Temperature Trends

Global Temperature Trend Update: Fifth Warmest July in Satellite Record

|

Hot Thermometer
Dreamstime

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through July 2014.

Global Temperature Report: July 2014

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

July temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.31 C (about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.29 C (about 0.52 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Tropics: +0.45 C (about 0.81 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Global Temperature Trend July 2014
Roy Spencer

Notes on data released August 5, 2014:

In the tropics, July 2014 was the second warmest July in the 36-year satellite record, only 0.03 C cooler than July 2009 and 0.06 C warmer than July 1998, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. The average temperature in the tropics during July was 0.45 C (about 0.81° F) warmer than seasonal norms for the month.

The global average temperature for July was 0.31 C (about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, the fifth warmest July in the satellite record.

Go here to see a map showing global temperature anomalies.

NEXT: Copyright Absurdity: Reagan Biographer Gets Paraphrased, Demands $25 Million

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sure wasn’t in Cincinnati. It was like 75 for weeks!

    1. Yeah, I’ve been wondering where all this heat is. Coolest summer I’ve seen in a while.

      1. It’s been fucking awesome! Best summer ever!!!

        1. I’ve been enjoying it too. Though all my vegetables are late. I hope we don’t get too early a frost.

          1. It makes me consider moving to seattle or vancouver something. I mean, it seems like seattle kind of sucks, but the weather has to be amazing!

            1. Seattle (and the coastal PNW) has by far the best summer climate in the country. Little rain, little humidity, and few days over 90 degrees. (Basically, there are five good months and seven poor ones (rainy and overcast).)

      2. Down here in AL, I cut grass in long pants last week. Normally I’d be asking for heat stroke doing that…

      3. It’s not that the day’s highs have been very high, it’s the normal lows haven’t been very low. So the average across the the whole day has been higher.

    2. That’s just Cincinnati. Don’t you know? There’s a single, global temperature. That’s what they use.

      1. Cincinnati is the center of the world. DUUUHHHH!!!

    3. Caution: nothing new in the poo-flinging down-thread.

      Where’s a good abortion thread when we need one?

  2. Must be taking all the temps in California.

    1. Redding hit 114 a few days ago, IIRC. Yuck.

  3. Must be all them greenyhouse gasez!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..-14-years/

    h/t Corning

    1. It’s just a PAUSE! Manbearpig is REAL! I’m totally CEREAL!!

  4. We haven’t even cracked 100 here yet, it’s been the mildest summer for quite a while.

  5. Not where I live so global warming is obviously still bullshit.

    1. bullshit is one the main things causing it, so you probably have a point.

  6. Why does anyone even care about this?

  7. Huh. Okay.

  8. Just to clarify, it wasn’t the 5th warmest July in the temperature record, it was the 5th warmest 13 mo. average terminating in July, right?

    1. No.

  9. So now that satellite data backs the warmies, it counts?

  10. In the tropics, July 2014 was the second warmest July in the 36-year satellite record

    In Timbuktu, it was the third hottest Saturday night Billy Bob can remember.

    Huh?

  11. of course the coolest summer in living memory is the 5th hottest July

    1. ANTI SCIENCE BIGOT MONGERER!

    2. Some people’s living memory is longer than others I guess.

  12. So…is this what the computer models forecasted/predicted?

    Are actual global temperatures in line with the models?

    1. ANTI SCIENCE BIGOT MONGERER!

    2. LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!

  13. And I just heard on the radio that we’re going to have a good blueberry harvest thanks to the summer being cool and wet.

  14. On Sunday, I believe Death Valley had its coolest August Day since they started keeping accurate records on these things. It reached a high of only 89 degrees when normally it’s somewhere between 120 and 130 at this time of year.

    When is Reason going to finally give all of us a break with this bullcrap?

    1. I don’t know, I find it interesting to know what climate science is pushing on a monthly basis.

      1. They’re pushing for more taxes for you. That never changes, despite the temperature data.

    2. North America seems to be cool this year, but there are other parts of the world.

      1. No there aren’t. There is only Cincinnati!

  15. The point of this is NOT that the US temperatures have been cooler than normal (yeah, great summer in most of the US) but that the temperature trend line hasn’t changed much since 2003.
    So – where is all this ‘global warming’?
    Why hasn’t the tread line drifted upward over the past 11 years?

    (And btw, the ‘click here’ link to the global map is dead.)

  16. Checkmate Deniers!

  17. 37 degrees Fahrenheit is warmish? Maybe if you live in Svalbard.

  18. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that June was the globe’s warmest in 134 years of records following its report that May was also the hottest on record. These reports are feeding anticipation that 2014 could become the warmest year on record.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..es-surged/

    BUT DOWN HERE IN DOGDICK GEORGIA IT IS ONLY 87 DEGREES!

    1. Really? The most well regarded organization of all time the NOAA said that 2014 will be the warmest of all time??? Now I’m convinced that we need to ban coal and shoot sulfur rockets into the atmosphere!

      1. SCIENCE IS A MARXIST PLOT!

        1. I’m right because science!

          1. Actually, you’re wrong….because science.

            1. YOU WRONG! I SCIENCE!!! argument over

        2. SCIENCE IS A MARXIST PLOT!

          MARXIST PLOTS ARE NEVER SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE!

          1. Nobody expects the Marxist Plot!

        3. Sure you wanna keep playing, shreek? The game’s always between you and getting called a cunt. That dropped eye of yours looks like the hood on a cunt to me, shreek. When you talk, your mouth looks like a cunt moving.

          1. I find it interesting that Tony and Shreeky show up here at the same time in the same thread. Maybe they finally got married. Makes sense because there isn’t anyone else on the planet that could stand to be around either one of them for 5 minutes.

