The “HOTTEST YEAR EVAH” Meme Exposed

NOAAFakerySeptember2017

AS the old saying goes “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants“. One man who has been tireless and paid-less (sic) in the pursuit of exposing the blatant and unequivocal  global temperature data fraud, executed by taxpayer funded government scientific agencies worldwide, has been Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard.

THERE are literally thousands upon thousands of mind-blowing examples of temperature data manipulation/fraud carried out in-plain-sight by climate activist agencies namely – NOAA, NASA, BoM, Met Office UK – who happen to be the literal gate-keepers of global temperature. They do this simply to make you believe that the climate is warming catastrophically thanks to your carbon dioxide (energy) emissions.

THE blink giff included in this post is really all one needs to know about how climate scientists literally “change the data to fit the theory” – a quote linked to Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs in his ‘Tactics and Ethics’ (1923) though often associated with Albert Einstein as a non-literal quip.

OTHER than driving the climate scare and maintaining taxpayer funding to the tune of $Trillions worldwide, hysterical claims of the “hottest year, month, day ever” tell us far more about global warming climate change marketing than they do about actual ‘science’.

*

Via Tony Heller’s “The Deplorable Climate Science Blog :

Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment claims unambiguous warming globally and in the US since 1880.

CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

They show a very detailed graph and map which expresses the claimed warming.

All that red looks pretty scary. Red is the color of fire, and it isn’t hard to convince some people that their carbon sins will lead to hell fire.

What they aren’t telling is that their graph and map are fake. They have no idea what global temperatures were in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, or in fact the present,  because outside of the US there is very little verifiable data.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt

As late as 1940, there was almost no daily coverage of South America or Africa.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt

NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is still fake. They make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data.

Real temperatures       Reported temperatures

By their own admission, the ocean data is also fake.

date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk>

Tom,

The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

Cheers
Phil

di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

The only location on Earth with good long term daily temperature data in the US.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt

Before NOAA tampers with their data, the US shows no warming over the past century.

The lack of US warming wrecks global warming theory, so NOAA and NASA tamper with their own data to create fake warming.

 

1999 Version       2017 Version

The frequency and coverage of hot weather has plummeted in the US over the past century. The US isn’t getting hotter – afternoons are getting cooler.

The US temperature data is tampered with by NOAA in a massive hockey stick.

Which is designed to bring the data precisely in line with CO2 theory.

NOAA knows perfectly well that the US is not warming.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

US and global temperatures are constantly being tampered with to cool the past and warm the present.

US tampering :

Global tampering :

1981: Challenge_chapter2.pdf         2001: Fig.A.ps     current: Fig.A.gif 

2001 version : Fig.A.ps   2015 version: Fig.A.gif 

All of the claims in the National Climate Assessment about global warming are unsupportable junk science, made largely with fraudulent or imaginary data. Global warming is the biggest scam in science history. It has been thoroughly corrupted by tens of billions of dollars of government money – which fake climate scientists refuse to let go of.

The only thing global and unambiguous in the National Climate Assessment, is the level of junk science and fraud it represents.

Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

•••

Related :

NASA / NOAA Data Fraud Related :

Advertisements

THE Inconvenient Truth Is That Catastrophists Are Wrong

Eco-catastrophists - THE AUSTRALIAN

Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event. | THE AUSTRALIAN

GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.

FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes another insightful piece in todays Australian maintaining that “it’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.”

*

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong

Maurice Newman | The Australian :

It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.

Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?

Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.

Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.

In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.

Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”

On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.

Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.

Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved ­unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’

Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”

Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”

Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.

“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”

But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”

But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.

Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.

Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.

But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.

If Ridley is right and the earth is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age, it will be literally cold comfort, not to mention lethal, to keep passing it off as climate disruption.

To survive such an event, our successors will need a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable energy, impossible given today’s intelligentsia’s religious objection to low-cost fossil and nuclear fuels.

It’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.

(Climatism bolds and pic link added)

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong | The Australian

•••

Related :


RISIBLE Renewables: 30 Years and $Trillions in Subsidies – Wind & Solar’s Total Output Less than 1% of World Energy Demand

“The truth is that after decades of beefy government subsidies [$Trillions] wind power still meets just 0.46 percent of earth’s total energy demands, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

“One must also remember that such massive investments in solar panels would inevitably contribute to resource scarcity: modern electronics require many of the same minerals as do solar panels. Increased competition for a finite supply of minerals would raise the prices of our electronic goods, as well as the price of electricity.

