mhaze

The graph in attached article shows how NASA, NOAAA, Met Office, Cowan and Way and Berkley Earth all show the same trend in relation to temperature increase.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/record-hot-2015-glimpse-future-global-warming.html

The Japanese Meteorological Agency has stated that 2015 has been the warmest year on record and 2014 was the second warmest.

Nature has a habit of doing the same; for example positive temperatures in winter at Svalbard Airport around Christmas time. Svalbard is within the Arctic Circle and temperatures above 0C were measured, 20C above normal for a number of days.
Sea ice extent for the Arctic and Antarctic are low at present; lowest ever for Arctic since satellites have been used, and Antarctic sea ice is below the long term average at present.

Leo

James Taylor is employed by Heartlands which obtains funds to create doubt in relation to science. He is not a scientist.

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/james-taylor-2015-was-not-even-close-to-hottest-year-on-record/

Taylor has written garbage about sea ice extent as well just to show how unreliable his articles are:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/

Sea ice extent can be obtained from:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"The graph in attached article shows how NASA, NOAAA, Met Office, Cowan and Way and Berkley [sic] Earth all show the same trend in relation to temperature increase."

So what? They all use the same data. Some of them then do their own manipulations, some just configure it in different combinations. I get the impression that you really don't know how this works. At one point you were treating the fact that satellite data needs to be inferred as some major flaw, seemingly oblivious to the fact that ground based systems are altered much more and much more often that satellite data.

350 words is nowhere near enough to give you even a quick summary. But you need to know that vast areas of the planet aren't covered by weather stations and need to have their temperature values inferred (I call it guessing). Equally, many, particularly poorer nations, aren't all that vigilant in maintaining their temperature records nor the actual weather station. Experiments have shown that a poorly maintained station can be in error by up to 2c.

Its a vast area of study which is no closer to an answer than it was 20 years ago when John Daly and Watts started talking about how problematic the world's weather station data was.

But the committed aren't interested in nuance. So long as the data tells the right story, that's good enough. And if it doesn't just wait a year or two and some new way will be found to recalibrate the raw data such that it DOES tell the correct story.

In the meantime it all remains guesses and it tells us precisely nothing about the cause of whatever increase is postulated and it tells us nothing about whatever increase is forecast.

The flea, in relation to James Taylor’s purpose states it is:” to create doubt in relation to science..”
What science would that be, flea? Refer us to the science which shows any measurable human effect on climate. You have no science upon which to cast doubt. Your support for the climate fraud is based solely on your dishonesty, and you ignore all requests to refer us to any science to justify your position
Claiming that 2015 was the “hottest year on record” is fraud promoting nonsense;
“ government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set.NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

mhaze

You forgot to mention JMA which has a slightly different starting point.
You mentioned satellite inferred temperature and weather stations; but, not how nature is showing changes.

What does lack of sea ice extent suggest?
8C temperature was measured at Svalbard Airport during winter; it is normally a significant minus temperature.
Over the last years there have been a number of anomalies.

Leo

The JMA were the first to notify us that 2015 was the warmest year on record.
Its a bit odd that 1998 is continually held as the year when temperatures were at their highest; yet, 2015 an El Nino year, isn't.
Like James Taylor, Tom Harris belongs to a denier Agency; the International Climate Science Coalition , prior to that he was a lobbyist for Energy Companies.

James Taylor and Tom Harris get paid to try and confuse climate science.

I'd be very interested in having rain bombs explained by deniers, its not a technical term but aptly explains huge amounts of rain falling in a short time frame. The flooding of South Carolina, and flooding of the Atacama Desert being examples of many instances.

I didn't forget JMA, ant. I just don't take much notice of it. You need to learn that all these organisations use the same data just configured in different ways. That they end up with roughly the same results is significant only to those who want it to be significant.

Much more significant is that satellite data and balloon data, independently obtained, largely agree. That's not conclusive of anything really, but much more convincing than GISS agreeing with Cowtan or whatever.

ant,

You keep demanding that I respond to this or that piece of anomaly data that you stumble across in your trolling of alarmist websites but ignore and just pass over any facts I advance that don't correspondence with your we're-all-gunna-die alarmism. Temperature data are guesses as demonstrated by the admission that NOAA was only 38% sure that 2014 was the then warmist year. Address that.

As to ice...there is this unstated belief among the alarmists that somehow every change is for the worst. We started measuring ice in 1979. Alarmist think that, magically, whatever the ice extent then was 'normal' and any change is both abnormal and caused by man. But who knows that it was normal. Maybe the ice extent in 1979 was abnormal and the past 30years has just been a return to normal. No one knows for sure, but the alarmist doesn't bother with such doubt, going from one unsupported assumption to another unsupported assumption.

The same goes for temperatures. The assumption is that temperatures in 1850 were normal and any increase is abnormal. But even alarmist paleo-climatologists admit that temperature over the past 11000 years has been higher than present 25% of the time. Somehow species survived those higher temperatures, the world didn't flood, man survived, glaciers advanced and retreated. If we survived temperatures 2c above now in Minoan times how much better suited are we to do so now.

But there is this disease of presentism. What conditions are presently are normal and any change from that is to lamented. But its just a lack of imagination and a lack of historic understanding.

mhaze

I do not stumble or troll for material I present, it either comes to me via email; or via Facebook; a completely wrong supposition on your part again.
An interesting theory on conspiracy in relation to the measurement of temperature; we have Japan, USA, Britain, Cowan and Way, and Berkeley Earth all involved in fiddling with data according to you.

http://berkeleyearth.org/about/

http://climatecrocks.com/2015/01/09/richard-muller-i-was-wrong-on-global-warming/

On every front; mhaze, you try to minimalist what the science is saying; yet, offer nothing convincing in return.

If you are going to make claims please present citations