“The hottest September” According to heavily adjusted NOAA data, not according to the RSS satellite data. It’s pretty easy to create a record if you’re allowed to continually adjust previous years downward.

It’s always “could be” with climate science, never “will be”. Sea level rise has not accelerated and is still about 1.7 mm/year according to tide gauges. There’s no way the sort of increases claimed in this article can happen in the timeframe proposed.

I forgot to reply to this. This claim is a total lie based on cherry picking the 1950’s as a start date. Look back further and you’ll find there were considerably more hot records broken in the 30’s and earlier. False alarmist claims #32,4751

I’m sorry, I forgot to comment on this. Try looking at my original comment which you’re misquoting. (a common alarmist tactic) I said the original “Moon Landing” paper was junk, although by any reasonable standards, both of them are. The sample size I was referring to was the number of people who thought the moon…

Artiofab, our simple disagreement about climate change has expanded into a sprawling argument which now involves (at least) the following topics:

1) Climategate.
2) Exxon-Mobil’s (alleged) funding of ‘climate change misinformation’.
3) The magnitude of Hansen’s SLR claim(s).
4) Whether we’re in a mass extinction event.
5)…

Intentionally spamming FOI requests at climatologists is not a reasonable activity.

The only reason FOI requests were made in the first place was that scientists refused to provide data. This goes against basic principles of scientific transparency and replicability and is itself completely unreasonable.

[climategate]
(si…

<blockquote>Testing.</blockquote>

Artiofab: During that same century, there has _not been_ a similarly observable change in
temperature gradients: the poles are still colder than tropics, night is still colder than day,
winter is still colder than summer.

Me: A ‘change in temperature gradients’ doesn’t mean that they reverse or otherwise completely
chan…

It’s interesting (not to mention somewhat creepy) that you bother to hunt around online looking for previous comments I’ve posted elsewhere - there seems to be a degree of conspiracy ideation there on your part.

Fear Glas: “Two data points”

You can add Sweden, Iceland and Greenland as well. Also half of North America has been below average.

Artiofab, do you realise that the entire idea that “deniers” believe in conspiracy theories is down to just one very badly flawed paper in which the conclusion was reached from a sample size of 10 people, 7 of whom fully accepted climate change?

Artiofab, two thoughts on your comment:

1. You say NASA satellites show that Arctic ice is retreating. In fact that should be *sea* ice and it’s actually been increasing for at least two years. Presumably, you’ll say that’s just weather - although somehow the temperature in just one month isn’t?

2. Why doesn’t NASA use…

Fear Glas: “Adelaide being cold on one day is weather, not climate” Who said it was just one day? Also, this post is about just one month - how is that climate?

Artiofab, your comment is mixed up nonsense which does not in any way refute what I said. First you say that the temperature gradient is changing “very, very, extremely slowly” which I agree with. Then you talk about the “much-faster-changing climate” - what does that mean? Are you mixing up ‘climate’ and ‘weather’ as…

See my reply above.

I’m not misrepresenting what you said, just simplifying it to its essence. If you think there’s such a thing as “climate disruption” where unusually cold weather is consistent with global warming, why did you object to the original comment about Adelaide being unusually cold?

I know there’s more than one thermal gradient in the atmosphere, I listed three. I’m not attempting to “derail the science”, I’m refuting your claim that greater heat leads to greater cold.

You presented a “grossly oversimplified argument” originally, namely that greater “net thermal energy” would lead to greater extremes, which would include dreater cold. If you can defend that then do so.

I accused Raskos of using the term “energy” in an unscientific way like “crystal energy”. Global warming is *decreasing* the temperature gradients (day/night, summer/winter and equator/pole) which cause weather systems like wind. This *decrease* in temperature gradients cannot increase extreme weather, except by weak…

just because an explanation is simple doesn’t mean it’s correct. Weather systems are driven by temperature gradients, not overall temperature or ‘net thermal energy’. Antarcica is pretty cold but there are very strong winds there. The idea that a tiny increase in ‘net thermal energy’ will somehow fuel greater…