Climate Advocate Outrage Over “Global Cooling” Congress Tweet

Temperature Graph David Rose + Bernie Photo.

Temperature Graph David Rose + Bernie Photo by Marc Nozell from Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA (bernie-sanders-franklin-nh-20150802-DSC02607) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Green outrage is growing that Congress tweeted a link to an article by James Delingpole, which details how global average land temperature has just crashed by 1C (1.8F).

Bernie Sanders Slams Climate Denying House Tweet

Bernie Sanders sent a curt response to a climate change denying tweet from the House of Representatives Science Committee on Thursday.

The initial tweet, sent from an official government account, sends a clear message about how environmental policy will shift under a Republican Congress and a Donald Trump presidential administration.

It links to a climate change denying Breitbart News story that cited a misleading report in the UK tabloid the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail report claims, “Nasa featured a new study which said there was a hiatus in global warming before the recent El Niño.”

Here’s how the Vermon senator responded.

Read more: http://www.attn.com/stories/13227/bernie-sanders-slams-climate-denying-house-tweet

Why are climate advocates so upset? The reason is they were expecting global temperatures to keep shooting up. Consider the following statement from Michael Mann, back in March.

Why is 2016 smashing heat records?

… according to Professor Michael Mann, the director of Penn State Earth System Science Centre. He said it was possible to look back over the temperature records and assess the impact of an El Niño on global temperatures.

“A number of folks have done this,” he said, “and come to the conclusion it was responsible for less than 0.1C of the anomalous warmth. In other words, we would have set an all-time global temperature record [in 2015] even without any help from El Niño.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/04/is-el-nino-or-climate-change-behind-the-run-of-record-temperatures

As WUWT recently reported, James Delingpole’s claim is correct – the plunge in land temperatures over the last 6 months is the fastest drop on record.

The collapse in global temperature is a bitter disappointment to climate advocates like Bernie, who were apparently hoping that the recent El-nino driven spike in global temperature would be final vindication for all their climate scare stories.

Advertisements

587 thoughts on “Climate Advocate Outrage Over “Global Cooling” Congress Tweet

    • Confucius
      Correct Language.
      “If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant;
      if what is said is not meant, then what ought to be done remains undone,
      if this remains undone morals and arts will deteriorate,
      justice will go astray, if justice goes astray there will be confusion
      Hence there must be no doubt in what is said.
      A word of wisdom.

      • B.j. December 2, 2016 at 3:53 am – George Tetley – What did you say?

        Bulls**t baffles brains. The resulting confusion is bad.

      • So how long will it take, given the current weak La Nina conditions, for them to state that it is the La Nina that is causing the cooling and not a hiatus?
        How long?
        We’ll see.
        If the La Nina is used as a causal explanation for global cooling than El Nino must be allowed as a cause of Global Warming

      • B.j. December 2, 2016 at 3:53 am
        George Tetley

        What did you say?

        I think it was something like, “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
        (But maybe I misunderstood.)

        PS Someone else said that first but I’m not sure who.

      • I’m sure Confuscious didn’t say that.

        He probably said something in ancient Chinese dialect, that didn’t sound anything like that. Modern Chinese doesn’t sound like that either.

        g

      • Where’d you get your PhD, Bernie?

        OH what ? You don’t have one but you did get a BA in political science.

        That probably explains why you come into a scientific argument ( about which you know nothing ) by questioning someone’s qualifications instead of addressing the facts. Like for most of you ignorant alarmists, it’s all politics and no science.

    • And a typical socialist hypocrite that will be enjoying the cold blast next week snuggled down in his new mansion powered, no doubt, by solar and windmills to keep his composting toilet functioning?

      • Is this the same Bernie Sanders who thinks that Castro was a great leader? Is this the same Bernie Sanders who obviously had a deal with Hitlery and knew he wouldn’t get the nomination but hoodwinked all his supporters anyway? OK…..Got it. Bernie – just go to your new lake house and shut the hell up!!!

      • AYUP. the same Bernie that couldn’t beat Hillary who, because of her hypocricy and untrustworthyness AND thanks in great part to the inability of her constituency to back her and thus cast their votes for Gary Johnson, couldn’t beat Trump.

      • I’m just a Canadian observer who hates to comment on U.S. politics ’cause we have enough of our own idiots here, but Bernie is a demented old fool who almost pedalled his useless 1930’s solutions into a trip to the White House. I’m no fan of Trump or Hillary but “the Bern” would have been a disaster!

      • I understand that Vermint wasn’t allowed into the USA at first, although some of its settlers did help in the revolutionary war effort.

        But I think it was something like five years later they were allowed to become a State.

        G

      • At the time of the War of Independence, Vermont was part of New York. Residents living in what is now Vermont wanted their own state. So they threatened to side with the British if Vermont was kept as a part of New York.

      • Unfortunately now Vermont has been colonized by New Yorkers like Bernie Sanders, destroying its rock-ribbed Yankee individualism with Communism. Same as has happened to so many Western states with California refugees who still don’t get it and want to recreate in new territory the same mistakes which destroyed CA. Also like all the Damn Yankee liberals polluting formerly freedom-loving VA, NC and FL.

    • This drop in temperature was predicted four months ago in July in this post. The Nino3.4 area temperatures continue to fall, so the UAH Global LT temperatures should soon catch up with the LT land temperatures.

      Bill Illis did an earlier and more detailed analysis of this subject, with a three-month predictor of Tropical LT temperatures..

      Regards, Allan

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/01/spectacular-drop-in-global-average-satellite-temperatures/comment-page-1/#comment-2250667

      I plotted the same formula back to 1982, which is where I (I think arbitrarily) started my first analysis. Satellite temperature data began in 1979.

      That formula is: UAHLT Calc. = 0.20*Nino3.4SST +0.15

      It is apparent that UAHLT Calc. is substantially higher than UAH Actual for two periods, each of ~5 years,

      BUT that difference could be largely or entirely due to the two major volcanoes, El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.

      This leads to a startling new hypothesis: First, look at the blue line, which shows NO significant global warming over the entire period from 1982 to 2016. Perhaps the “global warming” observed after the 1997-98 El Nino was not global warming at all; maybe it was just the natural recovery in global temperatures after two of the largest volcanoes in recent history.

      Comments?

      Regards, Allan

      • Alan, the reason the actual T is lower than the calculations using the El Nino is because something very different is going on. Tisdale noted years ago that following the end of an El Nino, warm water spreads toward the poles (an exaggerated case is the warm blob Phenom) and drags out atmospheric heating for another yr or two. Presently a large cold blob has quickly replaced these warm waters. We should be treating this as an “extraterritorial” La Nina and getting it into the calculation. I’ve been trying to get someone interested in this over the last few blogs on the subject. We mustn’t get to slavish with our index type calculations. This appears to be something new. There is a twin cold blob in the southern hemisphere that no one refers to as well . Do T look to the ENSO region for assessing the big cooling.

      • Gary wrote: “Alan, the reason the actual T is lower than the calculations using the El Nino is…”

        Allan again: Gary, the actual T is about 0.3-0.4C HIGHER than the calculation using the El Nino is, but should catch up soon, unless whatever is causing this cooling hiatus persists.

        According to the Nino3.4 temperature projections, UAH global LT temperature should be close to the zero anomaly by now.

        All the above from memory – hope I got it right.

        Best, Allan

    • Well I’m an advocate for climate. Bernie doesn’t have it all to himself.

      Personally, I think climate is wonderful; we should all have some.

      G

      • Perhaps this whole Global Climate change is simply a misunderstanding and was really meant to indicate Political Climate Change
        then we would have thet international body
        Intended Political Climate Change

      • “Well I’m an advocate for climate.”

        Eric has yet to get past the *mimic the mass media* stage of journalistic development, it seems to me . . he thinks the labels they apply to things and people are like sacred text. If extra terrestrials were to look in on the planetary discussion according to Eric’s label mimicry, with his “climate advocates” vs his “climate skeptics”, they might rationally conclude we’re arguing about whether or not the evidence is clear . . that there is such a thing as climate . .

        I’m a firm believer in climate, myself, but in Eric’s MSMM (Main Stream Media Mimicry) dislexo world, I end up in the climate skeptic basket . . an extremely insulting thing to call someone if you ask me, but he’s as tone deaf as Hillary apparently, when it comes to such things.

        I haven’t given up hope on him maturing beyond the MSMM stage, and see signs of hope in things like his closing paragraph, wherein “climate advocates like Bernie”, eventually become tellers of “climate scare stories”. I can see a day coming, maybe not this year, but someday, when he shatters the fiberglass ceiling, and writes rational, truthful, meaningful-meat on them vacuous mass media buzzword bones headlines like;

        Climate Scare Advocate Outrage Over “Global Cooling” Congress Tweet

      • Hola, JohnK,

        Eric does a great job. If he wrote like those well educated in the hard sciences normally discuss the AGW hypothesis, it would sound like gibberish to most of the public.

        “…climate change denying…” is the kind of media-driven nonsense the general public parrots — but to most readers here it sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard.

      • Yo, dbstealey,

        Yeah I know, and yeah he’s rather good at this, but I just don’t think we can afford to let the PC BS go unchallenged forever . . This is an article about climate scare advocates trying to shut down free speech, to me. And in the case highlighted, the notion that we (non-climate scientists) are not qualified to detect a lack of hopefulness one would expect if people actually afraid of a climate meltdown get news that indicates maybe it’s not real threat. It tells me the “advocates” don’t really believe we face impending climate doom, and/or don’t really care about those who might suffer badly if it happens . . much as the luxury jet-setting in the name of reducing CO2 emissions does. It rings hollow . .

        Right now, at this point in time, we can let the general public know (if) we hear it too, so the average person who (according to numerous polls) is not much worried about the supposed greatest threat facing humanity, can perhaps grasp that they’ve been manipulated, by the same mass media/political establishment they just saw massively discredited in Briton and in America. Which doesn’t necessarily mean the the “global warming” scare is bogus, but means it certainly could be, and that skepticism is a respectable/logical approach to the whole matter . . just as it always was, of course.

        They can hear me now . . me thinks ; )

    • Sander’s no doubt understands climate science, having graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago. He has described himself as a mediocre college student

    • Bernie and the left are the new deniers. They deny the truth that AGW is a hoax, with no credible evidence to support AGW. We need a steady flow of information from official government sources to get the truth about the AGW hoax out there. Elections have consequences. There will be a different message coming out of the EPA, NASA and NOAA – hopefully NASA will get out of the climate stuff altogether, and get back to what they are suppose to do – space exploration and advancing the related technology. The Idiotic “Muslim outreach” is a dog pile that will be scooped.

      • Pyeatte, I am working on putting together a special funding request to try and get NASA the extra funding they will need to finish the research required to perfect the fabrication of carbon nanotubes (CN) and when that is done, give them the funding they will need to the space elevator. The research is expected to cost between $5 and $10 billion and the construction will run between $50 and $75 billion, but the cost of putting a kilogram of material into orbit will fall from an average of $20,000 down to $100. Plus the space elevator removes the risk of a failed rocket and the loss of the probe/rover/satellite. In short, it will allow NASA to spend a much larger percentage of their annual budget on science and exploration instead of having to spend half of their annual budget on launching payloads into space.

        This first space elevator will have a maximum payload of 250 tons which means that we could actually build a real space station here on the ground and then send those sections into orbit on the space elevator where astronauts would assemble them. Once the station backbone is completed, they can install the reactor core module, one of the life support modules, the first crew module, and the first science module. Then fill in the rest of the station sections as they become available. Before the reactor is brought online, the station will operate using power from solar panels. This new space station will have a circumference of 25 kilometers and when it’s finished it will spin to create near Earth normal gravity for the 1500-2000 astronauts, scientists, students and even a few tourists that are living, working and vacationing on the new space station.

        The space elevator will make access to space so cheap that there will no longer be any excuses for not moving forward with the creation of an asteroid processing facility, an orbital shipyard, a colony on Mars, a science station on the moon, a science station on Ceres and on moons around Jupiter and Saturn, an orbital farm to test how well plant food crops will grow in space versus on the ground, and finally a 1km diameter telescope. With a 1 kilometer telescope in orbit, we can directly image exoplanets to see whether or not they are able to support human life. I look forward to the day that we find the first exoplanet covered in plants and a telescope that large would even let us detect whether or not there is intelligent life on that planet.

        The asteroid processing facility would be similar to the new space station in size, but all of that size would be devoted to cutting up and crushing asteroids as large as 500 meters in diameter. The facility will extract all precious metals and minerals and turn all of the iron into steel plates that could then be used to construct the other facilities we would need. The asteroids would be gathered from the asteroid belt or captured near Earth asteroids. The spacecraft that would do this would be specially designed asteroid tugs that use quantum thrusters for primary propulsion. By using quantum thrusters, a round trip to the asteroid belt and back would take about 100 days.

        While all of this is great, think about the new consumer products that would come about because of discoveries made do to the research that was done on carbon nanotubes alone. That would mean many millions of new jobs and that’s just because of the carbon nanotube research. So we grow the economy, we get cheap and safe access to space, and we get to focus on space exploration instead of war.

    • george e. smith December 2, 2016 at 3:22 pm

      I’m sure Confuscious didn’t say that.

      I assume you are replying to

      George Tetley December 2, 2016 at 3:05 am

      He’s quoting 13:3 in the Analects. Did Confucius actually say that? Did Socrates say the things attributed to him by Plato? Did Jesus say the things attributed to him in the Bible?

      What can be said is that the various translations of 13:3 that I have read are in broad general agreement. The wiki article on the Analects gives a good idea of the thinking on their origins.

      I rather think that Confucius did say something pretty close to what is recorded in 13:3.

      • You are correct that the period of the graphs is totally wrong – I suggest starting 8000 years before present. You will then find we are at the cold end of the Holocene as the ‘temperatures’ have been dropping since the Holocene ‘Optimum’. This temperature profile has nothing to do with CO2 and as yet all hypothesized explanations for Earth glacials and interglacials and their various temperature profiles have been falsified by observations. However, there is nothing special or extreme about the current climate it is neither the warmest nor the coldest and the rates of change have all been seen before.

        What you are seeing is political scare mongering to influence opinions and allow extra taxation and control. This is supported by ‘rent seeking’ scientists with poor or no ethics who will ensure that funded research provides the result that the funding source wants.

      • “Why do all your graphs start in ’98?”

        One reason would be that you are comparing apples to apples when you start at 1998. You are comparing two strong El Nino’s, one in 1998, and one in 2016, and all points in between.

        This is a satellite record so it only goes back to 1979, and things really don’t get exciting until 1998, on this chart, but if you put the entire satellite record chart on the page, it wouldn’t change the profile at all, so starting with 1998, is not a ploy on someone’s part to slant the data in one way or another.

      • I would supply a copy of the entire UAH satellite record for you but Roy Spencer’s website keeps giving me a “403” when I try to access the chart itself.

        See royspencer.com. The full chart is right on the first page.

      • Because that is where the first data in this data set was taken. To plot the graph back further in time, he would need to use a different data set with numbers taken earlier than 1998.

        g

      • François,

        It does not make any difference when the temperature vs time chart starts, if the planet now cools.

        It also does not make any difference what Bernie or any of the other CAGW cheerleaders say, if the planet significantly cools.

        There have been at least a dozen different analysis results (in peer reviewed papers) that support the assertion that the entire scientific basis of the IPCC reports is incorrect. The majority of the warming in the last 150 years has caused by solar cycle changes, not AGW and the increase in atmospheric CO2 was not caused by anthropogenic emission.