        4. SCIENCE IS A MARXIST PLOT!

          Speaking of science:

          “Study shows greenhouse gas induced warming dropped for the past 14 years”

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..-14-years/

          Opps.

          Looks like science has found climate change to be a marxist plot.

    2. Is dog dick a proper noun or just a noun? Can’t tell with the caps, please clarify.

    3. *Dogedick

    4. like I’m going to believe those racists from 134 years ago. good one.

    5. It’s never been 87 degrees in GA before, in August. I’m totally convinced now.

    6. Stop pretending that you live in Georgia, vile scumbag David Weigel.

      You live at 2124 12th St NW Washington, DC 20009, your phone number is 202-261-2848, and I hope someone pays you a visit and knocks all your teeth out of that stupid fucking head of yours.

    7. NOAA cites the GISS dataset, which is the highest / hottest of the five datasets in use. Here are discussions that put its reportage in context:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..-may-data/

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..e-records/

  19. “Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks.”

    1. Is it kind of like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t a square?

    2. When it’s colder than average then it’s just weather. When it’s warmer than average then it’s a climate event. Get your lies straight, moron.

      1. It’s the “willfully” part that makes you into a bunch of evil cunts. Because I know you learned the difference between weather and climate. You all didn’t get a pass on grades 4-12.

        1. I’m right because you’re evil cunts! I smart! I science!

          1. You can be an unfathomable dumbshit and still understand the difference between weather and climate.

            1. you unfathomable dumbshit! I SCIENCE!!!

            2. But can you understand the disparity between. “Fifth hottest July on record”, and ” Everybody on here, from all over the country and the world is having one of the coolest summers in living memory”?

              1. Yeah, one is global climate, the other is 10 people talking about what it’s like where they live. Are you saying it’s not the fifth hottest July on record globally because 10 people felt a cool summer where they live?

                Anyway noting that a season is behaving anomalously based on your whole life experience is not a mark in your favor if you want to deny that something’s up with global climate. Climate change doesn’t mean it’s going to always be hotter everywhere.

                But you know all this. If you don’t know this, then you have no business opening your food hole and soiling the Internet with your ignorant nonsense.

                How on earth did people get so fucking stupid that they not only not know the difference between weather and climate–but they refuse to take the 3 seconds it takes to learn it? That’s the real scientific fucking mystery.

                1. You’re an ignorant fucktard with stupid face and no education! Therefore I’m right!!!

                2. Yeah, but if it’s hotter than normal, CLIMATE!

                3. The difference between WX and climate:

                  WX = a cold day
                  Climate = a hot day anywhere

                  1. Nobody with the slightest bit of knowledge of this subject says that. That is a straw man, and you are all idiots.

                    1. EVERY AGW bleever says that.

                      Any storm, any disease, any change in biological patterns, any decline in species population, any earthquake, any drought, any increase in crime rate gets hung on climate change.

                      And you are stupid enough to agree with it.

                4. Or it could be this.

                  If several parts of the planet are experiencing record lows then other places would need higher than normal temps to make the average temp for the month match the historical average. Not just higher than normal, but much higher than normal since the record low is much lower than normal. But we are told that this July is not normal, but the fifth highest on record. In order for that to be true there would have to be record or near record heat waves covering huge swaths of the planet to compensate for record lows everywhere from death valley to Florida(a fairly large area). One would expect such a record heat wave to attract the attention of climaterrorist like tony. Yet I’ve heard nothing of these heat waves, such must exist somewhere to make this year unusually hot. Or the reported numbers could be wrong. I wonder what William of Ockham would think.

            3. the difference is not hard to grasp. Trotting out temperature data and claiming it’s man-caused is something else.

              1. Trotting out temperature data and claiming it’s man-caused is something else.

                You’re not properly applying circular logic.

                You see, human activity must be harming the planet because it must. It just must. And the climate is changing. That’s true. Well, climate change must be bad because it must. And human activity is bad. So… human activity must be the cause of bad climate change, because human activity is bad and climate change is bad.

                See? It all works in a nice little circle.

                1. You really believe that you’re smarter than climate experts who work for outfits like NASA, don’t you?

                  You, friend, are a near-perfect specimen exhibiting the Dunning?Kruger effect. You clearly think that cliches are wisdom. You think your limp little insights and incoherent drivel (such as above) trump all the data and research in the world. Like, you actually believe that. You are truly a treasure.

                  1. You really believe that you’re smarter than climate experts who work for outfits like NASA, don’t you?

                    I recognize that when someone’s paycheck depends on them “proving” something, that they’re going to find a way to “prove” it. Even if it’s a bunch of bullshit. They’ve got bills to pay, just like everyone else.

                    1. Oh, so you’re just more ethical than all of them?

                    2. Probably

                    3. Oh, so you’re just more ethical than all of them?

                      I’ve got bills to pay and mouths to feed. I honestly don’t know what I’d do if I was put into that situation. That’s what makes me skeptical.

                    4. Oh, so you’re just more ethical than all of them?

                      That’s perfect.

                      Tony believes he’s being ethical when he promotes policy that will halt economic advances in the third world, leaving people in squaller. All to combat a problem that may or may not exist AND may or may not be a net negative.

                      Yeah Tony, you’re ethical.

                      You may just be the dumbest fucker I know.

                    5. The following is a list of things that Tony actually believes to be a valid form of argument.

                      1. Ad hominem

                      2. Appeal to authority

                      3. Appeal to emotion

                      4. Shitting his pants

                    6. 5. Flinging the shit while screeching incoherently.

