GISS Continues To Plummet Below Scenario C

GISS June is out. Year to date average is 0.50, which would place 2012 as the second lowest year since 2004 if the year finished there.

The graph below shows the five year running mean of GISS  in red, with the last two years tacked on at the end (0.51 and 0.50)

Temperatures continue to plummet below Hansen’s Scenario C – which represents humans having disappeared off the planet twelve years ago. The only possible interpretation being that human generated CO2 has little or nothing to do with global temperatures.

Our alarmist friends, being the crooks that they are, will continue to pretend that they don’t notice this disaster.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to GISS Continues To Plummet Below Scenario C

  1. Jim Pettit ("Neapolitan") says:

    “The only possible interpretation being that human generated CO2 has little or nothing to do with global temperatures.”

    Well, that could be one possible interpretation, I suppose, (though it flies in the face of known physics). Another possible interpretation is that you’re not aware of a climatological phenomenon known as “La Nina”.

    • suyts says:

      Uhhmm…. Lmao…. La Nina? So Jimmy failed to include ENSO effect in his calcs? Or did he only calclulate El Nino? ……. That’s a horribly sophist argument. BTW, ENSO is positive right now.

    • La Nina is a normal part of natural variability, but the point is moot. Most of the below Scenario C time since 1998, ENSO has been positive.

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        My professor at SUNYA always wanted to reference EN and SO as decoupled. One has a description of origin, the other (as yet) does not.

        Anyway Hansen simply added some local maxima and minima to make himself look more “credible.” He cannot simulate the past, for Heaven’s sake, why should he simulate the future

    • Lou says:

    • Jim,

      Have you realised that last years La Nina finished about 6 months ago and that we have had a weak El Nino for for the last couple of months that is struggling to maintain itself.

      The reality is that temperatures rose during the warm PDO ( with lots of El Ninos) from about 1980 to 2005 (which rise of course was blamed on CO2). Now that we are gradually tipping into the cold PDO, La Ninas will become more commonplace, with colder years a regular event.

  2. And the “lukewarmers” will also continue to pretend, that there is a greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide–just not a “catastrophic” one. Well, as a real scientist, I say anyone who thinks there is ANY such global-temperature-raising greenhouse effect, is incompetent and should be thrown out of science. Once again, my comparison of temperatures in the tropospheres of Venus and Earth, here–which should have been done by any competent, interested scientist 20 years ago–is the definitive evidence, that makes the “no greenhouse effect at all” obvious. If there were a greenhouse effect, it would ADD to the temperature in Venus’s atmosphere (which has over 2400 times, or over 11 doublings of, Earth’s carbon dioxide concentration), but in fact the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a CONSTANT, and even more amazing, that constant is PRECISELY, physically explained by the two planets’ relative distances from the Sun, and nothing else. Until that is faced, there is no viable climate science at all.

    I am also still waiting for someone to find independently what I suggested many months ago, that the global temperature record is really not that at all, but only an unrecognized proxy for the multidecadal ocean oscillations, and that is really why the former and the latter are so well correlated since the 17th century. I am sadly amused that the surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere–which I confirmed in my Venus/Earth analysis–is 288.15K, and has been for a century, and that is higher than the supposed mean global surface temperature, even after a century of “global warming”.

    Unfortunately, the climate “debate” is just so many barking dogs, unwilling to learn anything but only wanting to defend their respective territories. (The consensus is thus a “Lord of the Flies” phenomenon: Out of control children, really, without any responsible parental authority.)

  3. slimething says:

    Mosher and Zeke are doing their usual bloviating.

    For instance, Bill Illis calls Zeke on his phony graph:

    Steve, your version of U.S. adjustments appear to be much more extreme than Bill Illis’. Is he using a different version? Is there “raw data” and “REALLY raw data”?

    • The monthly raw temperatures are lower in the 1930s than the daily raw data. I have no idea how they did that.

      Bill’s graph is degrees C – mine is degrees F

  4. Andy DC says:

    Hansen will simply ramp up his adjustments and exptrapolations so the temps fit his pretermined result. Maybe the Red Sox should adjust and extrapolate their number of runs in order to win the pennant. Maybe Obama will adjust and extrapolate the vote so he will win next time.

    • Dave N says:

      ..or he’ll just put in some “human effects” bars close to the observed temps. Problem solved.

Leave a Reply