        If the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes, global warming is over as the solar cycle has been interrupted.

        Global cooling will start as a political issue as the cult of CAGW back peddles and try to come up with imaginative explanations for what they will assert is natural variability of climate.

        The majority of the warming in the last 150 years has been high latitude which matches the pattern of pervious warming periods in the paleo record which all correlate to solar cycle changes. All of the past high latitude warming periods were followed by cooling periods when the solar cycle again changed.

      • Hivemind
        December 2, 2016 at 4:12 am

        The second warm period is called the Egyptian WP, not a continuation of the Holocene Optimum. And the following red bump is the Minoan WP.

        R Taylor
        December 2, 2016 at 6:29 am

        The Eemian was definitely warmer than the Holocene, and lasted 5000 years longer than our present interglacial has to date. The Southern Dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted quite a bit more then than it has during the Holocene. Eemian sea level highstand is visible on raised beaches around the world. Hippos swam in the Thames at the site of London. All that salubrious warmth was without benefit of a Neanderthal industrial age.

      • All the graphs are doubly wrong. Why do the y-axes always show arbitrary values like °C? We should be looking at total energy as measured in degrees K. That’ll disappear not only the LIA and the MWP; Mann’s blade will melt to nothing as well.

  1. Straight in with the insults. However the whole atmosphere is changing. No wonder Merkel is saying she needs the power to shut down websites she doesn’t like.

    • Yea, we need to do something with this hate speech from left wing extremists.

      By the way, even though Dr Mann was, according to the Guardian, wrongly saying this is not only an El Niño but a record from the underlying warming trend, the cooling now by no probable means is caused by a cooling trend. We just lost the heat related to El Niño as so usual and might temporarily “enjoy” relatively normal or even La Niña times for a couple of years. Trends we see only later on, I’d say at least 15 years must pass before you can say what kind of year for real 2016 was.

      I’m pretty certain the climate alarmism (my spelling checker alarms again) must come to an end during the next two decades – no all-defining societal phenomena can last for a lifetime? Right?!?

      Santer and Hansen are old men. There has to be a revolution coming how we see the anthropogenic global warming.

      • “We just lost the heat related to El Niño”

        Actually we have no clue, since we’re presented with a single line on a graph representing averaged temperatures. Physically meaningless nonsense.

      • Hugs December 2, 2016 at 1:27 am
        Yea, we need to do something with this hate speech from left wing extremists.

        By the way, even though Dr Mann was, according to the Guardian, wrongly saying this is not only an El Niño but a record from the underlying warming trend,

        The quote by Mann referred to 2015 not to 2016, the fact that the quote was used in an article about the record temperature in 2016 appears to have misled you.

      • I think you are tight, this is a clear over-reaction. AFAIK, it is a question of cracking down on hate sites that are clearly racist, and I very much doubt the German public will accept any such thing against skeptical websites.

      • “it is a question of cracking down on hate sites that are clearly racist”

        It’s a crackdown on “fake news”. And Merkel decides what is fake and what is not. Sounds like a plan to take away more of the free speech rights of Germans, to me.

      • She and Obama were dog whistling to the usual leftist totalitarians and naturally they’re responding-
        http://joannenova.com.au/2016/12/in-brave-pr-move-kelloggs-cancels-breitbart-advertising-and-calls-millions-its-own-customers-bigots/
        http://www.euronews.com/2016/12/01/french-mps-vote-to-ban-misinformation-anti-abortion-websites

        Nice of them to publicly anoint themselves as the arbiters of what’s fake news and what isn’t but they’ll have their work cut out for them-
        http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/shakers-and-fakers/news-story/80bfd0dfd4bf415c524aa28de342302c

      • Why does the government get to decide what is and isn’t racist?
        To most socialists, any disagreement with a protected minority is by definition racism.

      • just let me explain a bit. I think that CAGW is not true. Possibly human influence on warming is negligible.

        But if someone -like Merkel- has another opinion means not that every thing she does is wrong or she does it out of an evil plan.

        Calling Merkel communist or something is plain wrong.

        She’s the daughter of an east German pastor, who had – like any of them – a lot of problems in the former DDR/GDR.

        Possibly non of you can imagine how to survive as an individual in a dictatory regime. If you belief or not, you have to attend certain groups or meetings in order to survive or to get appropriate education or jobs.

        Most people did it in East Germany, knowing that is just a game you have to play to survive.

        (my father, until the age of 12 had to attend to the Hitlerjugend – Hitlers youth organisation. He has not been asked if he liked. Despite of this he was always a big supporter of Israel, saying that those who have touched the Jews have touched God’s eyeball)

        Merkel is a member of the Christian Democratic Party, and if she let a big number of refugees in, she did it out of christian virtue. Possibly the way she did was not wise, but she did it out of the bottom of her heart.

        If we German call her Mutti – which means Mommy – shows that she tries to keep things together and even to car for foreigners.

        TMHO, the way she did it, was wrong, ignoring the thoughts and fears of many.

        But this doesn’t mean she is an evil or dangerous person.

        And, the refugee problem has been solved by other countries, just blocking the way to Germany.

      • She has stated that she backs shutting down “fake news” sites. Sanders and other folks seem to think that is what WUWT is.

      • There was a priceless story yesterday about Obama bemoaning false news stories to Rolling Stone…who was busted not too long ago for writing and publishing possibly the most notable false news story I can think of.

      • naturbaumeister,

        “Merkel is a member of the Christian Democratic Party, and if she let a big number of refugees in, she did it out of christian virtue.”

        Um, sorry to burst your fantasy bubble, but the Christian God does not just aceppt whatever a person presents themselves as being, as though a politician couldn’t be faking it . . nor does He advise us to be so gullible.

        . . I just didn’t want unbelievers to get the wrong impression, based on your -blind faith in politician’s posturing- proposition. That is not Christian doctrine, period.

    • Well you know how Germans, politics and science can get a bit out of hand. I could see Merkel playing the role of Dr. Strangelove very convincingly, come to think of it.

      • Hmmmm, did I suggest that Dr. Strangelove is a documentary? Dr. Strangelove, the character played brilliantly by Peter Sellers, could be played by Chancellor Merkel if a remake is ever planned. I doubt if she could do like Sellers and play the multiple characters he played
        She seems much shallower and with less range than Peter Sellers at his best.

      • @Hunter, You might read ( I think every one should at least read the summary) The man who “stalked” Einstein. In it it describes how the the Germans pre WWII basically shot themselves in the foot by outlawing all Jewish professors and scientists from German Universities etc Many of whom ended up in the West, all because one guy ( Phillip Lenard, who had a disagreement with Einstein’s theories) had the ear of Hitler and convinced him to do this. It put , in many ways, those scientists with new theories into the west, which led to many advances there. An interesting read.

    • The whole atmosphere is changing?

      Yep, and it always has been, since long before humans trod upon the surface of this planet.

      Oh you mean the human ‘atmosphere’ in the ‘twittersphere’? Yep. That too. People are waking up, smelling the coffee, and figuring out all by themselves that the media is a great place to sell product by telling lies, and that means that the value of the ‘free’ information the media dishes out, is approximately zero.

      Which is why sites like this, where data is discussed analysed and torn apart, are so popular. This site doesn’t tell you what to think, but sometimes it teaches you how to think. Well not you, personally of course.

      Some things are simply not possible.

      And the atmosphere in the twittersphere has also changed, as exemplified by Merkel whose real plaintive cry is ‘why aren’t they believing the same old lies any more?’

      Well partly because they are bored with them, so new lies are needed, but actually because they are bored with lies altogether. The power of the media to actually change stuff is on the wane, because by and large there is now so MUCH conflicting ‘evidence’ of anything that has money or power involved, that people don’t believe any of it, and that’s why Mutti Merkel is so upset., as a stasi employee in charge of agitprop her whole life has been dedicated to the art of propaganda, but teh internet has put so many conflicting messages up that state propaganda no longer works. Hence her desire to remove access to any but the ‘official’ news and any good Communist (or catholic pope) knows is absolutely necessary to keep an unelected totalitarian regime in power.

      Faced with an unrelenting stream of politically and commercially inspired bulldung, peole have two choices. Ignore it all completely, or learn to think for themselves.

      For the first time since WW2 a slender majority of people in the UK, and then the USA are doing one or the other of those.

      We have been promised the age of Aquarius for a long time now…

    • Merkel is saying that websites with completely fake news need to be controlled, not websites she doesn’t like should be shut down. you can make money by putting out completely fake news – is that a good thing?

      shutting down websites you didn’t like would be like shutting down NASA climate studies because you don’t like the figures they produce…

      • ” you can make money by putting out completely fake news – is that a good thing?”

        I dunno griffy, do you make money by putting out completely fake news?
        Are you paid to regurgitate any given article over and over again?

        This is why people respond to you. Back a few weeks ago, even I said, just don’t respond to him. As I saw Mr. Watts make a comment recently about the possibility of just not responding to your comments, I also realized that the majority of responses to you, are for the fact that they feel the need to make it crystal clear that your opinion or view on any certain subject is at best, blather. I believe the majority of people here that really, really, know what they are talking about, have a strong moral character to want to correct that blather.

        GUG!

      • EJ makes a good point. Griff is so sure that fake news is profitable because he profits by it! We all know about OFA and the Hillary disinformation teams paid by Soros. Apparently Soros has extra money laying around.

      • Not bad Griff……………shutting down NASA/GISS would eliminate some fake news and a bunch of liars at the same time. I like twofers.

      • ” you can make money by putting out completely fake news – is that a good thing?”

        Well, since most advertising is outright false, apparently it is a good thing. Otherwise AGs would go after advertisers for all their falsehoods.

      • “you can make money by putting out completely fake news – is that a good thing?”

        It is if you are the NYTimes, WaPo, CBS, ABC, NBC or any of the other MSM.

        The leftists are complaining because their monopoly of fake news is crumbling.

      • Fake news? Like John Edwards’ love child? Like the Blue Dress?

        Who decides what is “fake news”? And is inserting a word into a quote to make a point not made by the speaker, “fake news”?

        Sorry, “fake” is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly what you think is fake is only what you do not like, just like Merkel. Once you give the censor pen to any person, you cede control over your freedom to their whims.

      • Griff, I’m surprised you’d dare post comments on a site most on the Left consider “Fake Climate Science”. What’s with your supposed lack of discernment?

        And regarding Ms. Merkel, who on earth appointed her the title of “Queen of Proverbial Principles”?

        YOU?????

        LOL!

        But your example of shutting down NASA because of distorting figures isn’t a bad idea–because that’s what they’ve been doing.

        It seldom happens, but you accidentally discovered a truth.

      • I’m trying to remember the name of the NYT reporterette who once used ellipses (…) to completely change the meaning of a quote.

      • Griff said “completely fake news”.

        Neither Merkel nor Obama nor anyone else (but Griff) has said “COMPLETELY fake news” websites.

        George Tetley quoted Confucius in the second comment from the start. What very few people know, with respect to that quote, is that the second to last line was edited out of the original quote 3,000 years ago. It originally included the phrase, “Those that know this and try to take advantage this for their own self-aggrandizement are complete asshole trolls”

        Griff, can you point me to a “completely fake news” website that makes money (and harms the ignorant)?

      • There’s the Onion. It’s completely fake, makes money, and only harms idiot politicians who don’t get the joke.

      • Well, Merkel will start with completely fake news sites. Everyone has to start somewhere. This would be only the first goose-step.

        And, as the source of funding for NASA, I have a right to demand what I’m paying for, science, not lysenkoist propaganda.

      • “Merkel is saying that websites with completely fake news need to be controlled”

        So that’s the Guardian scuppered, isn’t it?

        Not to mention the Bolshevik Broadcasting Company.

      • “Ignorance is Bliss”

        Be very careful just how much information you relate to Griff in an effort to enlighten him, proper enlightenment could make him very unhappy

      • The problem isn’t fake news. The problem is those that believe they or anyone else that governments should have the legal power to determine what is fake and what is real or what is suitable for everyone else without compelling reasons such as national security. That’s called government censorship.

        And a government administration shutting down or altering a part of the agencies under it’s legal control for what ever reason is not government censorship.

        Your attempt to equate to the two Griff is pathetic.

    • Yep! The Great Blue Wall of alternate made-up “reality” is crumbling, and the UK and Trump have swung the hammer.

    • You aren’t my sister are you ??

      G

      I think the most famous Margaret Smith is now called Margaret Court for some reason.

  2. You should really have grown up from liberal and socialist beliefs by the time you get to about 20. The fact that this 70 year old never-has-been hasn’t tells you everything you need to know about him. And Hillary had to cheat to beat him!

    • You should really have grown up from liberal and socialist beliefs by the time you get to about 20.

      Its about 25 according to Neuroscientists’ consensus. Until then your prefrontal cortex is still developing.
      This means your ability to differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different and future consequences of current activities are all impaired. You act emotionally rather than logically.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

      • TerryS There’s that word again CONSENSUS. The translation is they all believe the same bias, they can’t prove.

      • I think Dame Margaret Thatcher said ” Consensus is getting a whole bunch of people to agree to something that none of them believe. ”

        Well She probably didn’t use street talk like ” a whole bunch.”

        G

      • This is the reason I think the voting and drinking ages should be set to 25. The point at which the reasoning capability of humans gets to the point that they can think for themselves. It’s also why under 25’s have more traffic accidents, frontal cortex in not yet fully developed so decision making capacity is impaired.

      • george e. smith December 2, 2016 at 3:40 pm
        I think Dame Margaret Thatcher said ” Consensus is getting a whole bunch of people to agree to something that none of them believe. ”

        What Maggie actually said was: “Consensus: The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead.”

    • “If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.”

      Winston Churchill

      • 20-year-olds know as much about socialism as they do about the making of sausages, and they have yet to have the privilege of paying for it.

      • One of the reasons why I would love to be able to restrict the right to vote, to those people who are actually paying income taxes.

      • MarkW, what about the people that pay property taxes?
        What about the people that pay sales taxes?
        What about the people that pay “sin” taxes (on alcohol & tobbaco) ?
        What about the people that pay payroll taxes?
        What about the people that pay gasoline (road use) taxes?

      • I always thought that was a stupid statement. An educated, experienced 20 year old knows that socialism itself is without a heart and that capitalism will provide far more wealth to take care of the truly disadvantaged members of society.

      • Not everyone who pays some type of tax is a US citizen.
        Only US citizens should be allowed to vote.
        Ballots should be printed in English only and the ability to both Read and Write it fluently should be a prerequisite for citizenship

      • MarkW December 2, 2016 at 9:49 am
        Tell em to get a job.

        Owning property at one time was a requirement for the right to vote.
        so what would you propose 1 cent? 1 dollar?

        Hmm get a job. If a person is able to pay all the taxes and fees Henry listed why? They are not a werght on society. And what about the ones who work but have enough write offs to pay nothing?

        Best to stick with the Constitutions its work pretty well.

        michael

      • For Bryan A it already is a requirement for naturalized citizenship.

        G

        You can’t convince me that the voter pamphlet in 57 languages (Santa Clara Co.) says EXACTLY the same thing in 57 languages.

        How do you say (exactically) : ” He had to have had a reason for doing that. ” in Cantonese ??

      • Not a chance…President Barack Obama will issue a Presidential Pardon eliminating any and all potential criminal charges from being levied against Hillary

      • Sorry, Bryan–she has to be convicted of something before Barry can pardon Hillary.

        And if he DOES issue a presidential pardon, it will give credibility to all the “Lock Her Up” chants ringing throughout the land the past year.

        And the Democrats don’t want THAT!