“Given these facts, we can reasonably conclude that the green energy industry is little more than a corporate welfare scheme marketed under the guise of noble intentions.”

UNRELIABLES = The climate-theory-obsessed Western world’s economic suicide note.

STOP THESE THINGS

A decade from now, as grids collapse and businesses and households are driven into penury, because they can no longer afford their rocketing power bills, the current generation will have plenty of time to lament (albeit, sitting freezing or boiling in the dark).

South Australians, with a deluded and dangerous Labor Premier, utterly obsessed with wind power, are acutely aware of the price that has to be paid for attempting to run on sunshine and breezes.

Those still clinging to the hope that all will be well again, one day, could be forgiven for believing that throwing all to the wind and the sun is paying dividends, right now.

For more than 30 years the wind industry has been telling us that the wind is ‘free’ and getting cheaper all the time. However, as retail power prices rocketed in places like Denmark, Germany and South Australia; as routine load shedding…

View original post 1,018 more words


WHAT I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled

ramclr-050814-settled-ibd-color-final-cms.gif

EXCELLENT article written by a ‘Vegan Democrat’ and former CAGW believer, highlighting the reasons why many remain sceptical of the “settled science” of climate change…

*

By David Siegel Entrepreneur, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project and 20|30.io

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1*fo9wFKN5dhW6645fMr5VlQ.jpg

  1. Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. The increase in storms is simply a result of improved measurement methods. There has been no real increase.
  2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth iswarming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
  3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
  4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
  5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
  6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
  7. Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
  8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.
  9. No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.
  10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey…

Read all of it here: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

Highly recommended ~ 38 minute read with an abundance of supporting data, evidence and peer-reviewed “science”….

This nine-thousand-word essay represents over 400 hours of research boiled down into a half-hour reading experience, with links to 250+ carefully chosen documents and videos. I’m building the argument from the bottom up, so take your time and see if it makes sense. Along the way, I’ll list five “smoking guns” that I think make the argument for decarbonization unsupportable. Before we dive in, I want to talk about …

David Siegel | Medium

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

H/T  🇦🇺 Canberroo  🇦🇺

•••

Related :

 


STABLE and Reliable Coal-Fired Power Still the Cheapest By a Country Mile

“When the wind stops blowing, or blows too hard, your friendly wind power outfit will cry ‘Act of God’ and leave you and yours freezing or boiling in the dark.“

Unreliables – wind and solar – Symbolic energy appeasing the hubris and superstitions of “save the planet” climate catastrophists and globalist elites, whilst destroying economies and working families livelihoods.

STOP THESE THINGS

You’ve got to hand it to the wind cult. Australia’s dwindling band of wind industry spruikers keep telling us that the answer to cheaper power prices is out there blowin’ in the wind.

The more deranged among their number have been telling us that wind power is actually cheaper than coal-fired power, for years.

There’s just one problem with that argument. And that would be the evidence.

The world’s top three wind ‘Superpowers’: South Australia, Denmark and Germany all suffer from the highest retail power prices in the world:

What the wind worshipper conveniently overlooks is that wind power delivers nothing but chaos.

Try asking a wind power outfit to guarantee delivery of a fixed volume of power on 30 June 2018, between 6:30am and 9pm. Or, indeed, at any given point, on any given day, between now and the 12th of never (see above the entire output…

View original post 1,164 more words


GLOBAL Cooling A Reality But Technology And CO2 Will Help Earth Survive

Screen Shot 2018-01-09 at 11.05.40 am

AN IMPORTANT and timely read Via The Times – MATT RIDLEY (Climatism bolds)

RECORD cold in America has brought temperatures as low as minus 44C in North Dakota, frozen sharks in Massachusetts and iguanas falling from trees in Florida. Al Gore blames global warming, citing one scientist to the effect that this is “exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis”. Others beg to differ: Kevin Trenberth, of America’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research, insists that “winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change”.

Forty-five years ago a run of cold winters caused a “global cooling” scare. “A global deterioration of the climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilised mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon,” read a letter to President Nixon in 1972 from two scientists reporting the views of 42 “top” colleagues. “The cooling has natural causes and falls within the rank of the processes which caused the last ice age.” The administration replied that it was “seized of the matter”.