                  2. You really believe that you’re smarter than climate experts who work for outfits like NASA, don’t you?

                    Because their climate models have been SO accurate.

                    You do realize, how smart someone is is meaningless if they are wrong. I mean, you aren’t THAT stupid are you?

                    1. You do realize, how smart someone is is meaningless if they are wrong. I mean, you aren’t THAT stupid are you?

                      I’m afraid that he indeed is that stupid.

                    2. Their climate models have been accurate you talking points spewing simpleton. Read another fucking book for Christ’s sake.

                    3. Their climate models have been accurate you talking points spewing simpleton.

                      The models that all predicted steady warming, and failed because there has been no net warming since 1998? You really are an idiot.

                    4. Tony, The average global temperature hasn’t increased (to be statistically significant) in 16 years. Of the 30 years that climate models have existed, there have been more years in a row without any warming than there have been wit.

                      Where is the predicted rate increase? Where is the heat? WHere is the runaway greenhouse effect?

                      Their predictions aren’t even close to accurate. And you are too fucking ignorant to realize it.

                  3. A smart person can be wrong, a stupid person can be right. It’s absurd to believe something just because a smart person believes it.

                    1. It’s willful ignorance not to believe something when a near-unanimous consensus of experts on the topic at hand say it.

                    2. Experts who self selected into the field and who’s livelihoods are based on the concept that climate change is real.

                    3. It’s willful ignorance not to believe something when a near-unanimous consensus of experts on the topic at hand say it.

                      We’ve been over this before, Tony.

                      Consensus is not science.

                      Consensus is politics.

                      Science involves experimentation and repeatable results.

                      We don’t have this in climate “science.”

                      All we have is consensus, which is not science.

                      Thus climate “science” is politics, not science.

                    4. So is it science when I can accurately predict that if I use the word “consensus” you’re going to toss that inane bullshit at me, because it’s been verified by repeated experiments?

                    5. because it’s been verified by repeated experiments?

                      No, Tony. I’m afraid it has not. I see you indeed haven’t a clue what science is. Thank you for playing.

                    6. If there were repeatable results, we wouldn’t need a consensus.

                    7. If there were repeatable results, we wouldn’t need a consensus.

                      Exactly.

                    8. It’s absurd to believe something just because a smart person believes it.

                      Did you know that smart people watch The Daily Show? They do! So by watching The Daily Show you can make yourself smart! It’s true! Because smart people watch The Daily Show! If you watch The Daily Show, and smart people watch The Daily Show, then you must be smart!

                  4. All the data show that the “experts” hypothesis has been falsified, since there has been no net warming since 1998 in spite of their predictions. Yet Tony still gives them credibility contrary to all evidence, yet calls others anti-science. What an idiot.

                    1. If you don’t know that the “since 1998” bullshit talking point is debunked bullshit then you are, I repeat, being willfully ignorant.

                      You people have the gall to question the motives of every climate scientist on earth but you outright refuse to spend five minutes educating yourself about the very subject you’re vomiting nonsense about. What fucking nerve.

                    2. You people have the gall to question the motives of every climate scientist on earth

                      Who said anything about motives? They may honestly believe what they are saying. Thing is, IT’S NOT SCIENCE! You see, science involves repeatable results. They hid their data to prevent anyone from repeating their results! Get a clue, man. That’s not science. That’s politics.

                    3. So the Big Bang is completely fabricated? No experiment. No repeated Big Bang. Just observation and theory. Can’t be science.

                    4. I’m pretty sure no one has proved the Big Bang…The only evidence of it is the expanding universe. Running a predictive model backwards doesn’t always demonstrate the past, and since the data for our expanding universe is less than 100 years old, it makes no sense to use it to prove something that supposedly happened 4.5 billion years ago.

                    5. The Rapid Expansion theory of the universe is just that, a theory, which currently provides the best explanation for the formation of the universe and observable phenomena. No one claims it has been proven the absolute truth or that there aren’t other possibilities. It is certainly possible that further observation could reveal information which could alter the current theory. Because that’s how science is actually done, moron.
                      Unlike AGW, where observation that contradicts the hypothesis is dismissed in favor of maintaining the political agenda.

                    6. But is it science? Sarc says it isn’t. And he’s clearly an expert.

                    7. Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit! Get the fuck off of my obstacle! Get the fuck down off of my obstacle! NOW! MOVE IT! Or I’m going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world! I will motivate you, IF IT SHORT-DICKS EVERY CANNIBAL ON THE CONGO!

                    8. Drill Sergeant Brenner? Is that you?

                    9. Physical cosmology (big physics) is a very weak field of study as opposed to quantum (small physics) or mechanics (regular physics), because it is impossible to actually perform experiments with massive gravity. For example, the Earth is smaller than Jupiter so we can’t experiment on it because it won’t fit in a lab.

                    10. So the Big Bang is completely fabricated? No experiment. No repeated Big Bang. Just observation and theory. Can’t be science.

                      I don’t recall anyone claiming the Big Bang science was settled.

                    11. You used the word bullshit twice in a sentence! You must be right.

                    12. No, shitstain, it hasn’t been “debunked”. Responding to inconvenient facts with lefty talking points is not debunking.

                    13. No, shitstain, it hasn’t been “debunked”.

                      Yeah it has. Remember that in lefty-world, ad hominems are valid arguments. And they’ve launched all kinds of personal attacks on the deniers. That debunks their arguments, because it proves that they are bad people.

                    14. Who are you going to believe, Tony and the experts or those lying facts?

        2. Is it really evil? In my world evil is wanting to impose onerous restrictions that will reduce food, fuel, and energy for everyone. Perhaps our world views are not the same.