        (You’ve heard she plans on running again in 2020, right? Of course, that might mean running away from the police when they come to apprehend her. With Hillary, you can bet a month’s wages she’s not telling the truth. Ever.)

    • “If a man is not a socialist at age 20, he has no heart. If he is still a socialist by the time he is 40, he has no brain.” usually attributed to Winston Churchill, but several variations exist. I like this version.

      • Dang, beat me to it. But that quote is sufficiently thought provoking that it should be said more often. My frequent response to young socialists is a variation of: “Yes, I also believed that when I was your age”

      • Why the hell would any French man say any of those things Clemenceau is reported to have said. Surely they have their own language.

        I know they can’t even say or understand an old Irish name like ” Dulin ”

        Comes out garbled like ,,,,, doo LARN ….

      • @davidgmillsatty–yes, Churchill was “some kind of genius”; just ask his contemporary Austrian that stirred up WWII and tried to vanquish Churchill but was vanquished instead. I’d describe that as “some kind of genius”.

        Besides, rather than attack the man, you should analyze what he said and point out wherein you disagree.

        See?

      • Churchill promoted the idea of a ‘United States Of Europe’, which eventually became the EU, fought a disastrous war that bankrupt the UK, destroyed what was left of the Empire, and gave half of Europe to Stalin. I guess you could call that ‘some’ kind of genius, but I’m not sure what kind it would be.

      • davidgmillsatty: Wow, your statement points out the huge chasm between your thought processes and mine. You seem to connect the validity of the statement to the credentials of the person quoted with the statement. I hadn’t even considered that. To me, the usefulness and veracity of the statement stands on its own, and out of courtesy or to allow the tracking of the sentiment, I added the person’s name. I describe my thoughts as skepticism, and yours as appeal to authority. .

      • MarkG, Churchill had lots of faults but what you claim is nonsense. Churchill had no hand in the EU whatsoever. You bemoan him handing over half of Europe to Stalin when that was FDR and complain that Churchill fought a war to stop another dictator ruling Europe.

        As for destroying the Empire, I don’t even know what that refers to.

  3. Political climate change is really happening at last, thanks to WUWT and all its’ helpers.

    The temperature should increase quite a lot (next week) in Phoenix, Arizona.

    Thank you Eric. Excellent stuff.

    Regards,
    WL

  4. i agree with Dr Ryan Maue of Weatherbell the tropical el Nino based temperature rose april to October above global temperature. from October onwards both the tropical El Nino temperature and the measured global temperature move together proving the temperature spike had nothing to do with humans.

    • What’s more, they show you analog and antilog years which demonstrate that there are no one-way trends in weather.

  5. If El Niño was responsible for 0.1C increase in global temperature then obviously La Nina can’t possibly be responsible for more than 0.1C drop. That leaves quite a bit (about 0.8C I’d say) of change that they apparently can’t explain.

    • Well, of course you need to define the temp set – land-based, global surface or satellite TLT or what. Satellites see a different kind of blip, and the drawing featured appears to be satellite-derived.

      Besides, there is no need to cherry-pick, as people tend to do. Showing 15 years or so of satellite without a reason mentioned can be considered cherry-picking.

      • Andy, and frankly to cut through all the political stuff on this page ( plus griff) I am way more worried about the downward spike than anything else. ( as many historical reports show, cold kills, warm means a growing, wealthier society.

      • The Noah tale is a allegorical account of a flooding event (probably Mediterranean breakout) that impacted the Black Sea area approx. 5000 B.C. Not one to miss a bad news item, the religious nuts at the time of the Old Testament caught hold of it and added the usual spin and wrote it down as “a warning to us all” Dig deep enough and ignore the “fake news” and the scales shall fall from thine eyes…..

      • AleaJactaEst
        December 2, 2016 at 4:28 am

        Probably wasn’t the Black Sea event, but larger than normal annual Mesopotamian flood. The site of Ur preserves evidence of such events.

        Famous underwater archaeologist Bob Ballard thinks the rapid rise of Black Sea level more than 7000 years ago may have inspired the Noah myth and its Mesopotamian precursors, but IMO there is too much of a time lag and geographic distance. The Sumerian ancestor of the biblical flood story was not written down until around 4000 years ago. If the epic character Gilgamesh actually existed, he would have lived some centuries earlier, around 2700 BC.

        The myth was adopted and adapted by Semitic peoples in Babylonia and Assyria, then finally reworked by Canaanites and Hebrews, whose environment was not as flood-prone as lower Mesopotamia or the Nile Valley. Same goes for the creation myths in Genesis and elsewhere in the OT.

      • Famous underwater archaeologist Bob Ballard

        He can’t be that famous as I’ve never heard of him.
        But then again, I spend very little time under water.

      • His fame stems inter alia from his discovery of the following:
        RMS Titanic in 1985, the battleship Bismarck in 1989, and the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown in 1998 and the wreck of John F. Kennedy’s PT-109 in 2002

  6. So, it’s clear isn’t it? When temperatures rise it is definitely climate change but when temperatures drop it’s just the weather.

    • Right. And if everything cancels out over time, it means both the climate crisis and the weather crisis are getting worse. And since weather is ultimately caused by climate, stagnation means the climate crisis is getting even worser.

      • We know climate is ultimately caused by weather because climate is defined based the average weather at a given location or in a given region over an extended length of time. So I hope weather is not ultimately caused by climate as that could lead to runaway positive feedbacks that would freeze, boil, drown and desiccate us all simultaneously.

  7. As a lot of WUWT readers in the previous report of that special curve or graph pointed out, in this case Sanders is right.

    RSS themselves said that the data cannot be trusted anymore.

    Then, it is a cherrypicked local trend, whereby in other locations a much lower cooling is shown.

    Methinks Eric Worrall is suffering from confirmation bias to a certain extend.

    Somtimes the forum looks a bit like a sceptics echo chamber.

    Just a bit more objectivity in some WUWT articles would make this great side even better and less vulnerable.

    • David Rose, the author of the previous post made the mistake not to inidcate which graph he used. As Anthonys Watts pointed out, it is the RSS land only graph.

      The latest UHA global graph from today at drrocspencer.com shows only 0.4°C drop from the el Nino spike.

      UAH northern hemisphere is a drop of 0.66°C from the spike until now.

      So using the RSS land graph only to prove something is not 100% proof.

      • naturbaumeister, if you feel that there are good stories that are being neglected, feel free to write them up and submit them. Anthony is very open about the stories he allows to be printed.
        Don’t just whine about it, do something about it.

    • “Somtimes the forum looks a bit like a sceptics echo chamber.”

      Well, it *is* a little bit of a skeptic echo chamber. That doesn’t mean the echo is scientifically inaccurate.

      There is also an alarmist echo chamber here, although much smaller. I attribute that to the weak case the alarmists have to offer such as hanging their hat on arctic sea ice levels, or claiming that the surface temperature record is accurate.

      If you have your data together, you don’t get shouted down on this website. If you don’t, you are subject to a little bit of ridicule for not having your data together. That’s the way it works in most of the world for most things, isn’t it?

      • The reason those who accept climate science – not alarmists, if you please, if I don’t call you deniers – emphasise the arctic sea ice and especially current conditions there is that is an observed, not modelled example which clearly shows the effects of a warming world.

        I am still waiting for a skeptic site to cover the arctic temp anomaly in the last month and/or the record sea ice low level as a main article, let alone offer an explanation from the skeptic viewpoint as to why this is occurring.

        and there is nothing wrong with the surface temperature record: I refer you again to the independently -skeptic -funded Berkley Earth project which checked it an upheld it, ruling out any UHI bias in the process.

      • Quote from Griff “I am still waiting for a skeptic site to cover the arctic temp anomaly in the last month and/or the record sea ice low level as a main article, let alone offer an explanation from the skeptic viewpoint as to why this is occurring.”
        You were answered in the Rose thread and you ignored it.

      • Call me a “Denier”, it does not offend me. I am proud of it, and here is why:

        “There is the grand truth about Nathaniel Hawthorne. He says No! in thunder; but the Devil himself cannot make him say yes. For all men who say yes, lie; and all men who say no, — why, they are in the happy condition of judicious, unencumbered travelers in Europe; they cross the frontiers into Eternity with nothing but a carpet-bag, — that is to say, the Ego. Whereas those yes-gentry, they travel with heaps of baggage, and, damn them! they will never get through the Custom House.

        Herman Mellville Letter to Nathaniel Hawthorne, [April 16?] 1851

        http://www.melville.org/letter2.htm

      • And he’ll ignore it again in the next thread. And when the ice levels are no longer at record lows in a few months, he’ll go back to ignoring the arctic altogether.

      • Griff, 3.5 million years ago there was a boreal forest on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic. It was populated by, among other creatures, very large camels. There was no ice cap, and Arctic temperatures were 15 C above today’s levels. (Google “Arctic camels” for numerous references to source articles, or see the article “Cold Case” starting on page 46 of the April 2015 issue of Discover magazine.) The absence of the ice cap obviously had nothing to do with humans. Roughly 20,000 years ago, most of Canada was covered with 3000 metres of ice, which has since melted, again with no help from humans. I imagine early North Americans Grog and Gronk screaming, “The ice is melting, the ice is melting, we’re all going to die.”

        Your indirect comment that those sometimes labelled “alarmists” are the ones who accept science, and the inference that those who do not buy into the AGW meme are “science deniers,” is simply wrong. Some of us “deniers” look at climate science as relating to the Earth’s entire climate history, which puts roughly 40 years of ice decline in the Arctic in its proper perspective. Why isn’t the growth of the southern ice cap during the satellite era evidence of global cooling? The problem I see with the AGW believers (or is there a different term I should use?) is that the “baseline” for temperature is (say) 1900, while the “baseline” for Arctic ice is 1978. It is only human arrogance that suggests that those dates are somehow special and are the targets we should be shooting for with our “CO2 control knob.” What “alarmists” seem all to ready to ignore is the role natural forces play in the climate change that has been occurring for 500 million years.

      • Griff says: “I am still waiting for a skeptic site to cover the arctic temp anomaly in the last month and/or the record sea ice low level.” This isn’t the main article you asked for, but here are a couple of comments.

        About 3.5 million years ago, Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic was home to a boreal forest populated by camels, beavers, deer, fish, and rabbits, and there was no Arctic ice cap at all. Temperatures in the region were 15 C higher than today. (K. Powell. “Cold Case: Is our climate’s future written in Arctic fossils from a warmer past?”, Discover Magazine, April 2015, pp. 46-53.) About 20,000 years ago, most of Canada was covered with an ice sheet 3000 to 4000 metres thick. The swing from no ice to lots and lots and lots of ice and then to where were in (say) 1900 was not a result of human influence. Your reference to “record sea ice low level” is false unless it is qualified by “in the micro-sliver of climate history in which we’ve been able to measure it.” It takes a staggering amount of human hubris to take the view that this time in Earth’s climate history is so special that 1978 is our “target” level of Arctic ice, or that 1900 is the “target” temperature, which we will be able to achieve with our “CO2 climate control knob.”

        Your comment that “those who accept climate science – not alarmists,” and the implication that those (like me) who do not buy the AGW meme are “science deniers,” is simply false. To accept climate science is to accept all of climate science, which shows unequivocally that the climate has been changing for 500 million years and will continue to change regardless of what we do with CO2.

        I apologize if a similar comment shows up elsewhere; my first attempt at a response is apparently hiding in the deep ocean.

      • Griff says: “I am still waiting for a skeptic site to cover the arctic temp anomaly in the last month and/or the record sea ice low level.” This isn’t the main article you asked for, but here are a couple of comments.

        About 3.5 million years ago, Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic was home to a boreal forest populated by camels, beavers, deer, fish, and rabbits, and there was no Arctic ice cap at all. (K. Powell. “Cold Case: Is our climate’s future written in Arctic fossils from a warmer past?”, Discover Magazine, April 2015, pp. 46-53.) About 20,000 years ago, most of Canada was covered with an ice sheet 3000 metres thick. The swing from no ice to lots and lots and lots of ice was not a result of human influence. Your reference to “record sea ice low level” is false unless it is qualified by “in the micro-sliver of climate history in which we’ve been able to measure it.” It takes a staggering amount of human hubris to take the view that this time in Earth’s climate history is so special that 1978 is our “target” level of Arctic ice, or that (say) 1900 is the “target” temperature, which we will be able to achieve with our “CO2 climate control knob.”

        Your comment that “those who accept climate science – not alarmists,” and the implication that those (like me) who do not buy the AGW meme are “science deniers,” is simply false. To accept climate science is to accept that the climate has been changing for 500 million years and will continue to change regardless of what we do with CO2.

        I apologize if this comment shows up elsewhere; my first attempts at posting a response are apparently hiding in the deep ocean.

      • Arctic sea ice extent bottomed out about ten years ago, about the same time the AMO peaked and plateaued. Again, give it a few years before you fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems. We don’t have a few trillion in spare change laying around.

      • Griff, “The reason those who accept climate science – not alarmists, if you please…

        Griff, you had zero comments in the thread following the recent post on my DDP talk, showing there is no scientific case for AGW.

        Did you miss it? Or did you just avoid it because, well, no one likes to face a thorough-going refutation.

        I am still waiting for a skeptic site to cover the arctic temp anomaly in the last month and/or the record sea ice low level…” So, the climate has warmed. So what? How do you or anyone else know it’s caused by CO2? Recent warming is nothing unusual on any relevant time-scale.

        and there is nothing wrong with the surface temperature record: …” Except the compilers studiously ignore the ±0.5 C of systematic error that contaminates the measurements. Error that makes the temperature change since 1900 indistinguishable from zero at the 95% confidence interval.

        I refer you again to the independently -skeptic -funded Berkley Earth project…” the Berkeley Earth people who not only ignore the systematic measurement error, but also, like the other practitioners in the field, also seem to have no understanding of instrumental resolution.

      • erik the red December 2, 2016 at 10:41 am

        Careful with the Harpers article. I posted copy a few Articles ago just to show that there has been other theories. How well it stands up today after nearly 60 years is open to debate. We really don’t want a ice free arctic. I do not want their theory put to the test.

        michael

      • Griff: “I am still waiting for a skeptic site to cover the arctic temp anomaly in the last month”

        Griff, that’s because single events lasting a few days or weeks are called “weather”. “Climate” is generally considered to involve periods of – at a minimum – thirty years.

        Why is it you appear to be utterly incapable of grasping this simple fact?

    • “Just a bit more objectivity in some WUWT articles would make this great site even better and less vulnerable.”

      Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. Eric gets to have an opinion, too.

      And “vulnerable” to what? Would be my question.

      • Everyone ot the alarmist party, checking in here, could say that there are incorrect statements. WUWT is not about to have a forum for skeptics only; there is even a mission to convince the other party. By using hostile or incorrect statements, this task will be much more difficult.

      • Ok, I see you are making a constructive criticism. And I think you are correct, we don’t want to be putting out false or misleading information.

        This one article about an unusual drop in last month’s number is a rare exception. It does overstate the cooling. But then you have seen the criticism of the number, by a lot of people, and that’s the way it is supposed to work. If something is misleading, it will be found out. Your contribution is helping us sort it out.

    • Meanwhile, the temperature here is supposed to drop 20C on Sunday night and stay there for at least two weeks. That’ll make the high daily temperatures around the low daily average for this time of year.

    • naturbaumeister said:
      “Somtimes the forum looks a bit like a sceptics echo chamber.”