In the years that followed, newspapers, magazines and television documentaries spoke of the coming ice age. The CIA reported a “growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world is undergoing a cooling trend”.

This alarm about global cooling is largely been forgotten, but it has not entirely gone away. Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University has suggested that a quiescent sun presages another Little Ice Age like that of 1300-1850. I’m not persuaded. Yet the argument that the world is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age after 10,000 years of balmy warmth is in essence true. Most interglacial periods, or times without large ice sheets, last about that long, and ice cores from Greenland show that each of the past three millennia was cooler than the one before.

However, those ice cores, and others from Antarctica, can now put our minds to rest. They reveal that interglacials start abruptly with sudden and rapid warming but end gradually with many thousands of years of slow and erratic cooling. They have also begun to clarify the cause. It is a story that reminds us how vulnerable our civilisation is. If we aspire to keep the show on the road for another 10,000 years, we will have to understand ice ages.

The oldest explanation for the coming and going of ice was based on carbon dioxide. In 1895 the Swede Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this were true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.

A Serbian named Milutin Milankovich, writing in 1941, argued that ice ages and interglacials were instead caused by changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun. These changes, known as eccentricity, obliquity and precession, sometimes combined to increase the relative warmth of northern hemisphere summers, melting ice caps in North America and Eurasia and spreading warmth worldwide.

RECORD COLD

Planes wait at the gates outside terminal five at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in the heavy snow.

IN 1976 Nicholas Shackleton, a Cambridge physicist, and his colleagues published evidence from deep-sea cores of cycles in the warming and cooling of the Earth over the past half million years which fitted Milankovich’s orbital wobbles. Precession, which decides whether the Earth is closer to the sun in July or in January, is on a 23,000-year cycle; obliquity, which decides how tilted the axis of the Earth is and therefore how warm the summer is, is on a 41,000-year cycle; and eccentricity, which decides how rounded or elongated the Earth’s orbit is and therefore how close to the sun the planet gets, is on a 100,000-year cycle. When these combine to make a “great summer” in the north, the ice caps shrink.

Game, set and match to Milankovich? Not quite. The Antarctic ice cores, going back 800,000 years, then revealed that there were some great summers when the Milankovich wobbles should have produced an interglacial warming, but did not. To explain these “missing interglacials”, a recent paper in Geoscience Frontiers by Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer argues we need carbon dioxide back on the stage, not as a greenhouse gas but as plant food.

The argument goes like this. Colder oceans evaporate less moisture and rainfall decreases. At the depth of the last ice age, Africa suffered long mega-droughts; only small pockets of rainforest remained. Crucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans. When the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drops below 200 parts per million (0.02 per cent), plants struggle to grow at all, especially at high altitudes. Deserts expand. Dust storms grow more frequent and larger. In the Antarctic ice cores, dust increased markedly whenever carbon dioxide levels went below 200 ppm. The dust would have begun to accumulate on the ice caps, especially those of Eurasia and North America, which were close to deserts. Next time a Milankovich great summer came along, and the ice caps began to melt, the ice would have grown dirtier and dirtier, years of deposited dust coming together as the ice shrank. The darker ice would have absorbed more heat from the sun and a runaway process of collapsing ice caps would have begun.

All of human civilisation happened in an interglacial period, with a relatively stable climate, plentiful rainfall and high enough levels of carbon dioxide to allow the vigorous growth of plants. Agriculture was probably impossible before then, and without its hugely expanded energy supply, none of the subsequent flowering of human culture would have happened.

That interglacial will end. Today the northern summer sunshine is again slightly weaker than the southern. In a few tens of thousands of years, our descendants will probably be struggling with volatile weather, dust storms and air that cannot support many crops. But that is a very long way off, and by then technology should be more advanced, unless we prevent it developing. The key will be energy. With plentiful and cheap energy our successors could thrive even in a future ice age, growing crops, watering deserts, maintaining rainforests and even melting ice caps.

•••

More Must Read Matt Ridley :


THE Great Global Warming “Pause”

Stop_global_warming_sign_in_blizzard_-_February_10,_2010_blizzard.jpg

BETWEEN the start of 1997 and the end of 2014, average global surface temperature stalled. This 18-year period is known as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” and has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

THE rise in global temperatures that alarmed climate campaigners in the 1990’s had slowed so much that the trend was no longer statistically significant. This despite one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution occurring since February 1997.