          1. Dude…it’s Tony, he’s furious!

          2. In my world refusing to act in the face of the same is not morally distinct.

            1. and what action would you impose on people? Because imposing it is the only way it’s going to get done. You trust the same govt that fucked up something as basic as the VA with regulating everyone’s life?

              1. What you’re saying is that you are ideologically and dogmatically opposed to government regulation–therefore you have a tough time believing in plain scientific fact that tends to suggests government regulation is necessary.

                That, friend, is your fucking problem, not science’s.

                1. What you’re saying is that you are ideologically and dogmatically opposed to government regulation–therefore you have a tough time believing in plain scientific fact that tends to suggests government regulation is necessary.

                  do you actually believe your own bullshit? The only dogma and ideology is from self-righteous fucks who believe they and only they can property organize society. I’m just someone forced to live with the stupidity of their past decision-making which makes me skeptical about having them make even more decisions.

                  The notion of govt being able to regulate climate requires a level of hubris that makes Obama appear self-deprecating. But it’s govt force, which is why you’re for it.

                  1. You just took a big fucking backhoe to those goalposts. No, you don’t seem to get it. You are obviously dogmatically against government intervention. That is like the entire backbone of your belief system. It’s why you’re here. That’s not, like, contentious. Right?

                    So as painful as it is, if you want to maintain that dogma, you need to figure out how to squeeze scientific fact into it. Toss out a free-market solution to the problem at hand. Because being a stupid denialist ostrich about the problem means nobody has to to take you seriously about anything, and they are better off not doing so.

                    I don’t know if governments can solve the problem. Humans did cause the problem, but it’s probably easier to make the mess than it is to clean it up. I only know that the only chance we do have of solving it is massive global collective action. Unless you’d like to propose an alternative? No, you’d prefer pretending there is no problem like a cornered little baby?

                    1. tony, feel free to quit digging at any time. It’s not about dogma; it’s about having watched govt screw up any number of allegedly grandiose things that leads me to the obvious conclusion of being skeptical about govt’s next grandiose thing.

                      Scientific fact, thus far, can document changes in temperature. It has yet to draw a causal link to those changes. Again, like Yogi said, you can observe a lot by watching. Your assertion that “humans did cause the problem” is based on faith and nothing else. There is zero evidence of man having caused anything.

                    2. Your assertion that “humans did cause the problem” is based on faith and nothing else. There is zero evidence of man having caused anything.

                      Dude, you’re not applying circular logic again!

                      Humans caused the problem because human activity must be causing some problem, and because some problem exists, human activity must be the cause!

                    3. That’s just false and you’d know that if you spent 5 minutes studying the very thing you’re making claims about.

                2. Are you giving science a persona now? Wow, you really have it bad!

            2. THE END IS NEAR! REPENT YOUR CARBON SINNING WAYS! REPENT!

            3. In Tony’s world, refusing to seize on a bullshit excuse to expand government power and further control people is morally repugnant.

        3. No net warming since 1998.

          1. DENIER! The climate changed, it changed you hear?! It’s never changed before, so it’s climate change! You deniers are all gonna burrrnnnn!!!!!

            1. I wonder, what exactly is the “correct” global average temperature? And how would that be determined? Since human advancement and prosperity has historically been tied to warming events, such as the Roman warm period and the medieval warm period, warmer is likely better than colder.

              1. I wonder, what exactly is the “correct” global average temperature?

                That would be whatever temperature it isn’t, at any given moment. Therefore, we’re right, denier!

                I don’t know why the warmists don’t walk around in hooded robes chanting deniers, heretics, infidels! Burn them! Burn them now!

                1. I don’t know why the warmists don’t walk around in hooded robes chanting deniers, heretics, infidels! Burn them! Burn them now!

                  They practically do. Just look at the rantings of Tony and shreek.

                  1. They don’t want to burn them, they want to “sequester their carbon”.

                    1. Carbon Sequester: good band name

        4. I’m quite sure that if an “expert” pissed on your back and said it was raining, you’d call it rain.

          1. Well, if he was a meteorologist, he would obviously have much greater expertise and authority on the matter than Tony, so Tony would be foolish to dispute him.

          2. And that “rain” would be WARM!

            1. And that “rain” would be WARM!

              Which only proves that global warming is real and caused by evil corporations!

              1. The word evil is redundant.

                1. The word redundant is evil.

        5. You all didn’t get a pass on grades 4-12.

          My understanding of recent climate science education is that they’re cooling out on teaching it to 4-12 yr. olds.

          Apparently, kids that can spend 8-12 hours on end in front of a TV or monitor are getting burned out on the Climate message.

          Personally, I think it has to do with the fact that kids don’t like to where all options lead to “Your fucked!”.

          1. Well, when it comes down to give up your teevee, intertoobs, and sit in the dark all day, that’s where most people will just say ‘fuck it, if we’re going to die anyway, as the warmist cult says we are … I mean they’ve been saying it’s too late for 10 years, then might as well enjoy life while we can.’

            They just really overplayed their hand. If they could have just stuck with stealing a few billion here and there for research grants and green crony projects, they could probably just keep it up forever, but they had to go on this global holy crusade and people are getting bored of it.

          2. Also, there has to be some sort of crying wolf effect. In the 1980s, 2001 was going to be the point of no return on greenhouse gasses. That came and went, so kids like me have a hard time taking the climate astrologists seriously anymore.

      2. You forgot this one:

        But when it’s a lot colder than average it’s climate change.

    3. But if the weather is hot, its climate right?

      1. Hot weather is a climate event, while cool weather is just weather.

    4. True enough, Tony. Do you also say that to the fucksticks who like to ponder whether a particular storm is caused by global warming or not?

