Warmest Year On Record: Here’s Why It’s A Meaningless Number

cartoon-settled-scienceRecent news that 2015 will likely be the warmest on record gave global warming alarmists another log of anxiety to throw on the bonfire of fear they’ve set, and probably moved more than a few climate agnostics who haven’t been paying attention toward the gang’s position. But really, there’s nothing to see here.

According to NASA data released Tuesday, last month was the warmest October ever recorded — which means we don’t really know how how warm it was in any October before 1880. Due to the hot month, many, such as the Washington Post’s weather editor, believe that this “year that has essentially locked up the title of warmest on record.” And so it might be. So what?

Moving on from that grade-school taunt to an educated and credentialed climate scientist, we learn this business about a record warm temperature is “just nonsense.”

“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about?” asks Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT. “It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree.”

Lindzen earned a physics degree from Harvard in 1960 and a doctorate in applied mathematics, also from Harvard, in 1964.

Speaking Thursday at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Lindzen advised that “the most important thing to keep in mind is, when you ask, ‘Is it warming, is it cooling?’ etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”

Lindzen acknowledged that “people get excited over this,” but he doesn’t believe the report is anything to be alarmed about.

“We are speaking of small changes; 0.25 Celsius would be about 51% of the recent warming, and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity — meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen said. “I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales. The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree.”

Read the entire post from Climate Depot. Lindzen had more to say at the summit, as did other climate scientists and professionals who dare think and speak against the warming narrative. They don’t sound like the crackpots the alarmists make them out to be — they simply make sense.

Meantime, don’t forget that one of the United Nations’ top global warming officials has revealed the real reason behind the climate scare — and it’s not about saving the planet. Meanwhile, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been caught torturing temperature data to stir up a crisis where none exists.

If we’re going to talk about records, it’s the record of these two parties we should be discussing.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The only record is the amount of money spent on
    an overblown fraud . The earth doesn’t have a fever
    and the almost immeasurable change in temperature is actually beneficial assuming it continues warming since the last ice age .

    Unfortunately tweaking CO2 is not going to stop the next ice age .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Peter_PNW

    |

    [url]https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510[/url]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    When the climate models were first built they showed warming, but not enough to be a problem. In order to get the results they were after, they added a fudge factor. The first fudge factor was positive feed back by upper atmosphere water vapor. However, they made a mistake in choosing something that could be measured. When measurements showed that this feedback wasn’t happening they switched to another fudge factor of cloud clover positive feedback.

    The problem with using fudge factors is that the climate models don’t match reality. To compensate for this, the warming alarmists have to change the data and amplify insignificant changes making them appear to be huge.

    The bottom line is this is a fraud driven by agendas that have nothing to do with the climate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    William Bill Fish

    |

    Checked a lot of the stories and it’s same people commenting on all stories. Rather an incestuous little group wouldn’t you say. As Julienne Stroeve says “… my theory that climate denial is a form of autism -deliberately losing itself in a maze of details and completely unable to grasp a gestalt.” Just in case you don’t know what gesalt is, I’ll save you time looking it up.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      If it’s so predictable, annoying and worthless, why do you waste your time by coming back ?

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Once again Billy is wrong. :zzz

      The quote is from far left bomb thrower Peter Sinclair, who [i]had[/i] a quote from Julienne (with whom I have conversed, and knew that she would never have said this), but it [i]wasn’t[/i] what dumb dumb said it was. Here is the actual quote…

      [quote]“Steve chose a graph that shows what he wants to portray while ignoring all the other institutions that show either a record low for 2011 or a “tie” with 2007. University of Bremen already announced it is a new record low. In my opinion, given the error margin of the measurement and algorithms, 2007 and 2011 basically tied in their extent this year. NSIDC will likely show 2011 as the second lowest, but again it’s within the error margin (which is about 50,000 sq-km).”[/quote]

      http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/

      And dumb dumb thinks [i]we[/i] need educating! 😆

      Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.