Liar.

I didn’t look at any datasets at all, I simply found two differing figures for the same 1997 GAT in an official NOAA/NCEI report and on their website and I don’t think this was an error, misprint or typo. I think that sometime between then and now, NOAA have adjusted the 1997 temperature downwards by nearly 5°F.
I just wanted to know why they would do that within a 26 year timeframe?

No, the downvoters reacted this way because he does this on every article he can find and most us have read the exact same post of his over a dozen times already. Even a bot would vary it a bit.

Maryam Moshiri may well be looking for alternative employment in the New Year…

I’m sure your wife must love these games of yours but I’m not playing. You can keep your ‘demerits’ and your tomfoolery to yourself.

If that was the case, that it was just for the summer of 1997, why was it repeatedly referred to as the ‘annual average temperature’, the ‘1997 annual global average temperature’ and ‘1997 global temperature’. Sorry Richard, you’ve lied one too many times with this.

I never at any point wrote that there was ‘cooling since 1975’ – you made this up; basically you lied about me, made up something I’ve never written and humiliated yourself on a public forum. You stupid, self-serving, lying idjit.

I think it may have been on a twitter feed but not sure. It is, however, representative of some ‘scientists’ that have publicly said that observations may be wrong and a theory or model may be more accurate – check the internet, lots of examples. I think climate enthusiasts don’t like real world observations as they’re messy and don’t fall into neat little boxes like computer models do (I know several computer programmers that think along similar lines).

I Don’t Know?

“the target of 1.5°C warming from pre-industrial levels” So 359 AD would be considered “Pre-Industrial Times”. Spanish and Italian researchers recorded ratios of magnesium to calcite taken from skeletonized amoebas in marine sediments, an indicator of seawater temperatures, in the Sicily Channel. requests from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess the impact of historically warmer conditions between 1.5°C to 2°C warmer than today. 

So reset that baseline, we have 3.0 to 3.5 °C more to go.

The Met Office proposes adding just 10 years’ past data to forecasts from a climate model

But when the Met Office unveiled their latest update:[Even Newer Dynamics for General atmospheric modelling of the environment (ENDGame)] they mistakenly made this comment.

New Dynamics has served us well over more than a decade: not only have we continued to improve the skill of our large scale forecasts at the rate of 1 day lead time per decade (so for example today’s 3 day forecast is as accurate as the 2 day forecast was 10 years ago) but we have seen the introduction of a very high resolution (1-1/2 km) model over the UK which provides unprecedented levels of detail to our forecasters.

So at this rate they will be able to get a 7 day forecast just a accurate as todays 2 day forecast in only 40 more years and 3,660 years to get to 10 year forecasts. Now if they could just get an accurate 2 day forecast they might have something to sell.

Is this the same “Richard Betts”, who heads the Climate Impacts area of the UK Met Office, claims his areas of expertise as a climate modeler and was one of the lead authors of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (WG2). Says –

“Everyone (Apart from a few who think that observations of a decade or three of small forcing can be extrapolated to indicate the response to long-term larger forcing with confidence) agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know. The old-style energy balance models got us this far. We can’t be certain of large changes in future, but can’t rule them out either.”

So the Plan is based on “We Don’t Know.”

Any need to resort to this sort of language? Honestly.

I trust UAH

Yet apparently you don’t. Because UAH shows statistically significant warming.

My favorite was Dessler saying that if observations differed from model output the observations must be wrong. 

Where and when did he say that, please?

Can you link to your source?

In that book, the totalitarian regime of Oceania is able to manipulate their citizens into believing anything, which gives the regime as much power as they could possibly want. 

Right here we have a website that convinces people to disbelieve the evidence of their own experiences.

Who’s being fooled here, exactly?

I haven’t even mentioned NOAA; you did that all by yourself.

What you are failing to address is that UAH, the WUWT poster-child of climate data sets, says more or less exactly the same thing as all the surface data sets.

Statistically significant and on-going global warming.

What say ye to that, RG?

Every time this Australia UAH chart gets pushed here it has a new start date.

A couple of months ago it started in March 2012; but I guess we’ve moved on.

Bring on the non working Orbo from Steorn…not

I think the UKMO use Hadcrut5 1850-1900 as their anomaly base for the 1.5C. If so, then on monthly records anyway, it has already been surpassed a few times this year.

Because 1850 is as far as we can go back with reasonable global temperature estimates based on instruments.

We are almost certainly warmer in the last six months of 2023 and probably warmer for the past 10 years.

Local proxy climate reconstructions have large margins of errors. They also have lower variations when averaged to create a fake global average.

The reconstructions claim the prior warming periods, after the Holocene Climate Optimum ended 5000 years ago, were about +0.5 degrees warmer than the past 10 years. That claim is statistically insignificant and proves nothing.

THERE IS ALSO NO DEFINITIVE PROOF THOSE WARMING PERIODS WERE COEPLETELY GLOBAL

I do not believe in global conclusions based on inaccurate, questionable local proxy data.

Only when you cherry pick the start and stop date to suite your purposes.