    5. No global warming heat in the Ocean and now no heat in the atmosphere:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..-14-years/

      Tony are you hiding the heat under your bed?

  20. I guess all that heat that was hiding in the deepest part of the ocean is finally coming home to roost.

    1. It’s burrowing heat. It dug its way through the atmosphere and through the upper levels of the ocean and is lurking in the depths, waiting to devastate the planet. Just like Heat and Mass Transfer predicts.

      1. So, global warming is really Chthulu?

        1. It’s actually Dagon.

      2. Chtulu is drawing it all to himself in preparation for his coming rebirth.

        1. “In his house at R’lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits hoarding heat”

  21. Coldest fucking July that I can remember.

  22. I see that Tony’s mum paid the internet bill again.

    1. Tony doesn’t have a mum. Bacteria like him reproduce by fission.

      1. Bacteria? I thought he was a yeast or a mold.

        1. He’s a useful idiot who isn’t useful.

  23. I blame those solar panels, most of the sunlight they take in is turned to heat.

  24. I wait for these reports just as eagerly as I await the Fingerpointer-in-Chief’s tax policy pronouncements.

  25. Is Moscow having some sort of frying eggs on the sidewalk summer? The states aren’t a small portion of land, and we’ve had the coolest summer in my entire life.

  26. The takeaway is that the curve looks like a sigmoid.

    1. And Tony’s reasoning can be best seen using a sigmoidoscope.

      Coincidence? I don’t think so!

  27. A bunch of people with PhDs say the planet is warming. Therefore global warming must be real.

    But I have a PhD and don’t think the planet is warming…Does that prove that global warming is not real?

    1. You don’t think there is warming? You’re behind the bullshit curve.

      1. No net warming since 1998. Roman warm period and medieval warm period even warmer than now and no CO2 emissions to blame.

      2. You don’t think there is warming? You’re behind the bullshit curve not a gullible retard who cannot think for himself, unlike Tony.

        FIFY

        1. If you’re a fucking moron you’re better off trusting the experts.

          1. Experts that self selected into the field who’s livelihoods are generated through this exact agenda.

              1. You do realize that by demanding a citation for something that is blatantly obvious, you show that you are a very stupid person who denies the obvious and is incapable of thought. No, you probably don’t. You’re so stupid you don’t even know you’re stupid.

                1. Um, the claim that all climate scientists have a political agenda to lie, inventing an entire outlandish scenario so that they can pad their luxury lifestyles, and nobody among them has blown the whistle about this global conspiracy, is not something that counts as blatantly obvious, you ridiculous moron.

                  1. and nobody among them has blown the whistle

                    A lot of former members of the warmist cult have blown the whistle. Do you know how to use a search engine?

                  2. It’s funny that Tony has a difficult time believing that climatologists with whom he agrees could possibly suffer from bias or agendas related to their source of funding, while simultaneously dismissing any cheeky contrarians among their ranks as Koch-funded agenda-fueled psychopaths bent on raping mother gaia for the pure carnal joy of it.

              2. Cite what? That people self select into fields based on their agendas and that academics are funded based on research in their fields? I’m not sure what kind of citation you want for that.

                I can give personal anecdotes. Where I teach, you can get a sabbatical and book deal if you publish something interesting in your field. Climatology is only interesting if the temperature is rising. Therefore, those who say temperatures are rising get money.

                Cash rules everything around me, Cream get the money, dolla dolla bill ya’ll

                1. Is that how all other fields of research work, or just this one?

                  1. Yes. All fields of research work that way. You must be interesting to get funding. People in academia tell half truths and exaggerate all the time. Climate change has become the sole focus of climatology so you learn that agenda throughout school and must publish that agenda to be successful.

                    Just like you must publish queer theory in LGBTQ studies or Marxism in Sociology. I don’t know why this isn’t obvious…

                    1. It’s a wonder you even set foot outside your house considering how shaky ALL OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE must be, according to your expert understanding of how research works.

                    2. Well I live and breath it…

                      Some people don’t give in, and they’re demolished by people like you. Of course, there are some fields where we still have real, reliable research because the peer review process is pretty decent. It just so happens that your pet field has a peer review process that completely refuses to publish anything that is skeptical.

                      Sociology isn’t even so ideological. They’ll at least TEACH Weber before ripping him to shreds, climatologists aren’t even allowed to suggest something that’s not part of the agenda.

                    3. The agenda to confirm that the greenhouse effect is real? The science isn’t even that esoteric. The only reason it’s political is because there is a lot of money at stake. And no I’m not talking about those evil scientists and their Al Gore research grants.

                    4. I’m curious. Do you know any researchers, work at a University, etc.? I know that you don’t have to to know what’s up, but I honestly would like to understand your familiarity with the topic of research in general.

                    5. I have a sufficient background, but currently work in the private sector making money with an eye toward retiring on a boat somewhere before I’m too old to enjoy it.

                      I know that both you and I trust 1,000 different things every day that are the product of scientific research, and that only in this one particular field do you guys turn into absolute mush-brained morons. It is entirely politicized, and it wasn’t the scientists who did that.

                    6. “only in this one particular field do you guys turn into absolute mush-brained morons”

                      Ok…so you don’t have any experience with research then. Thank you for clearing that up.

                    7. What’s your expertise on how research works, Tony? Is that a research facility in your mum’s basement?

                    8. Yes. All fields of research work that way

                      About a year back, maybe 2, I can’t remember for sure now. I was sitting close to some researchers, at lunch, and I overheard one of them say at least 5 times, ‘and [this] is the type of results that [this entity] wants to see.’ I will add that I know who [this entity] is. It wasn’t about climate, but that’s not the point.

