It was to be expected: the super El Nino caused a lot of heat, which is now ascribed to climate change. Climate scientists have become so predictable that you can wonder how they still dare to call themselves scientists.
“Global temperatures in 2015 were the hottest in modern times,” There are a few problems with this statement. First: what exactly are global temperatures? I know Australia was hot and the same applied to large areas in the southern hemisphere. But I don’t recall any messages in the news that Europe and North-America were particularly hot, though they didn’t seem to have a very cold winter either. But to call the winter in the northern hemisphere hot is quite a stretch. The second problem is of course “in modern times”. What about the not-so-modern times? I’m not talking about long ago, but let’s say 150 years. That’s still way before the temperature records started, as the earliest records date from the late 1800’s. But scientists have a habit of ignoring inconvenient facts and climate scientists are particularly skilled with this.
“leading them to believe there are other reasons for the rise in heat.” And there we go again. Since when do scientists base their statements on beliefs? You can’t have your cake and eat it. Either you do science, or you believe things, but these two don’t go together. So professor Karoly, come back when you have facts.
“hotter globally than any of the months in 1997 and 1998 associated with this previous El Nino,” I always read that El Nino is limited to the Southern Hemisphere. I grew up in Europe and never ever was this weather phenomenon mentioned as influencing our weather. So how can El Nino influence global temperatures? It seems like the professor is mixing up some things.
“It could be natural variability” Good guess! Considering that you only have temperature records for a little more than 100 years and that those records are not reliable for this purpose I would say that natural variability is by far the most realistic explanation. “when we look at the long-term records”. Professor, which long-term records? “warming of about nine tenths of a degree over the last 100 years.” Can I give you a hint here? Look up “Little Ice Age”. Wouldn’t you think it’s normal that the temperatures go up at the end of an ice age? Actually 0.9 degree is remarkably little. It shows that actually the temperatures have increased less than you would expect after a very cold period.
“that’s exactly what we would expect from global warming.” That’s also what you can expect from loads of other influences, but climate scientists per definition only look at the possibility of climate change. That’s what their job is about. They aren’t paid to look for other explanations.
“it depends which data set you look at” So you admit that there are different data sets and you just choose the one that suits you the best? Wow, and you call yourself a scientist. You should better get a job in a lolly shop. Then you can pick and mix as much as you want.
“Professor Karoly said the Earth had been hotter in the past, if scientists were to go back millions of years.” Now the professor shows how much out of touch he is with real data. It’s not disputed that there was a Medieval Warm Period, which ended some 600 years ago. That’s not quite millions of years. And there are no vinyards in northern England right now, so it looks like it’s not remotely as warm as it was 1000 years ago.
“since scientists have had long-term observational records covering most of the Earth’s surface;” So that’s since 1980. 36 years of observations and he talks millions of years. The professor needs to go back to school to learn some basic maths, like the difference between 10 and 1,000,000.
But no matter the amount of rubbish the professor produces, I’m sure he will come with similar stories next month. After all, March was very hot in the Southern Hemisphere and spring started quite early in the Northern Hemisphere. Take those two together and the global temperature records will be broken again. Like I said at the beginning of this blog: it’s predictable.