ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS:

“OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”

In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.

He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.

There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.

Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.

Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).

Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.

DATA FALSIFICATION

When arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).

But now we have Nakamura.

The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com.

Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”

Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.

The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.

As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.

The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.

NAKAMURA ON CO2

He writes:

“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”

Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.

“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle — arm yourself with the facts, and spread them.

Facts such as these little nuggets (all lifted/paraphrased from the book):

“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”

“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”

“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”

SOLAR FORCING

Solar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.

As Roy Spencer, PhD. eloquently writes:

“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

The cold times appear to be returning, in line with historically low solar activity.

NASA has warned that this next solar cycle (25) will be “the weakest of the past 200 years”:

Meaning, the sun will be the weakest it's been since the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s. This period was the end of The Little Ice Age which began with the Maunder Minimum, a period of more than 150 years with very little sunspot activity.

NASA Pulls Climate Data Out of Hats Like Rabbits

Historical temperature data post 2015 look very different from pre-2015 data

By Dr. Jay Lehr 

Late last year NASA scientist Martin Mlynczak, announced that the Earth may be cooling. It was surprise because data manipulation has been going on for many years at both NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency) and NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Agency).

The most current temperature curves produced by these agencies track well with the increases in man’s carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades. However a few years earlier the data presented looked nothing like that of more recent times.

For years Climate activists in charge of NOAA and NASA were surprised that their own data and satellite measurements had been showing the climate to be stable or cooling since 1998 while CO2 levels had continued to rise. They were under intense pressure to explain how this could be in the face of all the alarmist reports put out by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

It was time to resort to the strategy that progressives use in times of crisis. If you do not like the facts, ignore them. 

The publication Frontiers of Freedom in their February 23, 2016 issue documented what has been done in an article by T. Richard titled “How NOAA Rewrote Climate Data to Hide Global Warming Pause”.

The falsification of climate data by NOAA and NASA covers more than just the past decade. The U.S. has published temperature data beginning in 1880 up to the present. Tony Heller shows how their data has been tinkered with many times in past years, in The History of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption.

The graph of the NASA data from 1880 to the year 2000 (below) was posted in 1999. On the same chart is the data NASA posted for the very same years in 2016. This obvious alteration of reality should be an embarrassment to NASA, but it appears not to be.NASA pulls climate data out of hats like rabbits

Representative Lamar Smith former chair of the House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee demanded that NOAA and NASA produce their data for independent analysis. NOAA refused to release the subpoenaed documents. Judicial Watch has sued NOAA under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to their data. So far nothing has been turned over.

The climate curve recalculated in 2016 is now in complete agreement with the global warming movement. The cooling trend between 1940 and 1970 has been eliminated. 

Remember my article revealing 30 year temperature cycles? This cooling trend roughly lines up with the one I pointed out in 2015. To be followed by a warming period of 30 years through to near the end of the century, then another cooling (or non-warming) cycle which we are in now. it should last until about 2030 whereupon, the cooling temperatures of the upper atmosphere may well reach the earths surface. The greenhouse effect may temper the cooling trend along with the 30 year cycle, but many scientists around the world are more concerned about global cooling than global warming. Certainly, if the sun-spot minimum lasts more than 30 or 40 years, the latter part of this century may be much cooler than most people expect.

The data now show that temperatures are increasing along with our rising carbon dioxide. The new curve shows the Earth’s temperature increased 1.4 degrees C since 1880. Temperatures that are out of line with the prediction of alarmists are gradually and systematically adjusted and replaced by corrected computer generated temperatures. Children who are fed this new data are being recruited to beg us to save their futures.

Children are also being stressed out that the world will come to an end if they don't act now. What kind of evil craziness is that? Major media outlets and governments are deliberately raising the panic level among children. It is extremely irresponsible.

The truth seeping out from NASA was first reported in the New American magazine by James Murphy in October of 2018 where he quoted Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center saying “High above Earths’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold”. 

Major media outlets completely ignored this information.