                      Yes, it’s how at least some research works. You have to have funding to carry on your research project, a project can go on for decades, I’ve seen it, and sometimes that means getting the results that this [this entity] wants to see.

                      If Tony believes that all research is totally unbiased and that money is not the driving force, then Tony is either willingly or unwillingly ignorant. I also suspect, no matter what he might say on the intertoobs that he has never worked in a research environment and is totally unqualified to comment on the subject.

                    9. If Tony believes that all research is totally unbiased and that money is not the driving force, then Tony is either willingly or unwillingly ignorant.

                      Not true.

                      He’ll gleefully dismiss any research funded by eeevil corporations, because they care only for profits. Thus the research cannot be trusted.

                      Only research paid for by government money can be trusted. Because people in government have no power motive. They only want what is best for everyone.

                    10. He’ll gleefully dismiss any research funded by eeevil corporations, because they care only for profits.

                      Then he’s going to be dismissing a lot of research.

                2. Climatology is only interesting if the temperature is rising.

                  Well, only interesting to the people with the grant money, apparently. I think it is tremendously interesting in any case. Which is why the politicized debate over it pisses me off so much.
                  I find it quite plausible that the climate is warming in some meaningful sense and that people might contribute to that in some way. But I am not at all convinced that climate science is robust and rigorous enough at this point to make any reliable predictions or that any proposed “solutions” will do more good than harm.

                  1. I think you summed it up quite nicely there.

              3. The climate field is essentially the work of modeling and demonstrating global temperatures. Absent any potential crisis related to global temperatures, there is no reason to fund the science.

                1. Being that my expertise revolves aroung Operations Research and Modeling, I understand that a model only does what you tell it to do. A model only demonstrates that if all the assumptions that are modeled are true, then by making a small change in the modeled environment will likely cause a change in the direction that the model indicates. The severity of the change is likely to be completely wrong.

                  The #1 axiom in modeling: Models should never be used to make predictive outcomes. Even heavily tested, proven, and validated models will sometimes show wildly inapropriate and inaccurate outcomes when new parameters are entered, especially when talking about very complicated systems with multiple interactions.

                  A corollary from my fox-hole: Climate Scientists are not modelers.

                  Since most climate science predictions are based on (unproven, unvalidated)models, I call bullshit.

                  1. Same thing applies to predictive modeling with actuaries and insurance companies.

                  2. The #1 axiom in modeling: Models should never be used to make predictive outcomes.

                    This, this, a thousand times this.

                    Models are good at predicting outcomes when the math, and more importantly, the variables are well known.

                    They are HORRIBLE you don’t have all the variables.

          2. Well then keep trusting the ‘experts’, moron. Even though you are of no use to them since you don’t produce anything for them to steal to fund more ‘research’ and crony green projects.

          3. That’s why ‘Tony’ trusts the “experts”.

      3. Well…I can read, so…

      4. Ya, but you’re a fagit.

    2. No. It proves that you’re an evil shitstain who opposes governments making the necessary steps to preserve the future of Earthican life.

      1. ooooooooohhhhhh! Thanks for clearing that up!

    3. It proves that your PhD isn’t real.

      1. Just because I got it in Myanmar doesn’t mean it’s not real!!!!

  28. But CO2 is rising. Shouldn’t it be the warmest July ever?

      1. Thanks. I needed that.

    1. But CO2 is rising. Shouldn’t it be the warmest July ever?

      If the CO2-causes-global-warming hypothesis was correct, yes, we should have seen steadily increasing temperatures world wide. However, since we have not, the hypothesis has been falsified. That is how science actually works.

      1. So what climate science says is that every month must be the hottest on record? Is that what it says? Where did you hear this?

        1. You lying, dishonest little shit. The models claimed that rising CO2 would cause rising temperatures, and that the overall temperatures would be much warmer now than they currently are, due to man-caused greenhouse gasses. In fact, in spite of and contrary to the predictions there has been no net warming since 1998. In science, we call that hypothesis falsified.

          1. If you don’t read the content at this link and cleanse yourself of that debunked nonsense, then I’m going to conclude that you’re not actually interested in being educated on this subject. And you might as well just admit as much.

            1. First, the link is to a website specifically created to poop on climate skeptics…Why would that be credible?

              Second, it’s really poorly written.

            2. Says the moron who doesn’t even understand what science actually is. I have read that crap, it tries to claim, among other things, that the ‘excess’ heat is somehow hiding in the deep ocean, with absolutely no mechanism for the heat to pass through the atmosphere and upper ocean without causing them to warm also. It is nonsense on stilts and just a desperate attempt to try to excuse the failure of their global warming models.
              You see, ‘Tony’ the problem is that you have no clue what science actually is, how it works, or have any ability to read and understand research and hypotheses on your own; while I do. So you just mindlessly go along with whatever suits your political agenda.

              1. True. Tony has zero understanding of what science is. That’s why he defers to the experts. They know what science is, and they took a vote. Therefore they must be right, because they’re like really smart and stuff.

                1. If I get funded for a research project, I can pretty much do what I want. I can add the variables that I want and leave out the ones that I don’t like. As long as I keep getting funded and all of my peers agree with my work, who’s going to stop me? Research is not some holy work where there is never any bias and never the influence of money, like Tony imagines it from his mommies basement. Tony doesn’t live in the real world, like most proggies.

                2. You have an understanding of science that apparently stopped when you read Intro to Science for Dummies in primary school, and you think that’s all there is to it. As I said, you are a perfect Dunning-Kruger specimen.

                  1. What you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul…

              2. So you just mindlessly go along with whatever suits your political agenda

                That pretty much sums it up.

