Global Surface Air Temperatures

[wolfpack513]

Berkeley Earth global mean through April 2020.  The 1860-1910 mean is -0.36°C. The end point of the 20-year trend in 2020 is 0.90°C.  That’s a total of 1.26°C warming(of course a little more with some AGW prior to 1860). 

Current trend is 0.21°C per decade.  That conservatively puts us at +1.5°C in less than 12 years.  IPCC and supporting impacts use 20 year means.  So single years or months is incorrect to say “we’ve already past 1.5°C.”

[Hefaistos]

OTOH the more sensitive satellite only temp. data, i.e. RSS and UAH, show strong declines in the last couple of (Covid) months.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.43/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:12/offset:-0.29/plot/rss/last:12/offset:-0.13/plot/uah/last:12

[wolfpack513]

OTOH the more sensitive satellite only temp. data, i.e. RSS and UAH, show strong declines in the last couple of (Covid) months.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.43/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:12/offset:-0.29/plot/rss/last:12/offset:-0.13/plot/uah/last:12

As stated a couple months ago, the Australian wildfires influenced L-T satellite readings.  Your trend is just the residence time of aerosols precipitating out.

[Hefaistos]

As stated a couple months ago, the Australian wildfires influenced L-T satellite readings.  Your trend is just the residence time of aerosols precipitating out.

That's a claim.
What's the evidence?

Australian wildfires apparently were in the southern hemisphere only, as well as the haze/smoke. Thus, we would expect to see the signal of a (relative) temperature decrease in the SH only.
But data don't support that claim. The chart is with Hadcrut data for NH and SH, up to feb. 2020. The major fires peaked during December–January. The wildfires finished at the end of February, beginning of March. Thus, the temperature signal due to aerosols should be at its strongest from December 2019 to February 2020.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:2015/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bushfire_season

For some comparison of the wildfires over time:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/22/australia-bushfires-factcheck-are-this-years-fires-unprecedented

[Sigmetnow]

Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) 6/5/20, 12:16 PM
What do you know, you just lived through the hottest May ever recorded on our planet.
Our crises are now overlapping and intersecting in profound ways   h/t @hausfath

Surface air temperature for May 2020 | Copernicus
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-may-2020

https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1268939835043127309

[rboyd]

I will wait the two weeks for NASA GISS view, too many questions with the UAH stuff.

[Niall Dollard]

I will wait the two weeks for NASA GISS view, too many questions with the UAH stuff.

The Copernicus EU data is nothing to do with UAH satellite.

It is surface based data.

The GISS  is much slower coming out. (What's up with their computing power? ).

Also I prefer the Copernicus as it uses a more recent climate norm  1981 to 2010.

GISS is still stuck with 1971 to 2000. Will it ever move on from this 30 year period ?

I think it is not helpful to have different reference periods and the global scientific community should embrace the same norm .

[Tom_Mazanec]

Also I prefer the Copernicus as it uses a more recent climate norm  1981 to 2010.

GISS is still stuck with 1971 to 2000. Will it ever move on from this 30 year period ?

Of course neither reflects the pre-industrial "normal".

[Jacobus]

Also I prefer the Copernicus as it uses a more recent climate norm  1981 to 2010.

GISS is still stuck with 1971 to 2000. Will it ever move on from this 30 year period ?

Of course neither reflects the pre-industrial "normal".

Right, there is a modicum of dishonesty there.

[anthropocene]

Somebody able to find the error in the following? What am I missing or does this mean that we've already gone flying past Paris goal of  "pursuing" 1.5 degC above pre-industrial?

( "pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement )

From:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-may-2020

- "with a global temperature 0.63°C above that for 1981-2010"
- "0.63°C should be added to these values to relate recent global temperatures to the pre-industrial level defined in the IPCC Special Report on “Global Warming of 1.5°C”. The average temperature for the twelve months to May 2020 is close to 1.3°C above the level. "
- ENSO is currently neutral so current global temps aren't impacted by El Nino warming although Nino 3.4 region has been slightly above zero for most of the last 12 months: (See: https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php)
- global temperature is currently increasing at a rate of 0.183degC/decade: (from Tamino https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/global-warming-how-fast/)
-  On top of this is the delayed heating of the atmosphere from the heating lag mainly caused by heat stored in the oceans. This article puts the full length of delay at 40 years ( https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html) Even being optimistic and saying that the full effect of the equivalent of 20 years of GHG emissions is yet to reach the atmosphere that's an additional 2 x 0.183 = 0.36degC.
- So total global temp. increase above pre-industrial already baked in is 1.3degC + 0.36degC = 1.66degC - blowing past Paris climate goal which even now is being "pursued"  (unless massive removal of GHG can take place in the very near future which appears to be fantasy at this moment in time).