      Unfortunately WUWT is for many people, a social club based around their ideology, and that doesn’t make for a great environment for sensible debate and discussion. If you can’t have a sensible respectful discussion with someone like Nick Stokes then I would suggest that the real motivation is something other than seeking a better understanding of science.

      [Nick Stokes isn’t capable of respectful discussion, because he is never ever able to admit when he’s wrong. You have the same problem -mod]

      • Writing Observer
        December 2, 2016 at 1:58 am

        Obviously a typo – darn these tiny keyboards. I think he meant the “Vermin Senator.”

        I had the same idea – but it#s obviousy politically incorrect. so Ididn’t dare to mention it.

    • WTH is the Senator from Vermont still doing rally’s in Maine? He sold his lake front summer home there and bought one in Vermont. Bernie, we have had enough of the windmill tilting already. They do a splendid enough job of crashing, burning and causing statewide outages just as you (and the liberals) have. Hey, maybe you can run for president of….Cuba, I hear there will be an opening soon. Just think of all those expats that are moving to Nova Scotia will soon find out this winter that Cuba is MUCH, MUCH warmer.

  8. Delingpole, Breitbart and the Daily Mail are three of the planet’s least reliable sources on climate change…

    • Less reliable than Gavin ? Wow

      I tried to get back to you with the references for grid instability but having written a long comment we had a microcoupure at the end of it and lost it. Genuinely. We get instability cuts very often usually 1 or 2 secs duration but that’s enough to wipe out data and some delicate equipment I have.

      • Get an uninteruptiple power supply to buffer your power. It will extend the life of your RAM too.

      • I fully agree with Roger about the UPS. As an alternative, the next time you replace your computer, consider a laptop. Even if you have a full out power failure, you still have time to save all your work. They’re also a lot more power efficient. Depending on what you pay for electricity you could save enough to more than make up the difference between a laptop and a desktop. link

      • sounds like you’d be better on a German style renewable grid…. :-)

        Well, its an old topic now: we can catch up next time it comes up

      • Guys griff gets paid for every response he gets not for his posts. Please ,please just let him babble on , you are wasting your time . Stop responding.

      • asybot said:
        “Guys griff gets paid for every response he gets not for his posts. Please ,please just let him babble on , you are wasting your time . Stop responding.”

        Could you provide some more information about this? Who pays him every time he gets a response?

        If you actually know something about this, I would like to hear about it. I suspect, more likely though, that you are just making stuff up and are being dishonest in your attempts to insult Griff.

      • On the other hand, whether they get paid or not, these blogs are read far and wide. So sometimes they just go on and on. After awhile it’s not Griff that I’m talking to or mayloutrees or something. And because I have to think about what I’m writing, I come across a new idea or sharpen the clarity I have on a particular aspect on any particular subject.

    • Ah Griff…I can hear your little heart squealing in your chest…like a little piggy…waiting in the queue at the sausage factory…you know what’s coming, don’t you!

    • Griff
      What is your source of empirical data that justifies making such a statement or are you just the least reliable source of information posting here?

      • and every time I post a link, its a link which links on to the actual science/research paper. and you never seem to look at that, just jump straight at rubbishing the place I link to… which I have to use since strangely none of the skeptic sites carries links to that science/research…

      • just in case griffy……….I want to make sure you see my posting. And have a great day ! I have to go to WORK, really I do. !

        This is why people respond to you. Back a few weeks ago, even I said, just don’t respond to him. As I saw Mr. Watts make a comment recently about the possibility of just not responding to your comments, I also realized that the majority of responses to you, are for the fact that they feel the need to make it crystal clear that your opinion or view on any certain subject is at best, blather. I believe the majority of people here that really, really, know what they are talking about, have a strong moral character to want to correct that blather.

        GUG!

      • “and every time I post a link, its a link which links on to the actual science/research paper”

        So far, in this thread, nope. Seems you are LYING !!

        Just to the gruniad and some far left non-entity site.

        No science anywhere

      • Technically, it is really the warmist propaganda people like Griff who do not actually read the study. What Griff reads is the spin put on it by some warming site without reading through the fine print which almost ALWAYS says something different.

        The next time Griff links to some study, I want everyone to read the fine print and point out to him why he has, once again, been subjected to the illusions provided by the spin that this science is based on.

      • Bill Illis: “The next time Griff links to some study…”

        Bill, you are assuming that Griff is amenable to sensible, reasoned, fact-based debate.

        I assure you, he isn’t.

        He is a propagandist, he is paid to disrupt and divert.

    • @Griff

      December 2, 2016 at 1:33 am: And griffbot is not mendacious? Yeah, right! Game is up, robonut.

    • “Delingpole, Breitbart and the Daily Mail are three of the planet’s least reliable sources on climate change”

      Translation: They disagree with my take on the subject.

      • er… no – they have repeatedly been caught presenting inaccurate data.

        Delingpole makes a living out of winding up climate skeptics. (and is a mate of Steve Goddard/tony Heller, Mr reliable on sea ice, I see from Tony’s blog)

        Not every person or site who posts from the skeptic viewpoint is of equal value… for every Curry or Watts there are a dozen lunatics and liars out there.

        If the skeptic side does want to convince, it ought to start sorting and weighting its sources..

      • Still, the bottom line, Griff, is that the skeptic viewpoint is the scientific viewpoint.

        Your side has still to offer convincing, reproducible proof that CO2 has an identifiable impact on the climate:

        Links, please.

        Otherwise, you’re an imposter.

      • “Delingpole makes a living out of winding up climate skeptics. (and is a mate of Steve Goddard/tony Heller, Mr reliable on sea ice, I see from Tony’s blog)”

        Better watch out! Ole Tony will slap you with a pertinent chart.

      • “If the skeptic side does want to convince”

        Technically, it’s not up to skeptics to try to convice anyone of anything. It is up to the promoters of a speculation, such as CAGW, to do the convincing.

      • “they have repeatedly been caught presenting inaccurate data”

        No they haven’t. Just data you don’t understand and that disagrees with your “beliefs”

      • TA said:
        ““Delingpole makes a living out of winding up climate skeptics. (and is a mate of Steve Goddard/tony Heller, Mr reliable on sea ice, I see from Tony’s blog)”

        Better watch out! Ole Tony will slap you with a pertinent chart.”

        TA, are you aware of why Anthony booted Tony Heller from WUWT?

    • But for sheer unadulterated wombat turds, we can always rely on you, and Skepticalscience, and Michael Mann, eh Griff?

    • Spewing another Fake Opinion, Griff? See, it’s easy to identify your post-normal commenting, which consists of:

      a) Think of how you want reality to be,
      b) extrapolate some crazy comment to support it, and
      c) without any consideration of the facts, post it on WUWT and hope your trolling works.

      Problem is, you’re nowhere near the master:

      http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/12/01/trollmaster-trump-is-driving-liberals-to-new-heights-of-fussy-fury-n2252852

      • Maybe there could be a new industry materialize out of the this. I know I’ve been delusional and sick for awhile. I need some stronger meds to help me realize that it is actually warmer than the 25 F that my thermometer keeps insisting that it is. But the worst part is the hallucinations I’m having, I know it doesn’t happen as it is a rare and exciting event, but … but… I think it’s snowing. That just goes to show how deep in denial I am. It can’t possibly be snowing. …

    • Griff, it must be sobering to realize Trump’s election will shorten your life by 40 years, especially since you only seem to be about twenty years old, intellectually anyway.

      Suppose (for the sake of discussion) Arctic Sea Ice is currently shrinking, perhaps even at an unprecedented rate. If the satellite data prove that, few here would (indeed have been) refuting that. Think El Nino.

      But we have seen sea ice contract, then recover remarkably quickly in recent years. More important, however, is that there is no possibility to prove sea ice extent is determined by atmospheric CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) levels, and even less so human-sourced CO2.

      Memorize this phrase, then repeat it to yourself, over and over, as a mantra: “The world is currently warming – naturally.”

      Believe me, you’ll feel better. Then please, please, stop posting the arctic sea ice extent graph and doggedly demanding an explanation. Just chant your mantra. Simple, hey?

      • Excellent link, spetzer86. Everyone ought to read it.

        Here are a couple of pertinent excepts of the article:

        “”3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:

        If the current temperatures are compared to those of the 1930’s one would find nothing remarkable. For many places around the world, the 1930’s were the warmest decade of the last 100 years, including those found in Greenland.”. . .

        “10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:

        For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country. After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.” Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks [what do you think about that, Nick, et al]. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database. (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data. The results were astounding. I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true.”

        end excerpts

        This article demonstrates that it was as hot or hotter in the 1930’s as it is today, that the heat was worldwide, and that NOAA/NASA have changed the original historic surface temperature record in order to support the CAGW speculation.

        The graphs at the bottom of the link page show before and after the numbers were chaged by NOAA/NASA.

        I guess those poor ole Icelandic meteorologists, and those from other nations, were so incompetent they had to turn to NOAA/NASA to get their temperature history right.

        I would love to put some of these people under crossexamination in a court. Tell me, Mr. Icelandic meteorologist, are you so incompetent that you are incapable of recording the correct temperature? That’s what NOAA and NASA are saying when they make these alterations to these guy’s historical records. I wonder if those meteorologists would accept that characterization in public.

    • This chart has issues. The vertical axis identifies the anomaly in degrees C with respect to 1980-2015. However, the summer month anomalies NEVER go below the average for the reference period, and none of the Winter anomalies go above the reference. This makes no sense on a logical level.

      Then, the data represented on the chart were filtered, omitting the odd-numbered decades. No 1890s, 1910s, ’30s, ’50s, ’70s, etc. Some of those were warming, and some were cooling.

      Even with the omission of 1/2 of the decades, the chart is very muddled in the middle of the range. Why chart something with discretely colored lines that cannot be differentiated?

      Then, no apparent representation of the vast changes thermometer census which occurred across the period.

      Also, no error bars, any year, or for the anomaly baseline.

      Even with all that, looking at the chart… What does it mean that the summer anomaly variance is only a little more than 1 degree, and the winter is about 2?

      The final thing to note is that the trace color choices are sorted ‘cool to warm colors’, ascending by decade, so that the early decades plot to cooler anomalies, and that the later decades plot to the warmer.

      IMO, this is an excellent example of a less-than-useful graphic… A waste of computer time.

      • “The vertical axis identifies the anomaly in degrees C with respect to 1980-2015”
        The heading clarifies. They have added the seasonal cycle to the anomalies. Not a great idea, IMHO, but it has a logic.

        ” omitting the odd-numbered decades”
        No, they are showing individual years, with rainbow shading. The key just shows representative colors.

        “Also, no error bars,”
        No, it would be useless here. The idea is to show the progressin of the central estimates.

        “the trace color choices are sorted ‘cool to warm colors’, “
        Yes, a universal custom. People recognise the colors. Cool and warm do exist.

    • Well, who wudda thunk? We see that the world has slowly warmed a bit from the depths of the Little Ice Age, and 2016 was a super-El Nino year. Other than minor temperature effects, no other climate metric has worsened.

      Give the kleptocrats another trillion, my boy.

      • Dave Fair
        “Well, who wudda thunk? We see that the world has slowly warmed a bit from the depths of the Little Ice Age” A nonsense repeated by those who want to deceive. We stopped warming from the depths of the LI a long time ago. That is not the cause of the warming now.

      • ” We stopped warming from the depths of the LI a long time ago. That is not the cause of the warming now.”

        No we didn’t.

        Nor will we do so for at least another century.

  9. was responsible for less than 0.1C of the anomalous warmth.

    Is it coincidence that the UKMO UHI adjustment is 0.1C ? and I think it might be positive as well

  10. Naturemeister says Bernie was right so I have to think BS , sorry it’s just a reflex after years of warmist flat earthers screaming the sky is falling who do you expect me to believe , surely not the old boy who cried wolf for the umpteen dozenth time .

    • Great to have you along. Feeling a little panicky are we?
      Can’t tell you how sweet it feels to see the political tide turn against you all.
      Thanks for dropping by!

    • “Why the sudden trust in RSS?”

      I think some people are a little skeptical of RSS after it made a few adjustments to its methods.

      UAH is the most trustworthy chart of the bunch, imo. UAH has made adjustments to its data, but they have been minimal and understandable, unlike the surface temperature record, and questions have been raised about how RSS did its latest adjustments.

      So for my money, UAH is the chart to look to. RSS second, and the surface charts are junk and should be disregarded other than to debunk them.

      • ” surface charts are junk and should be disregarded other than to debunk them.”
        I am curious as to why you state this. I assume these are lower Troposphere readings over ground and not temperatures at ground level, please correct me if I am wrong as I do not normally look at UAH surface temperatures. If so aren’t these readings used to compile the global readings. Has anyone explained the reason for such a difference between the land and global, yes it might make sense that the readings over water would lag due to the mass and heatcontent of the water and the water may be cooler to start from.
        Appreciate any comments.

      • I thought he was talking about the record formed by the ground based temperature sensor network. The problems with which have been well and thoroughly discussed here.
        1) Not enough sensors, by at least 2 orders of magnitude.
        2) The sensors that do exist are not randomly distributed. (They are concentrated in 1 to 2% of the earth’s total surface area)
        3) Quality control for these sensors has been minimal to non-existent.

      • “Has anyone explained the reason for such a difference between the land and global”
        In the case of RSS, brandished by Breitbart and all, it’s probably largely measurement. Ver 3.3, which they are quoting, is obsolete, and comes with a warning about reliability. The coresponding UAH land measure showed a much smaller drop, which was probably due to the cold in Siberia. In October, Siberia was very cold, and the Arctic very warm. For true global measure, that balances (UAH hardly changed), but for land only, Arctic is mostly excluded.

      • “UAH has made adjustments to its data, but they have been minimal and understandable, unlike the surface temperature record”

        UAH adjustments have been much bigger than surface. Here is a plot of changes to GISS over the last decade or so, compared with last year’s change to UAH TLT. Shown as differences to end 2015 values:

        The update in Roy Spencer’s latest post says (my bold):
        “UPDATE: It should be pointed out that 2016 will end up being 0.03-0.04 deg. C warmer than 1998, which is probably not a statistically significant difference given the uncertainties in the satellite dataset adjustments.

      • “surface charts are junk and should be disregarded other than to debunk them.”
        I am curious as to why you state this.”

        Sorry I wasn’t more clear, I was referring to NOAA/NASA surface temperature charts. Those are the ones I think are junk.

      • I’ll have to study that chart a little.

        Nick wrote: “The update in Roy Spencer’s latest post says (my bold):
        “UPDATE: It should be pointed out that 2016 will end up being 0.03-0.04 deg. C warmer than 1998, which is probably not a statistically significant difference given the uncertainties in the satellite dataset adjustments.“

        Which means 1998 and 2016 are essentially a tie. As for the “uncertainties”, UAH is no more uncertain than are the NOAA/NASA surface temperature measurements.

      • “UAH is no more uncertain than are the NOAA/NASA surface temperature measurements.”
        When you put them both on the same anomaly base (1981-2010), the UAH adjustments are very large in comparison. V5.6 basically agreed with surface measures in terms of recent trends; V6.0 showed a radical change to a negative trend from 2001 to 2015.

      • “UAH has made adjustments to its data, but they have been minimal and understandable”

        Nick still has trouble coming to grips with Engineering principles. If you find an error because of KNOWN movement of your equipment you can make KNOWN corrections.

        Totally the opposite of the surface data where they INVENT corrections for UNKNOWN problems to mal-adjust the data to conform to their political agenda.

      • Nick, when I was comparing the UAH satellite chart and the NOAA/NASA surface charts, I’m taking about the margin of error of each dataset, when I say their uncertainties are similar.

