Thursday, 25 November 2010


It’s cold this week, but at the beginning of the year it was even colder. Snow lay on the ground, temperatures chilled the bone but warmed the hearts of climate change sceptics. They were derisive about global warming.

So maybe it will come as a surprise to learn that global temperatures during the first 6 months of 2010 were the warmest on record. There are a few weeks to go before we learn the results for the entire year, and as it’s a time of low solar irradiance maybe the record for the year will not be broken, but NASA reports that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend that began in the late 1970s.

'Weather', after all, is not the same as 'climate'.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed the uncanny connection between frothing-at-the-mouth europhobes and climate change deniers? In the European Parliament the overlap is obvious; it's the same UKIP, BNP, and Conservative right wing nutters, plus the Polish nationalists who sit with little flags on their desks in front of them, who denounce everything about the European Union who also dismiss with much aggression the very idea that global warming is taking place.

Apparently it's all a plot to put up taxes on 'ordinary' people and establish world governance. But then, everything is a plot to these people.


brokenhockeystick said...

Firstly, the "D" word...This is the lowest form of ad hom. It attempts to equate scientific scepticism with holocaust deniers, which is despicable and clearly shows who is in denial here.

Second, try looking at some data before you close your mind to proper scientific method. 2010 is not the hottest year since records began, not even the hottest since 1998, check here:

Please, before you open your mouth on science and put your size 10s right in, go educate yourself regarding the empirical evidence. This shows no evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, in fact the measured evidence shows cooling in the last decade - how could this be so if CO2 is the cause of warming as we haven't stopped emitting? Only models indicate warming but these don't account for clouds for heavens sake. its obvious, except maybe to politicians, that when its cloudy the weather is colder, yet models don't account for this effect, in fact they say clouds have a positive forcing effect - stupid or what?

A good place to educate yourself on the evidence and the scientific method is
For instance, take a look at this, just in, which is a peer reviewed paper showing that the sun and cosmic rays have an influence on climate, none of which is included in models:

Its a simple fact that it has been much warmer in the recent past than it is now and before we emitted much CO2, so please try and be objective in this before all of the worlds wealth is handed on a plate to corrupt third world regimes.

brokenhockeystick said...

'Weather', after all, is not the same as 'climate'.

Unless of course its unexpectedly hot, which is obviously due to climate.

Any coldness though, even 3 cool, washout, british summers in a row along with 2 colder than normal winters, is merely weather.

MikeSnow said...

Sadly, NASA has become a political tool by which James Hansen is able to push his agenda and continually re-adjust temperatures.
Here is one example from their own documents:

In 1999, the year 1934 was still the hottest year on record [by a half degree]. By continually adjusting the 1934 temp. downward and the 1998 temp. upward, by the year 2007 they had 1998 as the 'hottest year on record' [having an anomaly 0.015 higher than 1934].

But the solution to all this is for politicians to get a basic grasp of the climate science, not just mindless drivel like "CO2 is a greenhouse gas".

Anonymous said...

Using HadCRUT3, which is the UK global temperature record, no month so far this year has exceeded the previous record temperature. The running total might be the second highest on record but the global anomalies for November and December would have to be 0.791 each for the annual anomaly to exceed 1998. Those would be record breaking anomalies and are highly unlikely as the global temperature is currently falling, not rising. October’s anomaly was 0.392. The more the temperature decreases, the further down the list of record breaking temperatures 2010 falls.

Are these figures good enough, or don’t you trust the Met Office and the CRU?

It is now 12 years since the highest global temperature record was set. How many years strung together constitute climate?

Anonymous said...

FYI for the non-scientific MEP,

"HadCRUT just released their October numbers, and show eight out of ten months this year below 1998. Only January and March were a little warmer than 1998."

"UAH and RSS also show 2010 cooler than 1998. When you are saving the planet, sometimes you just have to make stuff up."

David J said...

I know you are probably a very busy man but you should take the trouble to investigate the science behind the AGW debate. If you do you will quickly see how little there is to back up the views of GW supporters.