It may be dispiriting but if this is the case then I think an honest assessment that this is the current situation is better than ignoring it.

[nanning]

You have read correctly I think but these 12 months are not a calender year. It probably doesn't count. Or there will be articles about it soon.

[KiwiGriff]

Somebody able to find the error in the following?

It does not make me feel good pointing this out .

So total global temp. increase above pre-industrial already baked in is 1.3degC + 0.36degC = 1.66degC - blowing past Paris climate goal which even now is being "pursued"  (unless massive removal of GHG can take place in the very near future which appears to be fantasy at this moment in time).

It may be dispiriting but if this is the case then I think an honest assessment that this is the current situation is better than ignoring it.

You forgot to add a factor for future warming from a reduction in aerosols as we move towards carbon free ..
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/aerosols-and-their-relation-to-global-climate-102215345/


We must be realistic about our future.
limiting warming to even 2C this century is an unattainable dream.

[oren]

Given humanity's current governance and existing trends, limiting warming to 3C isn't going to happen either, barring some social, political or engineering miracle.

[Freegrass]

This is still my favorite visual of climate change.
Large online version

Click to play

[Human Habitat Index]

This is still my favorite visual of climate change.
Large online version

Click to play

Add 1750 to 1850-1900 and we probably have already breached 1.5C

PS We were heading into a cool phase so the actual forcing is substantially higher.

[wolfpack513]

No.  30-year averages unless otherwise specified.  Front page of IPCC Special Report 1.5. This is to eliminate internal variability(ENSO, volcanoes, etc.) and of course cherry picking(deniers/alarmists). https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/

Somebody able to find the error in the following? What am I missing or does this mean that we've already gone flying past Paris goal of  "pursuing" 1.5 degC above pre-industrial?

( "pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement )

From:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-may-2020

- "with a global temperature 0.63°C above that for 1981-2010"
- "0.63°C should be added to these values to relate recent global temperatures to the pre-industrial level defined in the IPCC Special Report on “Global Warming of 1.5°C”. The average temperature for the twelve months to May 2020 is close to 1.3°C above the level. "
- ENSO is currently neutral so current global temps aren't impacted by El Nino warming although Nino 3.4 region has been slightly above zero for most of the last 12 months: (See: https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php)
- global temperature is currently increasing at a rate of 0.183degC/decade: (from Tamino https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/global-warming-how-fast/)
-  On top of this is the delayed heating of the atmosphere from the heating lag mainly caused by heat stored in the oceans. This article puts the full length of delay at 40 years ( https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html) Even being optimistic and saying that the full effect of the equivalent of 20 years of GHG emissions is yet to reach the atmosphere that's an additional 2 x 0.183 = 0.36degC.
- So total global temp. increase above pre-industrial already baked in is 1.3degC + 0.36degC = 1.66degC - blowing past Paris climate goal which even now is being "pursued"  (unless massive removal of GHG can take place in the very near future which appears to be fantasy at this moment in time).

It may be dispiriting but if this is the case then I think an honest assessment that this is the current situation is better than ignoring it.

[Hefaistos]

Somebody able to find the error in the following? What am I missing or does this mean that we've already gone flying past Paris goal of  "pursuing" 1.5 degC above pre-industrial?

...
-  On top of this is the delayed heating of the atmosphere from the heating lag mainly caused by heat stored in the oceans. This article puts the full length of delay at 40 years ( https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html) ...

