'extreme' 'unprecedented' 'etc', and 'etc'.

We need a return to proper realistic educational childrens TV series, like 'Star Trek' and 'The Clangers', so kids grow up knowing what to expect in the future, and ponder on important questions, like "Will a composting toilet work in outer space?"

Jan 23, 2016 at 1:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Folks, Alia does a nice line in humorous irony. Read twice before jerking knee :-)

Jan 23, 2016 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

"Steven Mosher: and if the next 5 years DO prove to be cooler, what will you say, then?"

Mosher will simply make a squiggly line that says it's warmer.


Jan 23, 2016 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterBad Andrew

Moshe, though I love him, only considers TSI. There's more to the sun than that.

Jan 23, 2016 at 3:19 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

You know there's only a half percent difference in TSI from max to min. So why say stupid stuff?

Jan 23, 2016 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

JF - brilliant.


Jan 23, 2016 at 4:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterPointman

If all this 'hottest year eva!©' carries on we'll all freeze to death.
How exactly have all these Climate Science™ guys separated natural variation from anything man has done?

Jan 23, 2016 at 5:18 PM | Unregistered Commentertom0mason

"If all this 'hottest year eva!©' carries on we'll all freeze to death."

Well, we have a blizzard covering the east coast of the US.

We must have failed to build enough wind turbines.


Jan 23, 2016 at 10:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterBad Andrew

Pay no attention to this 2015 nonsense - the century is young.

Josh wins the bonus bottle of Corton Charlemagne domaine Chandon des Brailes,
harvested August 15, 2003- the earliest vintage in eight centuries of record keeping

Jan 23, 2016 at 11:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Alla gets a small bottle of Steynbrecher Heisenboden from the semi-great Scottish vintage of 2015

Jan 24, 2016 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Cheers, Russell.

It is always a relief to hear from the sane when the climate olympics once again defy suspension of belief.

How do you get through to people that think this is a TV show like Falcon Crest (love you granny) where the ante must be delusionally increased season after season to keep viewers engaged and preventing them from switch channels?

Jan 24, 2016 at 2:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterAila

‘Where does one start with a topic like "The Hottest Year Evah"? Probably with a climate expert - happily we have one right here’.
I don’t know what they get up to at Breitbart London but sadly I cannot view Delingpole, every time I try my computer goes haywire and freezes.

Jan 24, 2016 at 4:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterChris Hanley

I trust you've all read the interview with Piers Corbyn in the Guardian.
"His own battle is against all this climate change nonsense".
Difficult to believe they printed it !

@ Chris Hanley - Delingpole at Breitbart is now working again.

Jan 24, 2016 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered Commentertoad

JFK and Dulles are shut due to snow

Hope no Climate Experts are trying to fly into Washington DC this week for a Conferance on Global Warming.

Climate Change again ,tut.

Jan 24, 2016 at 12:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty the snowman

Not often I get to post up from The Guardian

Jan 24, 2016 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

Here for Cris is The Daily Delingpole

Jan 24, 2016 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Watching the appalling Piers Morgan on GMTV this morning so bad it's mesmerising

Government crack down on Charities announced .So no more WWF three pound a month to adopt my cuddly fluffy Polar Bear.So Eco Terrorists sorry I mean activists will have to pay their own court costs.

Jan 25, 2016 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

1. We show a record as well ( not using Karl )
2. Without GLOBAL adjustments the trend of warming would be greater
3. without adjustments 2016 will still be a record.

1. Because you do things you cannot explain with language humans use.

2. Global adjustments reduce the trend from 1880 AD. Go back to 200 AD to 1200 AD, the trend will be even lower. Plus the use of this talking point *proves* duplicity. No skeptic complains about adjustments because they increase the trend starting in 1880. The adjustments still do increase the trend during the pause.

Ask who cares how adjustments mess with trends starting in the 1800s. If the 1800s were relatively warmer - as the manipulated numbers imply - the adjustments have the effect of reducing warming rates during a period of pre-anthropogenic influences. Guess who such 'adjustments' benefit.

3. 2016 would be a 'record'. It's a 140 year old period of recording in a 4.5 billion year old system. Every year, every day, there will be records. 'Records' are meaningless, trends are. Records are good for talking points. I know it must seem different to the curators and keepers of temperature records, it's that one day of they year when they get to go the news and talk about their stuff, but 'record warmth' blah blah, don't mean much in the world

Once there was a guy called BBD who picked fights about how skeptics were being blind to how the land records lined up so well with the satellite records, proving that whatever adjustments had been applied (till the point he was talking) were legitimate. Now that adjustments have destroyed this congruency solely for the short-term political gain of countering 'the pause' narrative and Ted Cruz, what next? What is your guys' excuse?

Jan 25, 2016 at 11:16 AM | Registered Commentershub

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>