Record large-scale warm monthly temperatures in May: Northern South America, Florida and offshore, southern Africa, central Africa, Arabia, equatorial Indian ocean, south Indian ocean, equatorial Pacific, Alaska. And a couple of other isolated spots.
Record large-scale cold monthly temperatures in May: none.
Also NOAA has this as the warmest monthly global anomaly on record, though GISS doesn't; by their count it's merely very very warm.
It looks likely that the overblown "hiatus" story will go away in the next few months. Good riddance.
And what with the "tropical hot spot" issue also likely going away, one wonders what the naysayers will dig up to complain about next. I don't doubt it will be something. After all, it's a "hoax", right? They just have to move the goalposts a little more....
3 comments:
As we see from Watts's latest accusations against NOAA, they have already abandoned the surface temperature record that seemed like their friend for a few years and returned to denouncing it as a fraud. Never ones to be bothered by a bit of cognitive dissonance, are they?
What climatic event would budge the naysayers? Heck, if they can hand-wave away 70,000+ deaths in the 2003 European heat wave, one can imagine them shrugging off anything. If the Greenland ice sheet slid into the sea next year, they would say the science was still "unsettled" on whether humans had anything to do with it. (OK, Monckton would probably say scientists had weakened the ice cap by taking too many core samples.) The climateball games in US congressional hearing rooms would proceed as usual.
-
Adam R.
Yes, professional naysayers will professionally naysay come what may. The question is when the public will stop taking them seriously, and stop giving cover to the members of congress who seem to be owned by the most malicious of the oil-wealthy.
That the selfish can hire or encourage people to repeat their lies is no surprise. That the lies have so much traction is somewhat more surprising. Eventually reality has to prevail, but when will that be?
Re Michael's last 2 sentences:
Depending on your definition, I guess you might say reality prevails always and everywhere, but that wasn't quite what your informal wording meant, was it? In context, with the mention of lies getting traction, it seems to be the common sentiment that sooner or later those durned naysayers will get most of the truth into their fat heads and admit it.
I don't feel that way. For huge portions of the world, whatever events come will seem more personal, political, and economic than scientific and intellectual. I'm not holding my breath for a lot of exclamations of mea maxima culpa (whilst kneeling and sobbing). Many of the worst offenders are dead or will be soon anyway. (Which provides some wisps of hope though.)
Post a Comment