I'd like to add to the quoted paragraph that we're living on a water planet.
Hansen et al estimated a time lag of 37.5 years for 60 % of emissions to be seen as surface temperature warming.
The reason is the inertia of the oceans.
The total time lag is really big in the Thermohaline circulation, the bulk of deep water upwells in the Southern Ocean, which is currently significantly cooling, see chart. The oldest waters have a transit time of about 1000 years and most of that upwells in the North Pacific.
Thus, we presumably have a lot of cold water from the Little Ice Age (from around 1300 - 1850 AD) still in the process, and that can be expected to dampen the global warming for centuries to come.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

[kassy]

Thus, we presumably have a lot of cold water from the Little Ice Age (from around 1300 - 1850 AD) still in the process, and that can be expected to dampen the global warming for centuries to come.

1) The little ice age was not a true ice ages but a bunch of regional cold periods. Also most is from land records and the situation in the Arctic and on the seas might be different:

Cold conditions appear, however, to have been considerably more pronounced in particular regions. Such regional variability can be understood in part as reflecting accompanying changes in atmospheric circulation. The “Little Ice Age” appears to have been most clearly expressed in the North Atlantic region as altered patterns of atmospheric circulation (O’Brien et al., 1995). Unusually cold, dry winters in central Europe (e.g., 1 to 2°C below normal during the late 17th century) were very likely to have been associated with more frequent flows of continental air from the north-east (Wanner et al., 1995; Pfister, 1999). Such conditions are consistent (Luterbacher et al., 1999) with the negative or enhanced easterly wind phase of the NAO (Sections 2.2.2.3 and 2.6.5), which implies both warm and cold anomalies over different regions in the North Atlantic sector. Such strong influences on European temperature demonstrate the difficulty in extrapolating the sparse early information about European climate change to the hemispheric, let alone global, scale.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060529044319/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

It´s probably really hard to quantify how much cooler it was over the ocean.

Also the upwelling should stay in very much the same place because it is a slow system. So every year the upwelling occurs in the same place (windy seas around Antarctica). And if we assume every year has the same winds then there might be a tiny change every year. This difference in temperature is minute compared to changes in albedo and also cloudiness.

[rboyd]

The Copernicus EU data is nothing to do with UAH satellite. It is surface based data.
The GISS  is much slower coming out. (What's up with their computing power? ).

Also I prefer the Copernicus as it uses a more recent climate norm  1981 to 2010.
GISS is still stuck with 1971 to 2000. Will it ever move on from this 30 year period ?

I think it is not helpful to have different reference periods and the global scientific community should embrace the same norm .

Thanks for the info, could not agree with the different base periods used. I had to set up a spreadsheet to do all the conversions to pre-industrial so that I could compare them.

I assume that NASA GISS is slower because of the validation process done on all the different measurements, but still a good question.

[The Walrus]

The combination of regional cold periods led to an overall global temperature decline, hence the term little ice age.  The following paper details glacial growth during the little ice age, and concludes that "the view that the Little Ice Age was a period of global glacier expansion
beginning in the 13th century (or earlier) and reaching a maximum in 17 - 19th centuries is supported by our data."

https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/solomina16qsr_238964.pdf

[swoozle]

@ZLabe tweet:
For the first time, every month so far this year has been at least 1°C greater than the 1951-1980 climate baseline.

*Note: M = sunspot cycle max, m = sunspot cycle min, V = volcano

[Anomalies from @NASAGISS. Graphic by http://columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/]

https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1273064349368647681

[gerontocrat]

@ZLabe tweet:
For the first time, every month so far this year has been at least 1°C greater than the 1951-1980 climate baseline.

Perhaps the prolonged Siberian extremely high temperatures were the final push to getting above +1.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/17/climate-crisis-alarm-at-record-breaking-heatwave-in-siberia
Climate crisis: alarm at record-breaking heatwave in Siberia
Unusually high temperatures in region linked to wildfires, oil spill and moth swarms

A prolonged heatwave in Siberia is “undoubtedly alarming”, climate scientists have said. The freak temperatures have been linked to wildfires, a huge oil spill and a plague of tree-eating moths.

On a global scale, the Siberian heat is helping push the world towards its hottest year on record in 2020, despite a temporary dip in carbon emissions owing to the coronavirus pandemic.

Temperatures in the polar regions are rising fastest because ocean currents carry heat towards the poles and reflective ice and snow is melting away.

Russian towns in the Arctic circle have recorded extraordinary temperatures, with Nizhnyaya Pesha hitting 30C on 9 June and Khatanga, which usually has daytime temperatures of around 0C at this time of year, hitting 25C on 22 May. The previous record was 12C.