              3. I am not the one coming to the table with religious certainty that government = bad (or government = good). There is a problem, verified with more certainty than many things you take as a given, and there is a conservation to be had about how to deal with that problem.

                If you don’t have anything to add to that conversation, then don’t add anything. You don’t get to select which facts you’d prefer to ignore.

                1. I am not the one coming to the table with religious certainty…

                  You’re coming to the table with religious certainty that not only is the climate changing for the worse, but that human activity is to blame.

                  You’re a disciple of a doomsday cult.

                  1. No I’m coming with the fucking facts on my side.

                    1. Fact: the climate is changing, just as it always has.

                      Fact: human activity is raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

                      The link between the two has not been proven in any verifiable or predictable way. It’s been voted upon by smart people who depend on research grants for their livelihood, but not proven.

                      Them’s the facts, Jack.

                    2. Citation for the claim that there has been no link connecting rising CO2 levels with rising average temperatures? Because I’m pretty sure they settled that a while ago.

                2. You have a right to your own opinions but not your own facts. But with you Tony, the second never materializes because you’re too busy screaming RETARD IGNORANT SCIENCE DENIER BASTARD FUCKIMMORAL FAGITTTTTTT!!!!

                3. Like Fd’A said above, if their “science” was verifiable, then there would be no need for consensus.

                  1. How is it not verifiable? There are numerous means of measuring the change in average global temperature. None of them confirm what you are claiming.

                    1. The cause and effect is not verifiable. The changing temperature is not following the greenhouse gasses as predicted. There is some correlation, but the causation has not been proven. It has been voted upon, but not proven through verifiable science. If it was verifiable and behaved as predicted, then there would be no need for consensus.

                    2. The models are fine. Even if they haven’t been, science improves. What there is absolutely zero evidence for is that 100 years of carbon emissions doesn’t cause any warming, which is essentially what you’re claiming. (You think that going against the consensus isn’t making a positive claim? Not to say an outlandish one?)

                      A consensus is simply what happens when all experts agree on the facts. A consensus of experts means you have to be pretty fucking brilliant to legitimately believe the opposite of what it says. And sorry but you’re not that.

                    3. The models are fine.

                      Uh – huh.

                      Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

                      http://dailycaller.com/2014/02…..z39d8lgC4M

                    4. Forget it, ‘Tony’ is immune to logic, facts, and reason.

                    5. The Daily Caller? Roy Spencer? Okay, I see your two bullshit sources and raise you the entire rest of the field and responsible science reporting. (It can be found at Google.)

                    6. Tony, science is all about things that can be repeated and verified. This guy attempted to repeat and verify predictions based upon the models, and guess what? The models failed.

                      “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein

                      Einstein would have been mocked by today’s “scientific” establishment. I mean, they’ve got consensus. They don’t need any silly experiments.

                    7. Here’s a chart from the IPCC, embedded in the article below, an extract of which I quote:

                      IPCC models getting mushy
                      http://opinion.financialpost.c…..ing-mushy/

                      There has been a lot of talk lately about the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, and whether it will take into account the lack of warming since the 1990s. Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.

                      The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

                    8. The models are fine.

                      Um, no. No they are not. If they were fine then they wouldn’t keep acting surprised when their predictions continue to be wrong. Over and over and over.

                      What there is absolutely zero evidence for is that 100 years of carbon emissions doesn’t cause any warming, which is essentially what you’re claiming.

                      Switching the burden of proof for one!

                      A consensus of experts means you have to be pretty fucking brilliant to legitimately believe the opposite of what it says.

                      Appeal to authority combined with a straw man! Double fallacy points!

                      And sorry but you’re not that.

                      Ad hominem!

                      Quadruple fallacy for the win!

                    9. You might want to read the thread below about the accuracy of the models and especially the posts by briannnnn…

                    10. You might want to read the thread below about the accuracy of the models and especially the posts by briannnnn…

                      You don’t get it. Those climate scientists are really really smart. Tony said so. That’s why they are to be agreed without question. Because they’re really really smart. If you question them then you’re saying you’re smarter than them. Tony certainly knows he’s not smarter than them, so he unquestioningly agrees with everything they say. Libertarians are stupid as a general rule (they question smart people which means they’re stupid), so they couldn’t possibly be smarter than climate scientists. No, Tony’s got nothing to learn.

                    11. Tony doesn’t need to learn anything; experts can learn it for him.

            3. Ocean heat is also well below model predictions.

              http://www.climate-skeptic.com…..n-heat.gif

              And is pretty damn flat over the past 17 years…and the heating is mostly in the deep ocean (below 700 feet)…how global warming in the atmosphere passed through the upper Oceans to heat the deeper oceans without heating the upper the oceans is a pretty big mystery.

  29. Tony is a fagit! Therefore he can no longer comment. Logic

  30. I’m thinking I need to buy a few islands somewhere in the pacific and setup my own 3rd world island nation. Then I can start whining ‘hey look, the ocean is rising, I need billions of dollars to fight global warming!’

    Then a week after receiving my billions I will be sitting in my mansion saying ‘Hey, look there in the driveway at my new sports car, it’s a hybrid car, I’m fighting the warming’!

    Is that the way this works?

    1. That’s kind of how it worked for Al Gore.

      1. Instead of ‘Hey, look there in the driveway at my new sports car, it’s a hybrid car, I’m fighting the warming’!

        It was ‘Hey, look there in the driveway at my private jet… Fuck you guys! I’m buying a TV station!’!

  31. What new crisis do you think the left will invent when this one is finally worn out? I mean, the only meaning they derive from life involves attempting to thwart a moral crisis, so something has to come up! I’m hoping it will be something really cool like laser cats.

