When It Comes To Warm Years, We’re Arguing Over Hundredths Of A Degree

Regarding yesterday’s post about 2013 being the 4th7th10th107th10th warmest for the world, Greenie Watch points something out

I reproduce below a current news report derived from NOAA and GISS.  You will see that continuing warming is proclaimed with no hint that the data might be troublesome to Warmism.  It is classical warming propaganda much as we hear every year.

I have been naughty, however.  I spent about 2 minutes on a Google search to find out what the actual figures were.  Here is a quote from NOAA:

“The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average.” Do you see what they are doing?  The differences in temperature that they rely on for a judgment that something was warmest are in hundredths of a degree!  They treat unbelievably tiny differences in temperature that exist only as a statistical artifact as if they told us something! For instance they contrast the 2013 anomaly of .62C with 2010, which is .66C.  The difference is only 4 hundredths of one degree Celsius!

As Greenie notes, is there any point at which Warmists concede that the difference is too small to be taken seriously? To be considered insignificant? The Warmists have been playing games with tenths of a degree for decades in attempting to scare people. And, incidentally, demand lots of money from people, along with reducing freedom for citizens and more and more control of the private sector while ramping up the size and scope of Government (while making no changes in their own live). The overall temperature increase since 1850 is a miniscule 1.4F. They trot out the scary stories about the global temperature increasing anywhere from 2C to 10C by 2100. Yet, the actual increases are in the hundredths of degrees year to year.

If that kind of information was laid out in front of people, all but Warmists would discount the horror stories, and look upon the Warmists the same way they look at a person carrying an “the end is nigh” sign. As bat guano crazy scaremongers.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “When It Comes To Warm Years, We’re Arguing Over Hundredths Of A Degree”

  1. Jeffery says:

    You keep repeating that a global mean temperature increase of 1.4F is miniscule. You are misleading your loyal reader.

    The difference between 80F and 81.4F on a summer day in NC IS miniscule, but that difference in the global mean temperature is anything but trivial. As we’re already seeing, this increase is causing significant losses of Arctic sea ice, glaciers, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (but not yet Antarctic sea ice). Sea level is rising. The ocean pH is dropping.

    But OMG, you scream, they are measuring temperatures in tenths and even hundredths of degrees! So what? Yesterday you were whining that climate scientists couldn’t make up their mind if 2013 was the 4th or 8th warmest year, now you’re whining that their measurements are too precise.

    Why don’t you just confess. What is your reason for being a denier? It has nothing to do with science, data or evidence (unless you are even dumber than I thought). Are you paid to deny? Is your far-right ideology so strong that you’re afraid of further intrusion into your “freedoms”?

    It’s quite clear that you use dishonest tactics to peck away at the science of climate change that you little understand, but why? Why can’t you be honest?

  2. jl says:

    J-“1.4F is miniscule. You are misleading your readers.” It’s not that it’s miniscule or not, it’s that it’s irrelevant. Why? Again, because whatever number your using is still only using comparable data from 130 years ago, when they started taking detailed temperature data. When you can say for sure there’s been no comparable temperature rise for the other 4 billion years, call me. But because we don’t have any of that data, why don’t you be honest and admit it’s you and your cult who are the ones misleading.

  3. jl says:

    J- “This tempeature increase is causing significant losses of Arctic sea ice, but not yet Antarctic sea ice. The oceans are rising, the ocean ph is dropping.” All things that have happened before we were here. And I love the “not yet” bit- how very un-scientific. As you know, both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels have been rising, and even if they were receding there’s still no proof that the cause is man-made. Sorry. But getting back to the sea-ice issue-detailed measurements by satellite began way back in….1979. Again, no data to compare it to, which is required. Unless one is dense enough to believe that 35 years of data portrays some kind of trend, which it of course doesn’t.

  4. Thank you, I’ve just been searching for info about this subject for a long time and yours is the greatest I’ve found
    out so far. But, what about the bottom line?
    Are you positive concerning the supply?

  5. Jeffery says:


    That things have happened before is not relevant to what’s happening now. The causes are clearly different. This current rapid warming period is the result of humankind changing the climate. I assume you understand that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth, but that doesn’t mean they are hiding out now waiting to return, or that they will re-evolve as dominant species.