In May, surface temperatures in parts of Siberia were up to 10C above average, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). Martin Stendel, of the Danish Meteorological Institute, said the abnormal May temperatures seen in north-west Siberia would be likely to happen just once in 100,000 years without human-caused global heating.

Freja Vamborg, a senior scientist at C3S, said: “It is undoubtedly an alarming sign, but not only May was unusually warm in Siberia. The whole of winter and spring had repeated periods of higher-than-average surface air temperatures.

“Although the planet as a whole is warming, this isn’t happening evenly. Western Siberia stands out as a region that shows more of a warming trend with higher variations in temperature. So to some extent large temperature anomalies are not unexpected. However, what is unusual is how long the warmer-than-average anomalies have persisted for.”

Marina Makarova, the chief meteorologist at Russia’s Rosgidromet weather service, said: “This winter was the hottest in Siberia since records began 130 years ago. Average temperatures were up to 6C higher than the seasonal norms.”

Robert Rohde, the lead scientist at the Berkeley Earth project, said Russia as a whole had experienced record high temperatures in 2020, with the average from January to May 5.3C above the 1951-1980 average. “[This is a] new record by a massive 1.9C,” he said.

[Tom_Mazanec]

A prolonged heatwave in Siberia is “undoubtedly alarming”, climate scientists have said. The freak temperatures have been linked to wildfires, a huge oil spill and a plague of tree-eating moths.

Of course wildfires, tree killing moths and even the oil spill themselves contribute to global warming...

[rboyd]

NASA GISS for May of 1.02C (April 1.14C, March 1.19C, February 1.23C. January 1.17C) above 1951-1980 average.

First 5 months average of 1.15C (1.41C versus 1880-1920 baseline).

The May variance is a drop from the first 4 months, so lets see if we stay at these lower levels in the next few months or jump back to the higher levels. We are in a La Nina ENSO negative (correction from Phoenix), not an El Nino, of course.

As others have noted, still a huge positive temperature variance over Siberia.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v4.html

[Phoenix]

NASA GISS for May of 1.02C (April 1.14C, March 1.19C, February 1.23C. January 1.17C) above 1951-1980 average.

First 5 months average of 1.15C (1.41C versus 1880-1920 baseline).

The May variance is a drop from the first 4 months, so lets see if we stay at these lower levels in the next few months or jump back to the higher levels. We are in a La Nina, not an El Nino, of course.

As others have noted, still a huge positive temperature variance over Siberia.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v4.html

We have briefly transitioned to ENSO negative, but neither deep enough or long enough to be considered La Nina. We are officially in neutral territory.

[rboyd]

NASA GISS For June 2020

June: 0.92C above 1951-1980 average (1.18C above preindustrial; 1.38C above 1750)

First 6 months 2020: 1.11C: degrees above 1951-1980 average (1.37 above preindustrial; 1.57C above 1750)

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v4.html

[grixm]

NASA GISS For June 2020

June: 0.92C above 1951-1980 average (1.18C above preindustrial; 1.38C above 1750)

First 6 months 2020: 1.11C: degrees above 1951-1980 average (1.37 above preindustrial; 1.57C above 1750)

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v4.html

As far as I can tell, this is tied with 2019 for hottest month for June ever recorded. Again.

[Hefaistos]

Jim Hansens take on GISS:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/June2020.pdf

[crandles]

- ENSO is currently neutral so current global temps aren't impacted by El Nino warming although Nino 3.4 region has been slightly above zero for most of the last 12 months: (See:

>"currently neutral"
There is a delay from ENSO to temperature effects and since you are looking at last year temperatures, you should look at ENSO for something like 2 to 18 months ago. Haven't had a full blown El Nino but the figures are generally small positives.

Not going to change that analysis hugely, but perhaps worth a mention.

[glennbuck]

Berkeley Earth global mean through April 2020.  The 1860-1910 mean is -0.36°C. The end point of the 20-year trend in 2020 is 0.90°C.  That’s a total of 1.26°C warming(of course a little more with some AGW prior to 1860). 

Current trend is 0.21°C per decade.  That conservatively puts us at +1.5°C in less than 12 years.  IPCC and supporting impacts use 20 year means.  So single years or months is incorrect to say “we’ve already past 1.5°C.”