  11. Good news but celebrations are premature.. It is only LAND temperatures according to UAH which have plummeted, UAH global temperate still not available.

    It may be 6 months or even more before the PAUSE is re established

      • “But we don’t live where UAH and RSS are measuring”

        UAH and RSS are measuring the portion of the atmosphere that is supposed to heat up into a “Hot Spot” because of rising CO2, according to the speculation, but they can’t find a hot spot. No hot spot, no CO2-driven human-caused climate change/global warming.

        Isn’t it about as simple as that?

      • “sn’t it about as simple as that?”
        No. The hot spot is expected as a result of warming from whatever cause, and is due to rising water vapor. It is indeed a spot, near the equator, so it doesn’t affect he global average that much. And yes, a hot spot has been found.

      • No Nick,stop the misleading crap,you write,

        “No. The hot spot is expected as a result of warming from whatever cause, and is due to rising water vapor. It is indeed a spot, near the equator, so it doesn’t affect he global average that much. And yes, a hot spot has been found.”

        The IPCC made it clear they were talking about CO2 causing the hot spot in box C,by a series of charts,The sum of all forcings in F box barely added any more to what CO2 is already though to promote,

        Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, © well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

        Thread on this,and links to the IPCC report, from my forum:

        http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1101.html

      • Sorry to burst your bubble, some basic physics the climate scientist leave out is that it takes energy to evaporate MORE water and transport it to the troposphere for it to rain out on us later.

        To evaporate water (at 100 deg C) to steam at 100 Deg C costs 2257000 Joules per kg
        To get water molecules from 15 Deg C to 100 Deg C costs 356150 Joules per Kg
        To get water molecules from the surface to 10 km costs 10000×9.8 = 98000 Joules per Kg

        So to go from 15 deg water to vapour at 10000m costs 2.71 MJ per kg.

        So how much EXTRA water can we evaporate and get to the troposphere using the available 0.6W per square meter. Watts x seconds per year = 18.9 MJ implying that global warming can cause an extra 6.9 kg per square meter of surface. Now the average surface precipitation is around 1m (1 Cubic meter per square meter) Which weighs 1 kg per liter so 1000 liters weighs 1000 kg. 6.9/1000 is 0.69% so global warming if the whole of the “Imbalance” was used to evaporate water – implying NO WARMING because energy can’t be in 2 places at one time evaporation would increase and hydrological cycling at the troposphere would increase an unmeasurable 0.69% IF we assume though that the driving energy is only half used up by evaporation (making the evaporation causal) then that falls to 0.35% !
        If I assume that the whole of the direct effect of CO2 evaporates water only, impossibly, with no other losses (like any nasty atmospheric warming) it would still only produce just 1% more evaporation.

        THAT IS WHY THERE ISN’T A HOTSPOT there isn’t enough energy to cause sufficient evaporation. In a 970 HPa storm according to my calcs 0.35% more evaporation might lower pressure to 969.85 which is below the noise floor.

        The problem here Nick is that this so-called science is trying to repeal the law of conservation of energy there is not nearly enough energy to do the things the climate scientists say are happening.

        There was a paper claiming 20% more precipitation – see above – max of 0.69% more, another claims 300 cubic km of ice loss – just in the antarctic west region – requiring over 30 Watts per square meter of energy to perform. Another one claims the climate is moving hundreds of square km of ice from sea ice to antarctic land ice, Which requires, melting, evaporation and precipitation energy – more energy per kg by another 333kJ per kg – likely to exceed energy available from AGW by orders of magnitude except the paper unscientifically makes no claim on volume and therefore doesn’t even try to compute an energy balance so that “Sea ice” might be a micron thick for all I know. The IPCC itself thinks the effect on rainfall will be +5% (50 Kg per sq metre) when the math shows only 6.9 kg (0.69%) is even possible!

        They use the models to work this stuff out – but even a simple check of the energy requirements show them to be impossible – the ONLY explanation for that is that the models they use do not properly conserve energy.

        The problem is simply that just one these claims of thermogeddon do not stand up to the slightest meager scrutiny, when you add up the energy cost of ALL the supposed effects of global warming it goes from just very, very improbably to impossible.

      • “The IPCC made it clear they were talking about CO2 causing the hot spot in box C,by a series of charts,”
        Not at all. They showed a hot (or cold) spot for each of five different forcings, with the same pattern, though cooling forcings cool. Yes, it’s true that GHG forcing is going to be the largest forcing. But warming from any cause gives the same pattern, which basically relates to how humidity varies with temp.

        The climate4you HotSpot plot. That has been around for quite a while. It is based on HadAT, which ended in 2012. That too comes with a warning:
        Cautionary note
        It is important to note that significant uncertainty exists in radiosonde datasets reflecting the large number of choices available to researchers in their construction and the many heterogeneities in the data. To this end we strongly recommend that users consider, in addition to HadAT, the use of one or more of the following products to ensure their research results are robust…. “

        And it is proper analysis of all the data (rather sparse in the tropics) that shows up the hotspot.

      • Nick,

        You sound worried that real science will be practiced under the Trump Administration. You should be.

        The jig is up. The trillion dollar, 30 year junket has been busted. Maybe you salted away a few blood shekels while it lasted.

        History will speak the your name and those of your co conspirators only by spitting, as we now do for Pol Pot.

        How can you and your ilk live with yourselves, with so much blood and stolen treasure on your hands?

      • bobl,
        I don’t agree with your calculation at all. First some minor points – you’ve calculated the energy to make steam at 100°C, but that isn’t happening. Creating sparse water vapor at 15C needs about 2.4 MJ/kg. And no work is needed to raise it to 10km; WV is lighter than air. It rises under its own steam, so to speak.

        But yes, 0.6 W/m2 can evaporate about 6.9 kg water per year per m2, equivalent to 6.9mm of precipitable water. Now typical tropical TPW is maybe 50-100mm, so that would be a substantial annual increase.

        But of course TPW is only about the amount of 1 good downpour. So it can increase just by a reduction in rain.

      • Nick, is now into the twilight zone,

        He writes,

        “The climate4you HotSpot plot. That has been around for quite a while. It is based on HadAT, which ended in 2012. That too comes with a warning:
        “Cautionary note
        It is important to note that significant uncertainty exists in radiosonde datasets reflecting the large number of choices available to researchers in their construction and the many heterogeneities in the data. To this end we strongly recommend that users consider, in addition to HadAT, the use of one or more of the following products to ensure their research results are robust…. “

        Yet Nick posted a link to an embarrassing paper he fell hard for,that doesn’t support the claim credibly. The same quack scientist who thought using contrived wind data discovered the “hot spot”.

        “Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere,” said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.

        “We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see.”

        The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

        No climate models were used in the process that revealed the troposphere hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.”

        Apparently they do like the Radio Sonde data set as they used a lot of it.

        You are pathetic,Nick.

        Here they say they liked the very same Radio Sonde data, you disliked in reply to my comment. Meanwhile I never said there was no warming,just no “hot spot” that models calls for. The chart I supplied shows a small warming,but well below the modeled rate,while the lower Troposphere shows a ZERO warming rate.

        Just last year,Dr. Spenser made a post showing that SATELLITE data fails to fing it as well:

        New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot”

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/

        You are here to mislead or lie to people.

      • Nick I didn’t know you were so scientifically illiterate.

        1. It is necessary to get a water molecule to kinetic energy equivalent to a temp (at STP) of 100Deg C + the latent heat of evaporation, Water is a distribution of energies you assume that it is one consistent temperature, the fact is that a kg of water molecules at a single kinetic energy will require that extra energy to evaporate. Yes water at an average of 15 deg will evaporate but only those molecules that have sufficient energy do at any point.
        2. For energy nothing is free if you take any mass and raise it to a height the potential energy (mgh) needs to come from “Somewhere” . so to raise extra water takes extra energy. Or was Newton wrong ?

        Even if the energy for heating to 100deg and potential energy (mgh) were free which they are not, and just the enthalpy of evaporation water 2.4MJ per kg counts it only changes the math by 10% to say 0.75% change in hydrological cycling – my comments stand regardless! There is insufficient energy to cause any hange in humidity / hotspot and the models still produce an impossible amount of evaporation when used for rainfall / ice melt prediction.

        I have written to the so-called scientists, and they universally write back and say, we didn’t check the energy requirement of our model output.

        Don’t get me wrong, I don’t say that say 300 cubic km extra of the antarctic is not melting per annum, I just say that with an estimated energy requirement to do that of circa 30 Watts per square meter it CANT BE GLOBAL WARMING THAT IS CAUSING THAT.

  12. Since I predicted “Global cooling this year” – and we’ve got global cooling this year – I can’t see anything to get excited about.

    Who am I kidding!! It’s almost like Xmas every day with Trump coming in!

    • “It’s almost like Xmas every day with Trump coming in!”

      I feel that way, too. I have really been enjoying this period after the election. I’ve been laughing a *lot* over how the Left is going nuts. They really are comical. I know they are in a lot of pain, but it’s “all in their minds”, is all I can tell them. They ought to snap out of it, then they would feel better.

      I also laugh a lot, maybe more, thinking about how we just dodged the bullet by defeating Hillary Clinton and the Left. This really is a special moment in time. Let’s make the most of it.

    • Might be ok in Scotland. Here in Canada I have been hanging my hopes on continued upward trends and the IPCC’s own statement that “Warming up to 1.8C is beneficial”.

      • Yes a very interesting statement, if up to 1.8 deg C is increasingly beneficial then it stands to reason that break-even on the high side of the peak is around 3.6 deg, so for 3.6 deg we won’t be worse off than now!

        At current trends of around 1.4 deg per doubling we have something like 1500 years before we even need to start worrying!

    • “only a drop of 0.38°C from the El Nino spike.”

      WOW that’s nearly half of the whole rise since 1850 !

      AMAZING !!!

      • And a lot less than the decline after the 1998 El Nino (which was followed by a La Nina). Despite some people’s claims, if we’re entering a La Nina now, it’s gotta be one of the lamest I’ve seen.

      • that is not the point. The graph shows the nonsense of only looking at the temperature drop
        over land. Which ignores 70% of the earth’s surface. The large drop in land temperatures was
        probably caused by the fact that siberia was significantly colder than usual. But at the same time
        the artic was 20 degrees warmer than normal. Hence the global average temperature barely changed.

      • Ric Werme
        December 2, 2016 at 5:51 am

        IMO it appears to be a steeper drop so far than from the 1998 peak. Will have to wait a few more months to see if the decline continues at the same rate or not.

        A warmer (if that’s the right term) than normal Arctic Ocean and surrounding air now could portend a colder future, as the seawater exposed without ice cover is releasing a lot of heat to the atmosphere, eventually to be lost to space.

    • Wow!

      About +0.6 degree C increase from 1979 to last month (without computing a trend line). That means that in AD 2053 at the same rate, it will be 0.6 degrees C warmer than now, and in 2090 1.2 degrees C. Horrors!

      Sounds good to me, but unfortunately global temperature is at least as likely to fall over the next 37 years as to continue climbing. It might be due to rise again during the following 37 years, however.

  13. For Bernie and the climate kooks, the world is coming to an end and you had better not disagree or else! Too bad Bernie didn’t have the depth of character or the intellectual integrity to question why he was being discouraged from asking tough questions about Hillary’s email problems. Instead he would rather regurgitate climate extremist spew as a cynical loser.

    • I wonder how serious Bernie was about trying to win. He could have, even with the Dumpocrap Establishment rigging the primaries against him, had 1) resigned from the Senate to campaign full time, and 2) attacked Clinton not just as a tool of Wall Street, but for her illegal, unsecured email server and the Clinton Crime Family Foundation’s payola scheme. Sandersistas might not care about national security, but he could have linked her FOIA-avoiding classified emails to the racketeering, pay to play influence peddling and bribery of the foundation, selling US foreign policy to the highest bidder.

      As it is, crooked, corrupt, screaming psycho hell bitch, pathological liar and neurological disease sufferer Clinton bought his support in the general election by having her minions buy the Sanders’ ME cabin for far more than it was worth, so that they could purchase a more valuable property in NH or VT.

    • It looks like more propaganda to me- over and over saying:”Our proposals provide a strong market pull for new technologies, set the right conditions for investors, empower consumers, make energy markets work better and help us meet our climate targets. I’m particularly proud of the binding 30% energy efficiency target, as it will reduce our dependency on energy imports, create jobs and cut more emissions.”

      Nary a fact in the whole article, just “we’re going to do great things with regulations you’ll have to follow.” Not a very compelling piece at all.

      • When I see the phrase ” empower consumers ” , my first thought is little or no choice. That’s like empowering consumers with health care. … yes, you have to have it, and it’ll cost you more than a mortgage payment on a house. That’s what empowering consumers means to me.

    • One part of the proposal;
      ”More transparent real time price signals will stimulate consumer participation, either individually or through aggregation, and make the electricity system more flexible, facilitating the integration of electricity from renewable energy sources.”

      Read that with the Orwellian glasses on:

      When the wind and sun goes off, the consumer will have to pay dearly for what is left. Forget affordable, dependable and secure grids.

      May God forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing.

  14. I understood there was an underlying trend to show we were slowly climbing out of the Little Ice Age even though it was hard to see due to the El Nino’s and La Nina’s. Is this no longer the case?

    • I think we still are, it’s just that there hasn’t been any new studies about it and the concept has fallen out of fashion. It may be a long period cycle, maybe it will make a comeback in a century or so.

  15. Too much emphasis on short term climate events. I think that the lack of continuous global warming shown by the existing temperature record plus the apparent pattern of warming and pause in warming should be continuously pointed out to Sanders and crew as a wooden stake in the heart of their “Man-made CO2 as the warming villain” argument.

  16. Such short term apparent global temperature changes do not mean anything in terms of real climate change. Such changes are indicative of weather cycles and not true climate change.

    • Then why does each year’s slight temperature variance make the news as a reliable drum beat of “hottest year ever” when that temperature rise is on the magnitude of ~0.01 to ~0.1?

      Either the current temperature and short term (<30 years) trend matter – or they don't. The political narrative doesn't get to have it both ways.

      • It is all politics and not science. “Ever” really refers to the “adjusted” modern temperature record which does not go back very far. We are near the peak of the Modern Warm Period so “hottest year ever” during the peak of the Modern Warm Period does not mean all that much. There is evidence that temperatures were warmer during the previous Medieval Warm Period and other warm periods during the Holocene. There is also plenty of evidence that the previous interglacial period was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet CO2 levels were lower than today. There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. For example, if CO2 really affected climate, one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The AGW conjecture is based upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption bands of so called greenhouse gases but there is no evidence that such a greenhouse efect exists on either Earth, Venus, or any planet the solar system. Without evidence of a radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW conjecture is just poor science fiction.

  17. I doubt Bernie’s BA (Chicago) would stand him in good stead against many sceptics. You don’t need a PhD to know when the temperature is crashing.

  18. This whole farragio turned into a pure and unadulterated PR/marketing/propaganda campaign in the lead up to Paris and the prospect of an El Nino about the same time or shi=ortly after. Now the reality of the post El Nino truth is hitting home these buffoons are going into melt down as the egg on their face starts to fry as their idiocy turns their cheeks redder and redder.

    LOL

    • boy do we!
      after the SA wind debacle?
      now western vic local free paper it touting 3 wind gen setups all the way round horsham and down to the sth
      and some idiocy re soalr farm too
      some of em need shooting..
      hardly worth the cost of a bullet though

  19. “Why are climate advocates so upset?”
    It’s he post-truth era we seem to be entering. The reports are just false. The House science tweet said:
    “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists “
    But global temperatures haven’t plunged. The index cited (erratically) wasn’t global. And it wasn’t surface, which is what most people think of as global temperature. And it comes with an unreliability warning.