This new revelation comes from NASA’s SABER instrument aboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. In plain talk SABER stands for Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry and TIMED stands for the Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics.

SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide which are two of the gases that play a major role in releasing energy from the thermosphere at the top of our atmosphere which encapsulates our planets heat. Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER said “the thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimums. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle effects our planet”. Solar Minimums as the words would indicate are periods of less activity spawning a decrease in radiation launched toward the Earth.

While pondering this surprise comment from NASA in a January 30, 2019 post, author Michael Sherlock said “all any of this proves is that we have at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s alright to step back, take a deep breadth, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate.”

Author
Dr. Jay Lehr
Jay Lehr is the author of more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government, as well as many foreign countries. He is a leading authority on groundwater hydrology.

Apollo Astronaut & Scientist Rejects IPCC Climate Report

Corruption is Everywhere - Yes, Even in Science

Always comforting to have a world class scientist agree with

what I have been saying for years

Anthony Watts, wattsupwiththat.com

Apollo 17 moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt rejects UN climate report: ‘The observations that we make as geologists…do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this’

NYT asks Geologist and Moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt about UN IPCC report:

The New York Times’ Nicholas St. Fleur: “…as one of the leading climate change deniers, when there was a huge report that just came out last week [talking about] the risk and what is going to happen … as soon as 2040. I’d love to know if you see any irony in your views on people who denied man walking on the moon vs. your views on climate change.”

Schmitt:

“I see no irony at all. I’m a geologist. I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is. It has gone through climate change, it is going through climate change at the present time. The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change? Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence.”

“The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns…”

The observations that we make as geologists,

and observational climatologists,

do not show any evidence

that human beings are causing this.

“I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the U.S. government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear. That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today, and it’s not just in climate. I see it in my own lunar research.”…

Funding by governments, particularly the U.S. government,

is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear.

“If NASA’s interested in a particular conclusion, then that’s the way the proposals come in for funding. 

So it’s a very, very serious issue, and I hope the science writers in this room will start to dig deeply into whether or not science has been corrupted by the source of funds that are now driving what people are doing in research, and what their conclusions are.”

Tens of Thousands Of Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax

by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in Sci/Environment  YourNewsWire

30,000 scientists declare man-made climate change a hoax

and that's just in America

A staggering 30,000 scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money. 

One of the experts is weather channel founder, John Coleman, who warns that huge fortunes are being made by man-made climate change proponents such as Al Gore.

Natural News reports:

In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Coleman said:

“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years.”

Unfortunately, President Obama has somehow already ratified the Paris Accord as announced in China yesterday. How did he do that? Once 16 or so more countries ratify the accord, it will become law and a portion of American sovereignty will be ceded to an unelected UN panel. This, some say, will be the first step in forming a one-world government.

Climate change proponents remain undeterred in their mission, ignoring numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.

Al Gore’s dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.


Debunking the “97 percent” lie

On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.

More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.

From the National Review:

“A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.”

Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda – even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.

And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.

Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity. Nor CO2 levels. 

Northumbria U's Prof Zarkhova reports the same findings, even predicting that a cooling cycle has begun (El Nino not withstanding).


Al Gore and cronies continue getting richer from the global warming hoax

But the global warming crowd continues to push their agenda on the public while lining their pockets in the process. If you’re still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his crusade, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 – largely due to investments in fake “green tech” companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.

Ah, but his motives are entirely altruistic; I'm sure; I think; maybe.

You might want to take all of this information into serious consideration before casting your vote in the November election.

NASA, IPCC Needlessly Creating Panic About Global Warming

It has become my position that the global warming phenomenon is severely over-hyped, in particular, man's responsibility for it. 

We have reported that the IPCC predicted a 1.0 degree C rise in the global temperature between 1990 and 2025. 

Up to this winter's El Nino event (which is an outlier) the global temperature had risen only about 0.2 deg from 1990. 