CO2.Earth have it around 1.26 C in 2015, add another 0.10 C, 5 years later and we could be around 1.36 C or more today! The Lockdowns lowering the Aerosol masking effect, we might be approaching 1.5 C  this year. Europe land temperatures are over 2 C where we grow the food. The next El Nino could blow the doors off.

The 1.5 C 2015 Paris agreement is looking more George Orwell each year.

But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at one-hundred-and-forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than one-hundred-and-forty-five millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain.

[anthropocene]

Copernicus is in for July 2020.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-july-2020

"Global temperatures were much above average in July 2020. The month was:

    0.49°C warmer than the 1981-2020 average for July;
    the third warmest July in this data record;
    cooler by 0.07°C than July 2019, the warmest July;
    cooler by 0.04°C than July 2016, the second warmest July."

[anthropocene]

NOAA temperatures are in for July 2020. Continues the pattern of recent months with almost matching record high anomalies while having neutral ENSO conditions.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2020-was-record-hot-for-n-hemisphere-2nd-hottest-for-planet

"The July 2020 global temperature was 62.06 degrees F (16.72 degrees C) — 1.66 degrees F (0.92 of a degree C) above the 20th-century average — tying with 2016 as the second-hottest July on record. Last month was only 0.02 of a degree F (0.01 of a degree C) shy of tying the record-hot July of 2019.

The combined land and ocean surface average temperature for the Northern Hemisphere, the highest ever recorded for July, was an unprecedented 2.12 degrees F (1.18 degrees C ) above average. The combined temperature surpassed July 2019 by 0.14 of a degree F (0.08 of a degree C).

Record-hot July temperatures spread across parts of southeastern Asia, northern South America, North America, as well as across the western and northern Pacific Ocean, northern Indian Ocean and parts of the Caribbean Sea."

[wdmn]

James Hansen posted a graph updating global temperature anomaly through July 2020 with a 60 month (5 year) running mean that is truly frightening.

https://twitter.com/DrJamesEHansen/status/1294288845664641025

[Hefaistos]

The increasing 5 year MA is mainly due to the El Nino starting in 2016.

Hansen also gives an interesting forecast in the press release: "The 12-month running has reached its relative maximum and will decline during the next several months as the budding La Nina in the Tropical Pacific will cause global temperature in coming months to fall generally below the temperature in the corresponding months in 2019"

No-one knows how long this coming La Nina will last. It was forecasted that we would get a la Nina already 3 years ago, as the ENSO is related to the solar cycle.
"Predicting the La Niña of 2020-21: Termination of Solar Cycles and Correlated Variance in Solar and Atmospheric Variability", published Dec.2017, by Leamon, R. J.; McIntosh, S. W.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMSH42A..05L/abstract

Currently we are in a prolonged solar minimum. Solar cycle 25 is slow to pick up.
It's possible that the La Nina will be prolonged as well, and that the 5 year MA of temperatures will come down as a consequence.

[oren]

Hefaistos, while 2016 was a monster El Nino, 2019-2020 was nearly neutral. This makes the 12-month chart even more ominous, and the 5 year MA should have been falling by now if not for the latest rise, despite your words to the contrary.
Counting on a La-Nina to bring the MA back to the average trend will only cover up the extra heat.

[oren]

As Hansen writes in the tweet:

More important: global warming is accelerating. 12-month mean peaked just below prior maximum w/o help of real El Nino

I don't know why you insist on downplaying the warming trend. I've seen many of your posts claiming recent cooling, I don't think this is supported by the data.

[Hefaistos]

As Hansen writes in the tweet:

More important: global warming is accelerating. 12-month mean peaked just below prior maximum w/o help of real El Nino

I don't know why you insist on downplaying the warming trend. I've seen many of your posts claiming recent cooling, I don't think this is supported by the data.

Oren,

With the increasing forcing from GHG we would expect the warming trend to continue, that's agreed.
But in this case I was trying to balance what wdmn posted, as he picked out only the scary looking 5yMA trend from the PM.