    And the trouble with post-truth is that if anyone is seriously following, they get whiplash. So you have Roy Spencer:
    “November Temperature Up a Little from October; 2016 Almost Certain to be Warmest in 38 Year Satellite Record”
    And October dropped only 0.03°C from September. I suppose WUWT will cover UAH soon. So we have simultaneously “massive drop by 1°C” and “No change – record year almost certain”. Incoherent.

    Is that an “icy silence” from Roy?

    • Poor Nick doesn’t know what a “transient” is

      He will find out once this scam is dumped where it belongs.

      Start looking for a comfortable park bench now, Nick.

      Although you probably have a fair deal of climate trough money stashed away.. right ;-)

      • AndG55
        You just can’t help but resort to threatening childish behaviour can you? NS is making a valid point (backed by the data) in a gentlemanly way and your way of rebutting is to play the man…. every time it seems. Why explain to him why he is wrong?

      • Though with arctic sea ice at a record low in extent and volume and thickness one third into the freeze season, perhaps you want to predict a ‘recovery’ for that in 2017 ??

      • Griff there has been persistent low pressure in the arctic that has been drawing in warm air from the Atlantic and at times the Pacific. Where do you think that heat is going? Do you think it just sits up there?
        El Nino is a cooling event and the warm arctic is the second half of that cooling event. We are loosing a lot of heat to space right now. Cooling will follow.

      • “The issue is a respect for facts and truth.”

        Then stick with UAH6 and RSS3.3

        NOT the fabrication that is the fairy story of the surface data.

      • AndyG55, your bias shows by brushing these inconvenient facts off. UAH land LT for November saw no drop, actually went from +0.23 to +0.48. Roy has commented on the discrepancy on his webpage:

        Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
        December 1, 2016 at 9:40 AM
        we think that the RSS diurnal cycle adjustment, which is largest over land, is biased. That would be my first guess

        Even the RSS authors say it has issues and is being updated (http://www.remss.com/node/5166).

    • The problem is Nick that your analysis as much as you may think otherwise, has just as much bias attached to it as those who think AGW is not happening. Hence why you get the responses you get. I don’t believe I have ever seen you come on here and say yes….hurricane activity has not increase, yes extreme weather is not increasing, yes polar bears appear to be fine despite all the claims from media and biased scientists. How about you start looking at both sides. You only comment from one side of the debate. There are very few scientist that are willing to tread in the middle ground between both sides of the debate. I suspect Judith Curry is about as close this as you can get, but the way she was treated by the pro AGW community, it is not surprising she leans a bit more to the sceptic side.

    • > Is that an “icy silence” from Roy?

      I guess I’m not sure what you expect. He reports the UAH data soon after the 1st of a month, UTC and moves on. Lately he’s been more interested in astrophotography than dealing with government types and people putting way too much emphasis on short term data.

      He does note that “The paper describing the methodology [within UAH V6.0] has been accepted for publication.” That’s good news.

      • “I guess I’m not sure what you expect.”
        What I expect is what I see from Roy on this occasion. A decent respect for truth and accuracy. I don’t think TLT measures are reliable, but at least he sticks to one measure (global) and says fairly what happened to it (nothing much).

        So let’s look at that tweet again:
        “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists”
        So “alarmists” are supposed to be icy silent. But there is Roy, a custodian of one of the records. And he isn’t singing along with Breitbart at all. That’s the contrast.

      • I don’t think TLT measures are reliable

        I dont either. But at least they’re consistent over the short term – perhaps a decade or two. So in terms of anomalies they’re likely to be better than surface measurements. As the structure of the atmosphere changes, the underlying models will also need to change in the satellite calculations and that’s going to cause bias (imo). It is already.

      • TimTheToolMan December 2, 2016 at 2:46 pm
        I don’t think TLT measures are reliable

        I dont either. But at least they’re consistent over the short term – perhaps a decade or two.

        Actually they aren’t, that’s the problem according to RSS and UAH which is why they are making adjustments because of change in orbits etc. In his recent presentation to congress Christy didn’t mention TLT at all, just the TMT product.

  20. I like James Delingpole but I really do wish he’d steer clear of data and statistics. It’s pretty clear he’s used an obsolete data set and, despite what he says, ALL scientists (on both sides) understood there would be a decline in global temperatures once the recent El Nino subsided.

    The El Nino was not the sole reason for the record high temperature. We’ve had El Ninos before (e.g. 1986/87) but the temperature (surface or satellite) never got close to that of the last 12 months.

    UAH temperatures are still pretty elevated – much higher than anything in the 1980s.. Warming is taking place that’s for sure. Why ? – I strongly suspect that the increase in CO2 is causing the surface and atmosphere to retain more heat. How much more warming we can expect is up for debate but I suggest that’s where we concentrate the argument else the sceptic side is going to start looking a bit silly.

    • Mr Finn. The AGW hypothesis is based on CO2 causing relatively minor warming that results in an increase in evaporation and the added water vapor (shown as a feedback by IPCC because of this) is what causes the real increase in atmospheric temperature. That rise in temperature also causes more evaporation and the runaway water vapor feedback loop then causes the catastrophic global warming.
      Yet there does not appear to have been any concomitant increase in relative humidity indeed many areas are experiencing the opposite.
      Perhaps you could elucidate what the global warming hypothesis actually is as the one that was originally stated required water vapor feedback. Yet you and others appear to have abandoned mention of the water vapor feedback (possibly because it isn’t happening). So please would you step through the hypothesis again as it appears to have been falsified?

      • @Ian W

        December 2, 2016 at 4:13 am: Thanks Ian W..
        Hopefully we only have to keep repeating the true physics for another year or two before pennies drop at last…..

      • I understand the AGW hypothesis and if you read my post correctly you might notice that I questioned how much warming can be expected. I also suggested that this is the potentially productive area for debate from a sceptic point of view. This part of my comment might help

        How much more warming we can expect is up for debate but I suggest that’s where we concentrate the argument

        Tricky stuff I know but you’ll get the hang of it.

        Another suggestion: Trying to score points from comments which, by and large, acknowledge the physics and the possible holes in the CAGW theory (Catastrophic) while ignoring the stream of nonsense from the solar crowd isn’t helping the credibility of the sceptic side. The world is not cooling – nor is it likely to be any time soon.

      • John Finn December 2, 2016 at 5:44 am

        “Trying to score points from comments which, by and large, acknowledge the physics and the possible holes in the CAGW theory (Catastrophic) while ignoring the stream of nonsense from the solar crowd isn’t helping the credibility of the sceptic side. The world is not cooling – nor is it likely to be any time soon.”

        “ignoring the stream of nonsense from the solar crowd” John Solar infuence on the climate system is a never ending battlefield here. Why would you make such a statement? Are you saying the subject should be banned? Why would anyone want to? The subject has been under discussion within the Astrophysics community for many years now. Open discussion is how science moves foreword.

        “The world is not cooling – nor is it likely to be any time soon.” Maybe maybe not. John if natural variance is what drives the climate system your statement is without value.

        And since natural variance was the sole driver of past climate change I think you are SOL.

        michaeel

    • “Warming is taking place, that’s for sure”. Yes, because with you Warmists, it’s always cherry-picking season. Oh, and you “suspect” CO2 is causing the warming? Of course you do – it’s in the Warmist manual. Evidence-free, of course.

      • I don’t know why you refer to me as a “warmist”. Do you consider Richard Lindzen a “warmist” – or Roy Spencer? Their views are similar to mine.

        Anyway, . I do not need to cherry pick to show that the satellite data has a warming trend.

        If you want evidence that CO2 affects the flow of outgoing radiation from the earth atmosphere then simply take a look at emission spectra from outer space. If more CO2 is added to the atmosphere then the average height at which energy is emitted to space will increase. This means energy will be emitted form colder layers of the troposphere which means rates of emission will be reduced ( S-B Law). If the rate of emission is reduced then the earth will warm because we will have more incoming energy (from the sun) than outgoing energy.

        We can expect an increase of about 1.2 deg C for a doubling of CO2. However this ignores feedbacks which may be positive or negative. Herein lies the real debate between “warmists” and “sceptics”

      • One gets to spot a ‘concern troll’ early on on the internet.

        “Basically I am on your side…but….I have a concern…”

      • Leo Smith December 2, 2016 at 6:03 am

        One gets to spot a ‘concern troll’ early on on the internet.

        “Basically I am on your side…but….I have a concern…”

        Oh dear – here we go again. Tell you what why don’t you select the following link at Steve McIntyre’s site

        https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/

        Then scroll down to this

        in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.

        I’ve been looking into this stuff for nearly 15 years and was challenging Michael Mann about the H-S reconstruction 5 years before “Climategate”. Now if you’ve got any useful points to make let’s have them otherwise I suggest you just read and learn.

      • @John Finn, oops but that doesn’t make any sense The only way that “Higher emission layer” (which is a fictitious representation anyway) could be colder is if there was a simultaneous increase in the lapse rate. If the temperature at the earth is higher by say 1 deg then if we assume the lapse rate stays the same then the height of the emission layer must be around 180m higher AT THE SAME TEMPERATURE because it takes 180M at 6 deg per km lapse rate to account for the extra deg on the surface. Now remember the so-called theory calls for the specific humidity of the air to be higher, more water vapour actually LOWERS THE LAPSE rate so the emission layer will be hotter in spite of the increase in height and MORE emission occurs, this is what satellites actually see happening, it’s feedback alright but it’s negative.

        As for that emission layer, that’s a fiction, there is no such thing, indeed the “effective height” of the CO2 emission depends on the departure from the central frequency of the emission band. Only hot WV molecules emit doppler frequencies significantly away from the central emission frequency so as emission frequency depart from the central frequency they come from faster (hotter) molecules which are on average deeper in the atmosphere. The emission layer idea is a convenience and fictional simplification of what really happens, something like assuming the earth is a flat-earth disk receiving uniform 24 hour illumination of 347 Watts per square meter.

    • Mr Finn, while I agree with you, there is one small point of disagreement. Actually, before the adjustments of more recent years the charts that I remember would have shown that the peak of the 1998 El Nino was of the same order as that of 2016 and, possibly, even higher. But that was before Karl et al and other climatologists got nibbling away at the data.

      • I only refer to UAH. I don’t want to get bogged down in the merits or otherwise of the surface temperature records.

      • …cherry picking, like pointing out a rather meaningless sea ice report? Cherry picking like THAT?

        Mr. Kettle, there is a Ms. Pot on the line for you…

      • “Leftfootforward”…You’re kidding, right?

        Bloody hell Griff, you’ve really excelled yourself this time!

        You really are a mendacious little waste of bandwidth, aren’t you?

      • catweazle, as I said, just first reference to come up… and whatever it is, it accurately reports one of Delingpole’s many shameful mistakes.

        Just google ‘James Delingpole debunk’ and watch those hits roll in.

      • “Just google ‘James Delingpole debunk’ and watch those hits roll in.”

        Oh, I’m absolutely sure they will – and every last one a fabrication.

        As James Delingpole is one of the most effective sceptic commentators, I’m absolutely you and your poisonous environment-hating solar and wind-sponsored friends have flooded the Internet with lies and hate postings about him.

        I remember your dismissive sneers at the number of the sick and elderly that even your pet Guardian journalist was complaining about dying because of the price of energy, and I’ve seen your lies about the destruction of bats, birds and habitat by the ‘unreliables’ you are paid to propagandise about.

        You are a very unpleasant, greedy, mendacious piece of work with no care for anyone except yourself, and fortunately, this year the World has changed and you and all your vile ilk are going to be brought to book.

        Bank on it..

      • We have seen the far-left AGW agenda cherry-picking and anti-science before, Griff.

        No need to look at it again.

      • ““Just google ‘James Delingpole debunk’ and watch those hits roll in.””

        As I suspected, I cannot find one respectable science site that debunks the article.

        Its all just propaganda handwringing.

    • “How much more warming we can expect is up for debate”. Oh good. So “the debate” isn’t over then. How gracious of you. Except that, you still assume that a) we are currently warming, and b) that the assumed current warming will continue, because of the third assumption of yours c) that the increased CO2 caused by man is primarily responsible for the warming since 1979 (which, yeah is a cherry-pick), and thus the “warming” will continue.
      Oh what a tangled web you Warmists weave.

    • “The El Nino was not the sole reason for the record high temperature”

      It will be funny to see you repeat that next year when there is no EL Nino ;-)

  21. If the plunge doesn’t go any lower then we have an upward trend in temperature. This one hasn’t even crossed the line yet which makes the upcoming upward trend even higher.

  22. Well of course it doesn’t matter if *just* the land cools down – its not like there are any houses & homes, farms or people living there very much.
    As long as the big cities, suburbs, wide open prairies and shopping malls out there on the Pacific and Atlantic oceans stay toasty & hot, doom mongering can proceed at full speed ahead.
    Bring it on.
    Personally I’m glad I live a a piece of driftwood in the middle of the Atlantic – I’ve got a more reliable supply of electricity than South Australia and increasingly, Western Europe in the early evenings.
    ;-D

    • No, the CO2 isn’t keeping the temperature up. El Nino’s heat is dissipating and the temperatures are dropping.

      The alarmists will say “but it hasn’t dropped very much, and may not drop very much in the future, so CO2 could still be involved.” Maybe, maybe not. It’s supposed to be real cold this month.

      So far, this current climate pattern duplicates the warming from 1910 to 1940. Then it cooled from 1940 to about 1978. Now it has warmed back up to almost 1930’s levels. If the temperatures go higher from here, then skeptics will have to reassess their positions.

      Unfortunately, if the temperature goes lower, the alarmists will just claim it is CAGW. I have already seen a claim in the last few days that we could have another 20-year pause, that would be consistent with CAGW. So hot or cold, the alamists are going to claim it is CAGW.

      • The political hacks can claim that CAGW is consistent, real scientists can not. The reason is based exclusively on the math. Deadline after deadline is passing on the need for urgent action. And the only tool left that they have to talk about is Arctic ice extent.

      • Now it has warmed back up to almost 1930’s levels. If the temperatures go higher from here, then skeptics will have to reassess their positions.

        Let me guess. You’re an American. While the US did have a warm 1930s this was not the case for the rest of the world.

      • If the temperatures go higher from here, then skeptics will have to reassess their positions.

        No. They wont. The fact of the matter is that correlation of the size claimed by the alarmists, between temperature and CO2 levels has been broken for good.

        WE have seen major temperature fluctuations that are happening obviously independently of CO2, and that has to at least cast doubt on et fundamental assumption that underpins CAGW: Namely that after you have eliminated all the stuff you know about, what’s left must be caused by CO2.

        The data for the past 20 years implies the opposite. After you have eliminated all the stuff you know about what’s left can’t be down to CO2, because its doesn’t correlate.

        CAGW is irretrievably broken. CO2 may have a minor effect, but its patently dwarfed by much much bigger unknowns. And there is no positive feedback at all, in fact its likely that its negative.

      • I love the way Griffy keeps shifting his focus. Whatever small portion of the world is behaving as he believes it should, is proof positive that CAGW is live, well and going to kill us all.
        3 months ago, when the arctic ice was well above the lows of the satellite era, Griffy had nothing to say about the arctic. Now he can’t stop talking about it.

      • “Whatever small portion of the world is behaving as he believes it should” …

        You mean like choosing data from one specific satellite? And then only including northern hemisphere land data? And then looking at only the 8 month change? Like that small portion of the world?