That means the temperature has to rise by 0.8 deg. in the next 9 years which is precisely the rise in the global temperature since 1880 - 135 years. It would be astonishing to see a temperature rise equal to the 135 year rise in just 9 years. 

In fact, the 30 year cycle I identified of temperatures climbing then holding steady would indicate that there will be no significant temperature rise between about 2000 and 2030. This has been born-out as there has been no real temperature rise since 1998.

Now here is another near hysterical prediction by arguably the world's number one climate expert. NASA's James Hanson was quoted in the Chicago Tribune in 1988 saying that the mid-west US would suffer from very high temperatures and drought in the next decade and beyond. 

What actually happened?

Obviously the number of very hot days in the mid-west decreased over the next 25 years or so.

But what about precipitation, was he right on that?

It's obvious, at first glance, that precipitation has increased since the 1930s. Below normal precipitation is indicated by the brown bars, above normal by the green bars. You don't even have to look at the blue trend line to see the obvious.

In spite of being out to lunch on their predictions, NASA and the IPCC continue to scare gullible public and governments alike with frightening scenarios in time frames that are completely unjustifiable. Neither are they justified in blaming anthropomorphic pollution for the entire rise in global temperature. If we have contributed to the rise in temperature, I suspect that it is so infinitesimal an increment that it is beyond our capability to measure. 

So now the question is, is their science that bad, or are they intentionally attempting to create panic?

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale

Global warming invented by tampering 

with the raw temperature data records?

Does the conspiracy go that far?

James Hanson, CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images

by JAMES DELINGPOLE

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

The most commonly used ones were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

It just happens that for 13 years I was responsible for quality controlling climate data for British Columbia and the Yukon. That stopped abruptly in 2008. They no longer wanted QC done by experienced professionals. It is all done by computers now.

Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.

Curious. The heat island effect results in raising temperatures in cities. Adjusting for it would mean lowering the temperatures which is counter to what they are accusing NASA of doing. Of course, there is some wiggle room in how much those adjustments are.

As you can probably tell, I am convinced of the conspiracy to blame global warming on anthropogenic sources, but I'm not convinced that the scheme goes this far. Common sense dictates that the planet is warming if only by observing the dramatic increase in intensities of various storms. Hurricanes seem to be more intense; even local thunderstorms are at times far more intense than in the past. I have documented that fact myself in British Columbia. Both intensity increases almost certainly have to do with warming temperatures.

Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.

Unadjusted temperature record: shows cooling trend.

Adjusted temperature record: shows warming trend.

For still more evidence of NASA’s adjustments, check out Alterations to Climate Data at Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science.

Weird 'Music' from the Dark Side of the Moon

Apollo 10 declassified tapes to reveal puzzling ‘musical’ transmission from Moon’s dark side

© Project Apollo Archive

Another reminder of space being a creepy place has been presented in the lost Apollo 10 tapes – the mission that circled over to the dark side of the Moon. The tapes contain strange ‘music’ that was received out of Earth’s signal reach.

The mission happened in May just ahead of Apollo 11’s 1969 moon landing two months later. The recordings recovered from Apollo 10 were only declassified in 2008 and will now be played on the Science Channel’s Unexplained Files coming up later this month.

So, what was strange about those recordings? Besides the fact that they contained a very musical dance of frequencies and noise, it was the fact that they could not have come from any manmade source, as there’s no radio signal on the far side of the Moon. This means also that astronauts can’t talk to Earth and are effectively alone in outer space for the duration of their time there.

In 1969, two months before Neil Armstrong would set foot on the moon, Apollo 10 was cruising just above the lunar surface when the crew was surprised by a “whistling sound.” The three astronauts discuss the incident at length in the upcoming show.

Al Worden, astronaut with Apollo 15, explains: “There are recorders that record whatever’s going on on the back side, and then you do a data dump when you come around the front side, and Houston or mission control then can see what happened when you were around the back side.”

The “music” transmission lasted for almost an hour, and had the crew talking about whether NASA needed to know at all what they had heard. "It's unbelievable! You know?” they confess. Almost five decades later there is still no clue as to the source.