    1. I vote for global cooling. It worked 50 years ago.

      1. That’s lazy. I’m hoping the new crop of hipster liberals will come up with something way more awesome. Killer Tomatoes maybe?

        1. The weight of people on the earth is affecting the earth’s tilt and rotation. Pretty soon, the earth will begin wobbling, and then spin out of control, bouncing from star to star.

    2. Another ‘population bomb’, most likely. Malthus never gets old.

  32. The problem with climate models are that they do not predict very reliably because they ignore the time series aspects of the data.

    A nice paper explaining this can be had here:

    http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/dow…..552522.pdf

    From the abstract: “Time series models perform strongly, and structural deficiencies in the (added: atmospheric-ocean general circulation models) AOGCM forecasts are identified using encompassing tests.”

    1. I’d be interested to see how they demonstrate that CO2 output or temperature are stationary variables.

      CO2 has a clear trend and temperature looks like it follows a random walk. I wonder if there is second-order stationarity.

      Also, do they include time as a variable? I’ve looked at some of the papers and they generally look like they were written by folks who know very little about forecasting. Mostly cross-sectional analysis.

      1. I’m not a time series econometrician but the over-arching point is that these methods have been somewhat ignored in the climate literature. Apparently, TSE techniques are the “new thing” with climate scientists.

        I guess another point is that it’s probably better to use some sort of econometric method than none at all but that is obviously open to debate.

        1. They’re the new thing? So how did they build their models in the first place? Just cross-sectional regression?

          1. Apparently, climate scientists use simultaneous partial differential equation models, i.e. PDE’s that have some feedback mechanism.

            AFAIK, no climate model uses an econometric model as it’s base strategy. They are almost all deterministic. A simple random walk model (according to the paper I linked) does better than the models currently in use.

            Again, I’m not a climate modeler but this is what I have seen and heard from those familiar. I was a bit incredulous when I first leaned this and I think

            1. Absolutely absurd. They’re basically calling a Wiener process a predictive model. That would be like using Black-Schoels to predict what option prices will be in the future. It makes absolutely no sense.

              1. By “They’re” do you mean the climate scientists or the authors of the forecasting paper?

                Again, this may be the source of the problem with the predictions…

                As for Black-Scholes don’t give them any ideas…

                1. I mean climate scientists. The authors of the forecasting paper seem pretty well informed.

                  1. I though that’s what you meant…

                    I’m pretty shocked that a good time series person hasn’t caught on to this although I do not follow the literature closely enough.

              2. No, the climate models, or GCM’s, are basically fluid and heat transfer models. The core dynamics are Navier Stokes, and I’m not sure exactly how they handle the heat transfer but based on their gridding it appears to be just straight forward FEM or finite volume methods. The problem is how do you capture things like cloud formation and aerosols (both volcanic and man-made). So those, along with CO2, become the fudge factors–sorry, adjustment parameters to the models to match the temperature record over which they are trained. The beauty is that there were trained during a natural warming cycle so they like to read hot. That’s why they’re struggling so badly in the cooling phase.

                The only major regression model that I know of is MAGICC which is unfortunately also used for policy decisions.

                1. I am giddy that their regression model is called magick

  33. My electricity bill each month show this years average temp vs last years avg temp. July was 3 degrees cooler in 2014 than 2013. 3 degrees! Where’s the disconnect?

    1. It was much hotter than normal somewhere else, though, which accounts for world temperatures being the fifth hottest in July. At least, that’s the claim.

      Just remember, for you to have had a nice July, someone else in the world suffered! SUFFERED! So feel bad, you jerk.

  34. The physics of thermalization explain why CO2 change has no significant effect on average global temperature.

    Two natural drivers have been identified that do explain measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with R^20.9 (95% correlation) and credible values back to 1610. Global Warming ended before 2001. The current trend is down.

    The method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (to 2037) are provided at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and references.

    1. “The physics of thermalization explain why CO2 change has no significant effect on average global temperature.”

      I don’t know what this means. Thermalization of the atmosphere? That in and of itself doesn’t impact whether or not CAGW is real or if CO2 is an infrared absorber.

      A 90sec read of your site looks to be on the right track but I’d have to look a lot closer at your claim of 90% R^2.

      1. Thermalization is when a gas molecule absorbs a photon and then bumps into another molecule (a process akin to thermal conduction) before it emits a photon.

        From the kinetic theory of gases, the average amount of time that passes between gas molecule collisions at atmospheric temperature and pressure is calculated to be less than 0.1 microseconds.

        There are 2500 non-CO2 molecules for each CO2 molecule. When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon the CO2 molecule is approximately 2500 * 1000 / 0.1 = 2.5E7 times more likely that the energy acquired by a CO2 molecule when it absorbs a terrestrial photon will be thermalized than it will appear as an emitted photon.

        Thus, essentially all photon energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalized which explains why analysis shows that change to the atmospheric CO2 level has no significant effect on climate.

    2. Getting an R^2 of .9 for a single variable regression is ridiculous.

      1. Did you not notice that there are two (2) variables? And it is not a linear regression.

        The coefficient of determination, R2, is a measure of how accurately the calculated average global temperatures compare with measured. R2 0.9 is very accurate.

        You are welcome to check the method and arithmetic. What will you think when you find out that it is valid and correct?

  35. Here’s the thing. Even if global warming is real… Even if humans are causing it…

    Until YOU (Tony and leftist) shutoff your electricity, stop driving anywhere, and using any modern product, and I mean ANY (because everything you use is either made from plastic or affected by oil in some way), then SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

    Because it doesn’t matter, does it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.