      • “Let me guess. You’re an American. While the US did have a warm 1930s this was not the case for the rest of the world.”

        I am American. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Oh! You must think I am America-centric, and therefore am walking around with blinders on, only looking at it from the American point of view.

        As for other areas of the world compared to the U.S. temperatures, it depends on what chart you look at as to whether it was hot around the world at the same time.

        I see lots of charts from all around the world showing the period of the 1930’s-1940 being about the hottest point on the chart. They are not exact duplicates of the U.S. temperature profile, but they are close enough for government work.

        Here’s an example:

        As you can see, the unmodified “measured” chart shows 1940 as being as hot or hotter than any year subsequent. There are lots of charts like this, from around the world, that show pretty much the same temperature profile. Until NOAA/NASA got hold of them, that is. After that, they look completely different, like a hockeystick.

      • @ John Finn
        I believe my assumption of natural variation survives until we approach the Eeimian optimum of around +8 compared with 2016 if the world temperature even got 5 degrees ABOVE the natural temperature of the eeimian optimum due to little ‘ole me, I still think a warm 28 deg average (-60 to maybe +50 depending on latitude) is way preferable to the natural temperature of the Cryogenian period of -55 (-140 to maybe -15 depending on latitude). Good luck growing your lunch on a snowball earth using windmills and Solar Panels…

        John, you have no idea about scale, the earths NATURAL temperature range is from around -55 to around 23 until we are out of that range natural variation reigns supreme. We aught to be looking at how mankind is gonna survive a snowball earth scenario rather than a slight movement of growing habitats just 10 deg poleward.

  23. Detecting climate change involves multi-decade measurements, not yearly or monthly data. It’s propaganda when the alarmists cite extreme weather events as climate change, and its propaganda when skeptics point to data like this to discredit alarmists.

    • Wrong. It’s called mockery, aimed at Warmist propaganda, which people are continually fed through the compliant and complicit MSM.

      • Griffy, don’t panic. It’ll all be OK. The Arctic is freezing up right now — it’s cold up there. The polar bears, caribou, seals, etc aren’t dying — they’ll be OK. Many people will even have a white Christmas this yr, and for yrs to come.

      • er no beng…. it ain’t, though it is supposed to be.

        The bears need ice to get on to – none in Hudson bay or round Svalbard.

        another big storm coming in up there…

      • “another big storm coming in up there…”

        Ahhh…. finally you admit its WEATHER related.

        Well done Griff.

        You are being a great help to the climate skeptic point of view. :-)

      • Griff writes

        another big storm coming in up there…

        So next time you feel tempted to write that sea ice extent is low right now, think back to this statement.

      • Griff “a decade of an open NW passage”

        How exactly did the Inuit make it all the way over to Greenland in Kayaks and Whaling boats. You know boats.

      • Griff,

        Bill is right. The NW Passage has been open more summers in the Holocene than not. It was open more often and wider for thousands of years before now.

        Polar bear populations are booming. Your stool lacks even one scientific leg upon which to stand, let alone three.

  24. If you look at all the data the temperatures still show a slight warming. Perhaps a bit better than 0.1c/decade. Delingpole is wrong. Now with the sun entering into a quiet period this warming trend may reverse. However, like the climate models we can’t predict the future.

    Delingpoles position actually hurts the deniers position. We should not want to associate with that. It’s,probably better to see that temperatures will continue to show a modest increase for the near future. This increase does not represent problem and may very well benefit mankind

  25. There’s only a few years, at best, to go before the insanity ends.I read the following news story the other day. This quote really lent me some insight into just how deep the insanity goes, however, as I said, it also illustrates that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

    Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

    “Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”

    Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

    “You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

    Allright, so American male life expectancy is 78 years. Lets say this deluded young staffer is 25; by his own words he expects to die in the next 13 years. When he doesn’t, and/or he sees little of what he fears is going to happen he will be in his mid-30s, probably with all the trappings of family, job and debt obligations. I think at that time, he, and the rest of his ilk will come to their collective senses.

  26. I sometimes wonder what people would do if they couldn’t make all those pretty graphs and charts.

  27. Evidence that falsifies their end of the world theory is always met with fear, anger and denial. So either they WANT the world to end, or this is really about politics (i.e., money and power) and not science.

    By the way, fear, anger and denial are stages of mourning. These people are subconsciously mourning the loss of the theory (and so the loss of money and power?).

    Also, Bernie doesn’t have a PhD in Climatology, either. His got a BS in Political Science, but ironically that does qualify him to speak for the radical leftist side of the Global Warming theory because it’s just politics.

  28. Has it occurred to anyone that the blip in landtemps are due to the high temps over the Arctic and corresponding low temps over Siberia so it is just because of this switch that the temps are low over land, but the drop does not show up in the latest combined land and sea temps?

    @BobTisdale perhaps?

  29. Gotta love the squirming and cherrypicking!

    ‘Global temperatures show the steepest drop ever since the middle of the year’
    NOPE

    ‘Global LAND temperatures show the steepest drop ever since the middle of the year’
    NOPE

    ‘Global LAND temperatures IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE show the steepest drop ever since the middle of the year’
    Getting close, but still wrong

    ‘Global LAND temperatures IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE show the steepest drop ever SINCE 6 MONTHS AGO’
    NOPE

    ‘Global LAND temperatures IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE show the steepest drop ever SINCE6 8 MONTHS AGO’
    YES! We finally found the one specific version of this statement for one cherrypicked area for one cherrrypicked time period that is true. Somehow it doesn’t seem so impressive anymore.

    Maybe THAT is why “warmists’ and ‘greens’ don’t like the article. It is wrong and sensationalized in a very misleading way. :-/

    (Not to mention that even this drop leaves northern hemisphere land temperatures above average. )
    (Not to mention that a month later, UAH temperatures continue to hold steady at an exceptionally high level. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2016-0-45-deg-c/ )

    • And specifically, Anthony’s latest claim “As WUWT recently reported, James Delingpole’s claim is correct – the plunge in land temperatures over the last 6 months is the fastest drop on record.” is wrong, despite the renewed assertions.

      The plunge in NORTHERN HEMISPHERE land temperatures over the last 6 8 months is the fastest drop on record. The 6-month drop (04/2016 to 10/2016) of 0.77 K is large, (between 2% – 3% of the time is the drop that large), but it is not a record.

      • Its the same as with the ice…

        You have very low ice, then when winter comes -gosh! look at the rate it freezes.

        You have record temps, then come N hemisphere winter -gosh! look how it plummets.

        Its not a sudden tip into an ice age -its relative to previous high state… (low state, for the ice)

      • “Its not a sudden tip into an ice age -its relative to previous high state”

        And now you finally see that 1979 was an EXTREME…

        and that the drop in sea ice level is the Arctic getting back more towards to norm of before the Little Ice Age.

        You are FINALLY starting to learn !!! Amazing.. I didn’t think you had the capability to learn.

      • Griff says: “Its the same as with the ice…”

        You seem to be missing a major point. The temperature values are actually *anomalies* — deviations from long-term averages. As such, “then come N hemisphere winter -gosh! look how it plummets” shows a major misunderstanding. The values in the data set only plummet if the N hemisphere winter is colder than *the same month in other years* — not colder than the summer.

        And (in this sense!) it is the same for ice. Of course the ice grows each winter and shrinks each summer. But if summer minima keep shrinking compared to earlier summer minima, that is something interesting. if winter minima keep shrinking, that is something interesting.

    • Sorry, buddy. You climate freaks claim every passing weather event is *proof* of dangerous climate change. You guys have the patent rights to climate cherry picking and are just whining that skeptics can indulge in a bit of the same. You wave your arms all you want and there will still be no climate crisis. And you will still be fools for claiming that skeptics don’t believe the climate changes.

      • Sorry, buddy, but name-calling doesn’t win any scientific discussions.
        Sorry buddy, saying “the other side did something stupid and ineffective so my side gets to do something equally stupid and ineffective” is not going to win any scientific arguments.

        BOTH sides should strive for a higher standard, but you seem to be striving for a lower standard. Why defend statements that are clearly false? (like “Global temperatures plunge” or “As WUWT recently reported, James Delingpole’s claim is correct – the plunge ins land temperatures over the last 6 months is the fastest drop ever recorded”). If you ARE going to cherry pick, at least do it right. :-)

  30. The drop in land temperatures is a good rebuttal to all the propaganda about the warm Arctic. And, just like that propaganda it is not really evidence of anything.

    The big reason the global temperature anomaly has not dropped all that much, as many expected after the El Nino ended, is the lack of sea ice at the current time especially in the Arctic. With over 2 million square km of open sea water releasing heat into the atmosphere the temperature is going to go up. Since this is in polar areas it takes less energy to raise the temperature.

    When this change is added into the rest of the globe you get an increase of a few tenths of a degree. This is the entire difference in temperature between now and before the El Nino. It will disappear when the sea ice reforms.

    The only question is what caused the sea ice to melt and there is one obvious answer …. the AMO. However, we won’t truly know the answer until the AMO moves further down the cooling side of it’s 60-70 year cycle.

  31. How can anyone look at the past El Ninos and claim they only contribute 0.1°C? Where did Mann get his PhD? Berkeley?

    • Yup, all due to the loss of sea ice driven by the AMO. I mentioned this last spring that the sea ice loss had caused the El Nino driven peak global anomaly to be higher than 1998 as well.

      Keep in mind that all this energy loss from the oceans will cause them to cool. This will eventually lead to the reformation of the sea ice and return to conditions that can be compared to the late 20th century.

      • So you believe socialists should be given a pass when they make stupid comments because they care, or something?
        Climate Science has been primarily about politics from day one.

    • Has anybody noticed that, according to UAH LT, there was no warming during the 21st Century before this latest El Nino? Given the relatively large increases in CO2 concentrations, the bulk atmosphere is where most of the warming should occur if “climate science” is correct.

      • “The multiply adjusted UAH? which doesn’t directly measure temperatures and then only in the troposphere?”

        The troposphere is where the hot spot David Fair was referring to, is supposed to be located, if CO2 is causing the atmospheric temperature to rise. The rise is supposed to occur first in the troposphere. There is no hot spot in the troposphere. That must mean there is no CO2-caused atmospheric warming.

  32. The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked…
    —H.L. Mencken
    For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    —H.L. Mencken

    • ……The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked…”
      —H.L. Mencken

      Exactly. The CAGW believers like Sen. Sanders react to contradictory falsifying evidence the way they do because they form an association or link between their belief in the evils of fossil fuels and the contradictory or falsifying CAGW evidence. If fossil fuels and the fossil fuel companies are evil, then the contradictory evidence is also evil by default—as are everyone suggesting that the contradictory evidence is worth considering. The link or association makes perfect sense to them.

      The problem of course with that mode of thinking is that a good-vs-evil religious battle is just that—religion, not science. They might try to hide the religion by presenting a facade of science to justify themselves. When their “science” proves faulty however, the good-vs-evil religious battle going on in their heads becomes difficult to keep hidden. But they will keep trying anyway.

      As I recall, Sanders is the one in the presidential campaign that wanted to totally ban fracking in this country. The detrimental impact that the ban would have on the economy is probably not hard to imagine–except for Sanders himself perhaps and his supporters. It is the proof of the non-scientific battle that is going on in his head.

      The believers like Sen. Sanders only demonstrate their ignorance of how science works when we observe their behavior on the subjects of fossil fuels and CAGW. It is both amusing and sad to watch.

      • Adherents of the CACA religion are just as deluded as creationists. It’s worse with them, because they don’t have the excuse of being indoctrinated. They deluded themselves.

      • Sanders believes that the harm that is caused by his ban on fraking can easily be countered by raising the taxes on the rich to 90% and giving all that money to people who are (in his mind) more deserving.
        So he’s delusional in multiple fields.

      • @naturbaumeister: You are of course right to one degree of another. We are all human of both sides of this climate issue. That means we all have emotions that tend to cause us to behave a certain way—name calling for example—that are difficult to suppress when we feel so strongly about something.

        But at least the climate skeptics do not treat the climate issue as a good-versus-evil religion. From what I have seen here at WUWT, they more or less treat it as a sound-science-versus-bad-science issue. And that is the way it is SUPPOSED to be treated. It seems that climate alarmists have yet to fully learn that, and I am not holding my breath waiting for it happen.

  33. Trump does not need nor want to engage the MSM.

    The media thinks that communication relies on them.

    How 20th century of them.

    Therefore, TRUMP will issue press releases directly to the public. It will be biased to his favor.
    The MSM will issue biased criticism.

    The public does not trust the MSM.
    The public will learn to trust Trump more first because Trump has a leg up and moved first. The public will perceive the MSM as in damage control for a while.

    So the MSM is anti republican. So what. Everyone knows that.

    • Part of debates in the past have relied on “reputable” sources. Those on the left have poo-pooed any source that was not “mainstream”. What the MSM did this election was show they are not “reputable”. So when the left sources a claim to the MSM, it will justly be dismissed unless it can be sourced either from the primary, or from the alternate media on the Internet.

      Donald Trump did not destroy the press. They did it to themselves. And perhaps more than anything else that the election of Trump has or will accomplish, that will be the longest lasting. Trump will bypass the MSM. They have shown themselves to be dishonest – even after the election (the NY Crimes piece of Tump/Climate Change for example).

  34. Is it just me or do there seem to be more contrarians than usual on here today? Names I’ve never seen before. It’s almost as if we’ve been targeted. I’m not saying debate is a bad thing, it isn’t.

  35. “A number of folks have done this,” he said, “and come to the conclusion it was responsible for less than 0.1C of the anomalous warmth. In other words, we would have set an all-time global temperature record [in 2015] even without any help from El Niño.”

    Does anyone have any evidence to support this quote? This is the kind of stuff President Trump has to expose. Simply having this clown testify in front of Congress explaining how El Ninos don’t have an impact on temperatures would destroy this field of “climate science” for all time. People only believe in this garbage because the public trusts the “experts.” Trump needs to destroy the credibility of these activists masquerading as academics. Forget Hillary, Lock Mann Up.

    • The “less than .1C” was stated as El Nino’s contribution to 2015’s warmth, under a heading of “Why is 2016 smashing heat records?”. El Nino had a much greater contribution to global temperature in 2016 than in 2015.

      • Sander’s indicated that he never had any intention of winning when he instructed his followers to ignore e-mail gate.

  36. To be honest, the very large increase in average temps followed by a very large decrease is a transient event an has nothing to do with long term trends. It is not wise to make too much of this change and James has done no one a service trying to make a big deal of this.

  37. In terms of the politics of this issue (which has become its most important aspect), public perceptions probably will not change until the average global temperatures actually decline from their trend since 1990. The short term decline from an all-time peak is gratifying for those of us who want to undercut the rationale for massive state interference with the global energy economy, but it won’t be enough. Let us hope for a very strong and prolonged La Nina.

    • Bob, some of us would rather see the whole thing brought into true focus through discussion and debate involving both sides, before Congress instead. A downturn in temps will just as easily be sold as Anthro-climate change by the doctors of spin and besides that, it would “suck an icicle”.

  38. People have developed a god-complex since man said let there be light and there was fire, and then there was electricity, and man turned to a narcissistic faith, atheism, and conflated the logical domains.

    Chaos is a model for an incompletely and insufficiently characterized and unwieldy system that defines the need and limits of the scientific logical domain in both time and space, forward and reverse. Fortunately, we live in a system that is semi-stable and moderate. But chaos, evaluated by the limits of our perception and control, assure that we cannot make predictions, and that forecasts and inference are only accurate over a period of indefinitely limited span in time and space.