When the three eventually got back, they opted not to tell NASA, which could be a smart move, seeing as the agency could have had them remanded into custody and kept from flying because of concerns for their mental state.

The debate will rage on in the upcoming episode of ‘NASA’s Unexplained Files’, as scientists continue to discuss the more prominent theories: one possible one is that charged particles were interacting with a magnetic field, the way they did on Jupiter and Saturn. There’s of course one problem here: the Moon has no magnetic field or atmosphere of any kind.

Time will tell.

Heat Record: 2015 was Hottest Year by Huge Margin, Sort of

El Nino partly to blame, but human activity was the main driver, NASA and NOAA scientists say
The Associated Press 

Caution: there is a lot more hot air in this article than just the global temperature!

2015's global average temperature was the hottest ever by the widest margin on record, NASA and NOAA reported Wednesday.

Last year wasn't just the Earth's hottest year on record — it left a century of high temperature marks in the dust.

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and NASA announced Wednesday that 2015 was by far the hottest year in 136 years of record keeping.

NOAA said 2015's average temperature was 
14.79 degrees Celsius (58.62 degrees Fahrenheit), passing 
2014 by a record margin of 0.16 C (0.29 F). 
That's 0.90 C (1.62 F) above the 20th-century average. NASA, which measures differently, said 2015 was 0.13 C (0.23 F) warmer than the record set in 2014.

A graphic shows what parts of the Earth were warmer and cooler than average in 2015. It was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. (Scientific Visualization Studio/Goddard Space Flight Center)

Because of the wide margin over 2014, NASA calculated that 2015 was a record with 94 per cent certainty, about double the certainty it had last year when announcing 2014 as a record.

Just want to point out that measuring the temperature of the earth's surface is an extremely complex process. That NASA and NOAA use different methods of calculating the global temperature and still come up with similar results should inspire a little confidence. 

The 94% certainty announced by NASA ought to also inspire some confidence although one wonders why the process requires a certainty rating in the first place. It would imply a certain amount of 'estimation' or perhaps, 'guesstimation' involved in the calculations. Such estimations could be influenced by the hope of a desired outcome.

4th record in 11 years

Although 2015 is now the hottest on record, it was the fourth time in 11 years that Earth broke annual marks for high temperature.

"It's getting to the point where breaking record is the norm," Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said. "It's almost unusual when we're not breaking a record."

A boy cools off in a public fountain in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 16, 2015, when temperatures reached a record-breaking 42.8 degrees Celsius. The sharp temperature increase in 2015 was driven in part by El Nino, scientists say. (Pilar Olivares/Reuters)

Scientists blame a combination of El Nino and increasing man-made global warming.

Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University said a strong El Nino, like this year's, can add about a third of a degree of warming to Earth's temperature.

This year's El Nino is currently the 2nd strongest on record (since 1950) and is very close to the strongest El Nino on record in 1997/98. That event caused a temperature rise of about 2/3rds of a degree above the norm, and above the 1997 temperature, not 1/3rd.

This year's increase of 0.16 or 0.13 degrees above the 2014 temperature is 1/6th to 1/8th of a degree. For such a strong El Nino, one might have expected more. 

Certainly, El Nino is not done yet and there is a bit of a lag in temperatures, so 2016 may well make up some of that short-fall; it will be interesting to watch. But as with all El Nino events, the temperature will drop the following year to normal levels leaving 2017 to be a cool year.

"Records will happen during El Nino years due to the extra warming boost they provide," Mann said in an email. "That boost of warmth however sits upon the ramp of global warming."

He's correct here, certainly, although the statement, "increasing man-made global warming", has yet to be proven. That ANY global  warming is anthropogenic has yet to be proven. Since only 3-4% of all CO2 that enters the atmosphere is caused by man's activities, any influence on the global temperature could only be very slight, if at all.

Prof Murry Salby has clearly shown that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a consequence of increased temperature, not the other way about. That is, increased CO2 follows increased temperature because most CO2 comes out of the ground and its production increases with the temperature of the ground, and to a lesser degree, the moisture content.