THE pause took a pause during the 2015/16 super El Niño which was the strongest such event in recorded history and helped to make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years in the modern warm period. However, 2017 witnessed the biggest drop in global temps in recorded history, seen across most data sets, bringing temps back inline with 1997-2014 averages, rendering “the pause” alive and well, to date.

THERE has been a recent surge in media reports aiming to debunk and bury the inconvenient hiatus, not predicted by any climatologist, science agency, government body, media outlet or UN computer model.

A few of the latest attempts by the mainsteam media at re-writing climate history…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

BEFORE it “never happened” – ‘established’, ‘peer-reviewed’ climate science was all over the pause…

1997 – 2015 TEMPS

 

 

PEER-REVIEWED PAUSE “SCIENCE”

 

The Executive Summary alone mentions the word “pause” eleven times, but the key paragraph is this:

UPDATE

The Met Office link to their “pause” explanation has been deleted! Very un-Orwellian of the climate mafia…

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”― George Orwell1984


2017

“The hiatus continues to challenge climate science.” – Hedemann et al | Nature Climate Change …

screen-shot-2017-11-23-at-november-23-2-54-36-pm.png

The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses | Nature Climate Change

*

PAUSE for thought via Tony Heller’s RealClimateScience

Before it was disappeared, the hiatus was central to the IPCC report.

The MWP, LIA, 1940’s spike, 1970’s global cooling – all disappeared by the climate mafia.

Sometimes settled science requires rewriting history over and over again.

Deep Sixing The Hiatus | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

*

CALL me a cynic, but if “global warming” is so dastardly, and an “imminent global threat”, as we’re constantly told, isn’t a near 20 year warming “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown” (if that works better for you) a good thing? It definitely wouldn’t appear so by how much abuse, huffing and puffing is spewed out by the climate mafia when those two words – “pause” or “hiatus” are printed or uttered. One might think that the angry voices have skin in the climate game, financially, politically and/or ideologically. Oh…wait!

AS we know, the pause has been a big embarrassment to the climate establishment, because the longer it goes on, the more it casts doubt on their climate models and their theory, and thus threatens the literal trillion dollar industry made up of grants, funds, well-paid government jobs in climate bureaucracies, rent-seekers, advocacy groups, bird-slicers (windmills) and bat-blasters (solar farms)…

A LOT of jobs, reputations and (taxpayer) funds are now at stake.

*

TO conclude, an excellent summary of the pause and what it means for our understanding of the chaotic and complex climate system by Dr David Whitehouse…

The lesson of the pause is not that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, but rather that the computer models, which predicted an acceleration in global warming, and on which current policy is based, have proved to be inaccurate. Nevertheless, the pause is an important event that enriches our understanding of a highly complex climate system. In the future, a long-term rise in global temperatures may resume. There is a good chance, however, that the recent super El Niño only interrupted the 1997-2014 pause. No-one knows. But if the pause were to resume or warming keeps slowing down, many of the fundamental assumptions of climate science would have to be re-assessed.

Dr David Whitehouse is the science editor of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

•••

UPDATE

THE latest “pause-buster” paper that this post is based on claims that “Missing Arctic temperature data, not Mother Nature, created the seeming slowdown of global warming from 1998 to 2012, according to a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change.” – Zhang et al. …

IF that’s the case, then what for the “missing data” at the other ‘inconvenient’ pole – Antarctica – that has been cooling for the past ~40 year and gaining ice mass?

“Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a−1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a−1..” – H. Jay Zwally et al. …

PERHAPS cancel’s out the apparent “unreported” Arctic data that underpins the latest pause-buster attempt by Zhang et al.

FURTHER, a valid and worthy observation by our friends “Climate Realists” who noted on twitter:

Latest Excuse on the Pause: There was NO pause in global warming because of a lack of data in the Arctic… and yet your told the Arctic is the worst it’s ever been.. work that one out.

AND this via @SimonMaxfield8

FOR the Arctic they give a warming estimate of 0.659°C per decade. This means, without the Arctic data, the global temperature paused, i.e. only one region was contributing to global warming, and a region where it’s been estimated about half is due to natural factors.  

•••

Global Warming Pause/Hiatus Related :

El Niño Related :