    Your assessment of Arctic sea ice extent is incorrect as it continues to be lost; Antarctic sea ice extent continues to increase. You have bought in to the denier meme that a slight increase in winter Arctic sea ice extent this year changes the decline. It’s like claiming the Earth is cooling because it snowed yesterday in New England.

    Deniers always clamor for more proof as a tactic, knowing they will never accept any evidence as proof. It’s why you rely on ridicule and mockery and not data. You’re waging your battle against policy by dishonestly attacking the science. So rather than try to persuade the ideological deniers, science realists must time and again correct your obvious misleading and false statements.

  6. Thatch says:

    About the only thing we know for sure about the climate is that we don’t understand it well enough to make any predictions.

    Jeffrey doesn’t understand the significance of knowing whether the variation we are seeing now is anything abnormal or not because his is a completely religious conviction. Just to explain this so that a simpleton can understand it… if the natural variability of the climate has not been exceeded then we cannot support a claim that what we are seeing now is not completely natural or mostly natural. This is one of the reasons that Mann had to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear. If we cannot explain past variations in temperature (and we can’t) then we cannot logically show that the same forces are not at work now since we don’t know what those forces are.

    In other words, you don’t get to blithely assert that the causes are clearly different now without showing that the causes are clearly different now. We don’t know anything of the sort because we know precisely jack and squat about the climate. Anyone who tells you differently is either a charlatan or a fool. They certainly are not scientists because a scientist would understand that you must study a complex system like the climate for a statistically significant period of time, and then you must be able to predict its behavior before you make any pronouncements based on our understanding of it. We haven’t done the former and have failed rather spectacularly at the latter. This is one of the main reasons climatologists are looked at much as phrenologists are by other scientists.

    We are sitting on roughly 17 years with no statistically significant warming now and we have already disproven essentially all of the models were used to predict that temperatures would rise which existed at the time we started measuring. The estimates for climate sensitivity to CO2 fall every year as the planet stubbornly refuses to warm. But the fact that the models have to change in this way show they are essentially worthless. They change new fudge factors every year to fit past results. They do not really calculate anything as an engineer or physicist would do nor do they predict anything.

    And to top it off, as I write this we are currently in the grips of the coldest winter in 100 years and some idiots just got stuck in the ice at the South Pole trying to prove there is no ice at the South Pole. CAGW is essentially an unfalsifiable proposition because no matter what the climate does it is seen as evidence of AGW. We could freeze to death in the thousands as has happened all over Europe in recent years and it would be seen as proof the world is getting warmer. Such is the nature of religion.

    But even if we were to conclude that man was warming the climate we would have to also show that the benefits from this were not greater than the harm it causes before we decided to take any action. And to be fair you would have to add the costs to our economies into the equation. On top of that, and much to Jeffrey’s horror, you would have to also weigh the cost of the tyranny involved in having governments centrally plan these things and use force to see that they are carried out… knowing that this would just lead to the sort of fascism that the left is so fond of, and that has caused so much penury, starvation and death over the course of human history.

    The EU failed spectacularly in trying to decrease CO2 emissions through command and control while the US had much more success by doing precisely nothing. The idiot Obama threw away billions of dollars rewarding his cronies by funding solar panel companies that could not produce solar panels, and that in any event no one wanted, but luckily the amounts were small enough, and the results horrific enough, that even someone as pristinely ignorant of science and economics as our president could see it was a losing proposition. Better to buy votes the old fashioned way… just hand out other people’s money. The AGW scam just complicates matters and really only fools the slowest of rubes these days anyway.

    Here is a clue. Gore and the boys don’t even believe in this crap. They live high on the hog, buy coastline property, and have carbon footprints the size of small nations. Other than as a way of getting extraordinarily stupid and naive people to give them more power and wealth they have no interest in the subject at all. Even were the threat real they would just use it as an excuse to line their pockets and the pockets. That is what leftists do. It is all they know. It is the only thing they believe in. They use people like Jeffrey in a completely cynical fashion and will move on to the next scam once this one is no longer profitable.

  7. Springy_Gumballs says:

    Isn’t it funny how J lies and ignores his previous postings about how historical weather patterns mean a warming climate?

    and if J keeps complaining about 1C, I suggest J move to Canada where its cooler. Cuz, for us here in Americas, we are enjoying the added warmth compared to temps lowered by 1C.

Pirate's Cove