And it's likely to happen this year, too. NASA scientists and others said there's a good chance that this year will pass 2015 as the hottest year on record, thanks to El Nino.

Road markings appear distorted during a heat wave, in New Delhi, India, 27 May 2015. At that time, more than 1,150 people were reported dead from the heat wave. (Harish Tyagi/EPA)

"2015 will be difficult to beat, but you say that almost every year and you get surprised," said Victor Gensini, a meteorology professor at the College of DuPage outside of Chicago.

Measurements from Japan and the University of California at Berkeley also show 2015 is the warmest on record. Satellite measurements, which scientists say don't measure where we live and have a larger margin of error, calculate that last year was only the third hottest since 1979.

Satellite measurements are used to calculate the temperature of the lower atmosphere and not just the surface of the earth. There are many issues affecting the accuracy of these calculations which is why it has a larger margin of error. Nevertheless, it is curious that satellite measurements found 2015 to be only the 3rd warmest year on record.

A heat wave took a heavy toll in Pakistan.

A man attempts to cool off in the worst heat wave to hit Karachi, Pakistan, in 35 years. There were more than 1,000 deaths as of June 25, with temperatures as high as 45 C since June 20. (Akhtar Soomro/Reuters)

Record-breaking heat hit Europe, too.

People cool off at Virgen de Regla beach in Chipiona, Spain, on Aug. 1, 2015 as locals and vacationers alike flock to the coast to beat a heat wave that has been bringing consistently high temperatures to parts of Europe this summer. (Marcelo del Pozo/Reuters)

Antarctica Gaining More Ice Than Losing – NASA

Now this is curious

© Deborah Zabarenko
Reuters

Antarctica has been accumulating more ice than it’s been losing in recent decades, a new study by NASA has revealed, challenging existing theories on climate change and rises in sea levels.
The paper, entitled “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses,” was published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday.

The authors of the study, who are from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland and Sigma Space Corporation, analyzed satellite data showing that Antarctica gained 112 billion tons of ice annually from 1992 to 2001.

There was a slowdown in accumulation from 2003 to 2008, but gains still stood at solid 82 billion tons of ice per year during that period, the paper said.

Lead author and NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally stressed that the results don’t mean that Antarctica will continue gain ice perpetually, as the trend could reverse in just a couple of decades.

Contradicting IPCC (gasp)

The findings of NASA’s survey contradict previous research, including that of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which warned that Antarctica’s ice sheets were melting and causing sea levels to rise.

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Jay Zwally, lead author of the paper and NASA glaciologist, said in a press-release.

“But this is also bad news,” he stressed. “If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.” (If, in fact, you can actually measure sea levels to within a quarter of a millimeter).

The scientists calculated the Antarctic ice gains by studying the height of its ice sheet, which was measured using radar instruments on two European Space Agency satellites from 1992 to 2001, and laser sensors on a NASA satellite from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally disagreed with earlier attempts to attribute rises in land elevation in Antarctica to snowfall.

The NASA team analyzed meteorological data from as far back as 1979, which revealed that snow accumulation on the continent has been declining.

This makes thicker ice the logical explanation for Antarctic land elevation, the survey said.

The paper also pointed out the difficulties in measuring the height of ice in Antarctica, saying that improved tools are needed to better perform the task.

The US space agency is currently developing a new satellite capable of a more accurately measuring long-term changes in ice in Antarctica.

ICESat-2, which will be able to “measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” is planned for launch in 2018, according to NASA glaciologist Tom Neumann.

Top Scientist Resigns from Post - Admits Global Warming is a Scam

There is no Global Warming

I am a long ways from being convinced on this, but I am open-minded enough to listen to the arguments. Are you?

Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus UCSB

As reported by the Gateway Pundit: Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don't like this stuff getting out).

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence - it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it...

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

Forbes Energy & Environment
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

James Taylor ,CONTRIBUTOR

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.