ENSO is very defining for the surface temperatures, and the fact (?) that we're now getting a Nina = cooling was highlighted by Hansen in the same PM. But no-one knows how long this will last, it will depend on how soon and how strong the oncoming SC25 will be, apparently. (a strong start of a solar cycle has been shown in published papers to be detrimental to an established La Nina)

The data I look at show declining anomalies, and forecast for continued cooling another week. As expected, and now even Hansen says we should expect more cooling. How good that we will soon learn!

[wdmn]

Thanks for the false balance Hefaistos, it's certainly needed given the sensationalism of my statement that the 60mo running mean was soaring and would continue to soar and never come down again at all with la nina's or annual variability, and my unwillingness to provide a link to further discussion by Hansen, and my general incitement to PANIC!

[kassy]

I did not look at that graph In #2232 enough yesterday. Impressive. Thanks!

[vox_mundi]

Hefaistos

Why do you keep parroting climate denial site?

... The data I look at show declining anomalies, and forecast for continued cooling another week.

A search for that graph points to ...

https://notrickszone.com/2020/07/18/ncep-analysis-northern-hemisphere-surface-temperature-falls-1c-since-february/

Overall, we rate NoTricksZone a pseudoscience blog based on the publication of climate change disinformation opposing the consensus of science.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/notrickszone

... In review, NoTricksZone publishes news and studies that attempt to discredit the consensus of climate scientists that global warming is significantly influenced by humans. Mr. Gosselin does not completely disregard human’s impact on climate change but states the influence is minimal.

When it comes to climate science, they often publish alternative theories for global warming such as sunspots. They also offer a blogroll that consists of other climate skeptics such as the Climate Depot, Judith Curry, and Climate Dispatch. In general, NoTricksZone is a human-influenced climate change denial pseudoscience website.

Other cherry-picking articles:

https://notrickszone.com/category/cooling/

Where are the mods

[kassy]

Interesting.

Did it come from there Hefaistos?

[oren]

Here's a more in context chart, linked to from Hansen's twitter.

With enough cherry picking one can call this a cooling trend. I would call it a slight relaxation from record highs.

Scroll the image right to see the chart.



https://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=120ddf763a

[blumenkraft]

=notrickszoneDOTcom=

Ouch, i clicked that. Now i feel dirty...    

(good find, VM)

[kassy]

Here's a more in context chart, linked to from Hansen's twitter.

With enough cherry picking one can call this a cooling trend. I would call it a slight relaxation from record highs.

It is a day vs trends. Any actual trends are long term things.
Off course this is often glossed over because we talk about what we see.

I think Hephaistos really does not want GW to be bad so he is looking for reasons its not and i base that on a post i vaguely remember...but i am not 100% sure it was his.

[Hefaistos]

Interesting.

Did it come from there Hefaistos?

Certainly not!
It's direct from Karsten Haustein, I have linked his page several times already, sorry for not doing so this time:
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php

Please also read his FAQ on how he compiles those two graphs, it's a very balanced approach that uses all available data.
A very interesting read by itself on using reanalysis temperature models vs. eg. only physical readings.
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/info.php

/I don't even know what Notrickszone is, never even looked at that site./

[Hefaistos]

Hefaistos

...

Where are the mods

Thanks Vox, You made me laugh!

Recommended reading for you:
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/info.php

[Hefaistos]

=notrickszoneDOTcom=

Ouch, i clicked that. Now i feel dirty...    

(good find, VM)

And for you too:
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/info.php

[blumenkraft]

And for you too:
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/info.php

You know i use this page regularly. Why do you link it to me?

[Hefaistos]

And for you too:
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/info.php

You know i use this page regularly. Why do you link it to me?

Vox claimed that Karsten's fantastic temperature page came from some idiot denier site.

You could have corrected him, if you were so familiar with Karsten's page. Instead you wrote a childish comment and told Vox it was a "good find":

=notrickszoneDOTcom=

Ouch, i clicked that. Now i feel dirty...    

(good find, VM)

Based on your quoted comment, I don't believe it when you say that you use Karsten's page regularly.

I hope that we now can have some serious discussions about the various ways to measure and present temperatures. Not least since several users here seem to refute the validity of reanalyses.

That's why I linked to the FAQ page, as there are lot's of rather interesting things regarding this issue, worthwile of discussing.

[blumenkraft]

I don't believe it when you say that you use Karsten's page regularly.

I post his 7-day hindsight mean temperature as a GIF every week.