  39. Isn’t it odd that people who are concerned about “global warming” end up rooting for global warming as if it was some sort of a contest? Craziest thing I’ve ever seen. It shows they don’t really care about science or statistics, but only their political agenda. Caught ’em red handed.

    • You haven’t been reading with the serious eye of a true skeptic. Your mischaracterizations aside, I’m interested in your response to the commentary and information provided by Nick stokes in this, and the other related thread. Nick’s description of the bizarre “post-truth” phase we’re living in could not be more spot-on.

      • And I’m interested in what makes you think anyone is going to spend precious moments of life in searching threads for the pearls of dung dropped there at random by Stokes? You espouse an always risible and now thoroughly discredited hypothesis of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ which when demonstrated to be wrong was cynically morphed into ‘anthropogenic climate change’ – something which isn’t even a scientific proposition as it is completely and forever unfalsifiable – and you want us to research Nick Stokes? Good luck with that.

    • global warming is an example of observations provided by science confirming science’s theory…

      Objecting to it on political grounds – the so called skeptic viewpoint – is the opposite of science.

      don’t you get it? you are on the side of anti science. You are the inquisition to climate science’s Galileo!

      • “So, what is your purpose here, oh great sage?”

        He is earning his living in the only way he knows, posting mendacious propaganda on the Internet for his employers in the wind and solar industry, the likes of “Sir” Reg Sheffield and “Lord” Deben AKA John Gummer of burger fame.

        And, when the smelly brown stuff hits the fan – as it will quite soon now, if I don’t miss my guess – they will scuttle off with their massive bank accounts bulging with their ill-gotten gains, and the Useful Idiots such as Griff will be left to take the flak.

      • “Objecting to it on political grounds – the so called skeptic viewpoint – is the opposite of science.”

        Griff, do you really believe that CAGW is being opposed on political grounds by the skeptics who comment at this website?

        What’s political about asking: “Where’s the evidence that proves CAGW is real?”.

      • What confirmation of projections?
        Every single projection made by the models has failed to pan out.
        The world hasn’t warmed up, despite predictions of well over a degree of warming by now.
        The arctic was supposed to be ice free in summer by now.
        The tropospheric hot spot never showed up.
        No increase in tornadoes.
        No increase in hurricanes.

        PS: I love the way Griffie declares that anyone who disagrees with his religion is doing it on political grounds.

      • I’ve noticed a style difference between the Griff of today vs Griff past. Sentence structure and word choice has moved from grade school to college level.
        Looks like the handlers have decided to upgrade Griff, since the old one couldn’t hold his own here.

  40. It’s unfortunate that politicians are not scientists but have no problem making decisions on matters that affect science. Global warming has not been established. See http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg
    http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2015.612105. Or Google “climate change science & propaganda.”

    A 2016 detailed study with actual data has been done to show that “fossil fuels” has very little to do with CO2 accumulation. See International Journal of Geoscience 2016 7, 1232-1282. This article shows with actual data (not opinions) that “fossil fuels” is only a very minor component to the CO2 rise (less than 1.5 % over 33 years.) That is to say, if burning all coal, natural gas and petroleum was stopped for 33 years, it would only reduce the CO2 increase by 1.5%. This means that fossil fuel burning would have almost no effect on energy (heat) trapping applicable to CO2. The article also addresses the fact that the reported CO2 concentration is overstated by 12 to 15 ppmv (10 years of accumulation) because they removed the water vapor prior to testing. This article can be viewed at http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJG_2016102714282839.pdf
    or Google “Oceans, Ice & Snow and CO2”

  41. Well, the “icy silence” barb did it’s job – thus the “hurtful” where’d you get your PhD jab from Sanders. Who said the Climate Wars can’t be fun?
    Sanders, of course, got his from Clown College.

  42. Bernie Sanders/progressives think/s humans are a big problem. So what is he/are they waiting for?

    No bridge in the neighbourhood ?

  43. “Where’d you get your PhD? Trump University?”

    Hey Bernie, you should be one to talk. You do know that an undergraduate political science degree from the University of Chicago doesn’t count as an actual science degree, right?

    • Bernie’s degree is probably a degree in how to scam the common folk by taking their money away and buying votes with a mandatory attendance in Reverend Wright’s church.

  44. Bernie was just having one of his senior moments . Apparently his own party couldn’t stomach voting for him . A Chimp should have been able to beat the Clinton’s and their hedge fund backers yet poor Bernie
    and his brand of socialists just couldn’t get past Podesta and the bankers .
    Rant on mad man you are a loser .

  45. This won’t disabuse Griff of his cherished catastrophist beliefs, but (for the record) the recorded temperatures in the Arctic were very similar back in the nineteen thirties and early forties when human CO2 emissions were relatively insignificant:

    Diagram showing area weighted Arctic (70-90oN) monthly surface air temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4) since January 1920 (climate4you).

    • Except this year at this season they are markedly not: for the whole Svalbard year they are markedly not: for Alaska, not…

      and you still can’t (won’t) explain the extraordinary state of the ice.

      Looks to me your chart shows warming since 1960 up there for sure.

      • “and you still can’t (won’t) explain the extraordinary state of the ice.”

        And you still haven’t managed to understand the difference between “weather” and “climate”.

        Why do you persist in making such a complete fool of yourself?

        You must be making a LOT of money from your mendacious propaganda, I can’t imagine anyone with any self-respect whatsoever spouting such total garbage over such a prolonged period.

      • That you believe there is something unusual in current ice levels is just so cute.
        Regardless, 30 years of records going back to the coldest point in the last 100 years is hardly definitive, unless your goal is not debating science but proving religion.

      • Griff
        December 2, 2016 at 12:23 pm

        Except this year at this season they are markedly not: for the whole Svalbard year they are markedly not: for Alaska, not…

        and you still can’t (won’t) explain the extraordinary state of the ice.

        We do not have to explain anything. The advocates of the CAGW theory are the ones who have to do the explaining. These supporters predicted that, due to an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the TWO ice caps were going to shrink. In 2014 the Antarctic Sea Ice set record maximum.
        https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/antarctic-winter-sea-ice-extent-sets-new-record-2014
        CAGW predicts one thing, nature does the opposite. Antarctic Sea Ice record maximum invalidates CAGW. CAGW is refuted. End of story. We do not have to propose any other theory to refute CAGW. It would be nice to have one, but you cannot argue that, since we do no have an alternate theory then CAGW is correct. Antarctic Sea Ice record maximum refuted CAGW, The sooner you assimilate this fact the sooner we can work on a better theory.

      • ” End of story.”
        It’s a never ending story. various factors go into determining sea ice – winds, currents etc. Here, on a radial plot, is the current situation of Antarctic ice (2016 in black, NSIDC). It’s way below recent years.

      • @Nick Stokes

        And how does it correlate to CO2 levels?

        Here it is a quick reminder of “The Key of Science” by Feynman.

        First we guess (we propose a theory, CAGW in this case.

        Then we compute the consequences. In this case both Ice caps should shrink.

        Then we compare with experiments. or with experimental data.

        “If it disagrees with experiments, it is wrong” That simple statement is the key of science. It does not matter how many experiments agree with the theory, if you find one experiment that disagrees with the theory, the theory is wrong. END OF STORY.

        GAGW disagrees with 2014 Antarctic sea ice record, among other experimental data, (stratospheric hot spot, lack of CO2 production – CO2 levels – temperature increase correlations…)

        The sooner you aknowledge that the CAGW theory is wrong and has to be modified, the sooner we can move on.

        So far, the only things you guys have done are being more imprecise when presenting the computational results and adjusting the experimental data more often. (what is the most recent version of HadCRUT? which HadCRUT version was used when models were computed? How many adjustments have been done between the two versions? Does it make any sense to run a model with, say, HadCRUT3.1 temperatures and compare the results to HadCRUT4.12 temperatures? I do not think so.)

        There is a natural factor, and it is higher than you want to admit.

      • Griff, evidentally you have been rudely ignored here in your quest for an explanation for the reduced ice in the Arctic and warmer temperatures in the Svalbard area: the cold from the Arctic is redistributed in meridional lobes down through North America on one side and down through Russia/Asia on the other side of the globe. You can walk from the Texas Panhandle over the Pole to northern India on frozen ground and ice. Because of this deep southerly cold air flow, it has to be countered by a northerly return air flow from the south (vacuums not permitted!) which brings warm air lobes into the Arctic. This is not a rare occurrence. This is why there has been a 1C drop in average land temperature and only a modest drop in global average temperature.

        I’ve seen considerable agonizing by commenters on the apparent paradox between the issue of the cold snap on land, a more modest decline globally on the satellite data sets and slower advance in ice extent in the Arctic. The above is the reason.

        Climate science is complex but this particular phenomenon is much less controversial between scientific combatants. You would appear to be relatively new to the discussion (like Bernie Sanders who would have the descriptive “talking points” version only) but have a genuine interest. Be careful to not overuse a priori reasoning when engaging scientists. Nature has more tricks than the uninitiated expects. I hope this helps. Cheers, G.

    • Thanks for this chart, Chris. I’ll have to add it to my list of other charts that show the 1930’s as being hotter than subsequent years. It wasn’t just the U.S. that had very hot temperatures in the 1930’s.

      • “As a matter of interest where were the thermometers in 1920 and where are they now?”
        I’m not sure what HADCRUT has, but here (from here) is a google map of GHCN-M land stations north of 70°. Cyan are all stations; pink are those that started reporting before 1921.

      • Thanks Nick. What an interesting source of information. For information when I filtered out the weather stations which had an end date < 2015 the result was to reduce the number to 11.

        I hope I got that wrong because 11 weather stations isn't many considering the size of the arctic.

      • Forrest,
        I would expect a big reduction, mainly because of the big cutback in Canada in about 1992.. But I’d suggest try an earlier year – maybe 2012. The reason is that the dates are frozen when the data was uploaded, so if that was 2015 (i’m not sure) it could be to harsh a test.

      • Agreed Nick. There didn’t seem to be any stations with a 2016 end date and there seemed to be at least a few where the data continued beyond the end date.

        It would be helpful if ocean.dmi.dk published the actual data as well as the result of their calculations. The consequence is that people look at big spikes in the graphs and say that the arctic is much less cold than usual but have no way to know what the data actually is.

    • Chris Hanley on December 2, 2016 at 12:14 pm

      … the recorded temperatures in the Arctic were very similar back in the nineteen thirties and early forties when human CO2 emissions were relatively insignificant.

      Correct.

      When using GHCN V3 unadjusted as data source for the plot, it even gets a lot warmer in 1920-1930 than is shown by HadCRUT:

      There are no GHCN stations above 82.5N.

      Data source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

      That doesn’t change anything to the fact that in UAH’s 2.5° gridded data, over 90 of the 100 grid cells showing the highest trends (over 4.5 °C / century) are located in the latitude stripe 80N-82.5N (there is no UAH data above these latitudes).

      • Bindi, following on from my discussion with Nick Stokes above, how many weather stations do you think there are in the “100 grid cells” and where are they located? Oh, and what date do you use for your 4.5C calculation?

      • Forrest Gardener on December 3, 2016 at 2:09 pm

        … how many weather stations do you think there are in the “100 grid cells” and where are they located?

        Forrest, you misunderstood the end of my comment: I was writing there about UAH grid data, i.e. about measurements in the troposphere.

        The GHCN record actually has only 3 stations within 80N-82.5N:
        – 22220046000 80.6200 58.0500 20.0 GMO IM.E.T. (Siberia)
        – 40371082000 82.5000 -62.3300 66.0 ALERT,N.W.T. (Canada)
        – 43104312000 81.6000 -16.6700 34.0 NORD ADS (Greenland)

        Oh, and what data do you use for your 4.5C calculation?

        Apos: I forgot to mention UAH grid data’s origin. It is in the same UAH directory as the “traditional” 27 column dataset: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/.

        There you find the files “tltmonamg.1978_6.0beta5” till “tltmonamg.2016_6.0beta5”. Each of these files contains for the year’s months up to 12 grids of 72 latitudes rows of 144 columns each.

        One of many data processing possibilities consists for example in calculating, for each grid cell, a linear estimate over a given period, e.g. 1979-2016, and to sort the output by descending anomaly (here the top 20):

        4.62 80.0N-82.5N 60.0W-62.5W
        4.61 80.0N-82.5N 57.5E-55.0E
        4.59 80.0N-82.5N 55.0E-52.5E
        4.59 80.0N-82.5N 67.5W-70.0W
        4.59 80.0N-82.5N 62.5W-65.0W
        4.55 80.0N-82.5N 67.5W-70.0W
        4.52 80.0N-82.5N 70.0W-72.5W
        4.50 80.0N-82.5N 57.5W-60.0W
        4.48 80.0N-82.5N 22.5W-25.0W
        4.48 80.0N-82.5N 72.5W-75.0W
        4.46 80.0N-82.5N 27.5W-30.0W
        4.43 77.5S-75.0S 30.0W-32.5W
        4.43 80.0N-82.5N 25.0W-27.5W
        4.42 80.0N-82.5N 57.5W-60.0W
        4.42 80.0N-82.5N 55.0W-57.5W
        4.40 80.0N-82.5N 20.0W-22.5W
        4.40 80.0N-82.5N 75.0W-77.5W
        4.39 80.0N-82.5N 97.5W-100.0W
        4.39 80.0N-82.5N 20.0W-22.5W
        4.39 80.0N-82.5N 92.5W-95.0W

        An interesting detail: the 1979-2016 trends for the 144 UAH grid cells at latitudes 80N-82.5N range from 3.74 °C up to 4.62 °C / century, giving a latitude average trend of 4.20 °C.

        If you now calculate the average trend for the 3 cells encompassing the coordinates of the 3 GHCN stations mentioned above, you obtain 4.46 °C / century. What indicates in my opinion that even such a small number of stations gives a well representative average. I tried the same for Australia, CONUS and the Globe, with even better results du to the higher number of stations involved.

  46. I would like to know where the solid science is behind Mann’s claim that the recent El Niño only contributed .1° C to the global average. Breaking heat records – yeahrite. AGW enthusiasts never bother to mention the increase is mainly due to increased lower minimum temperatures.

    • As so often here, the problem is not linking to source, and hence mis-quoting. Mann’s observation is here. He’s talking (in March 2016) about the El Nino contribution to the record heat in 2015. The El Nino upsurge only began in October, and came to about 0.2-3 degree per month, so averaged over a year, 0.1 sounds reasonable.

  47. Everything that we’re seeing in this unremarkably unique weather year has been brought to you courtesy of water in its constantly changing states. Water and its vapors are what metes out the solar changes and makes them impossible to directly correlate with global temperature in real time. The ocean cycles run in autonomy from each other, so the storage and distribution of heat on the planet is constantly changing. Cloud and wind patterns also delay or accelerate tropical ocean heating and modulate the surface wind patterns, storing and releasing heat depending on the conditions.

  48. And if the Berning Man is wrong, so what? He has plenty of other complaint categories to choose from.

  49. Griff says: “I am still waiting for a skeptic site to cover the arctic temp anomaly in the last month and/or the record sea ice low level as a main article, let alone offer an explanation from the skeptic viewpoint as to why this is occurring.”

    Well, the Arctic always has unusual weather in that it is always much warmer or colder than normal because it is governed by the polar vortex and the extent to which Low and High pressures allow the warmer air from the mid-Latitudes in. Recently the warm air has been allowed in and the cold air has been set-up over Siberia.

    There is not a person in Siberia who will say “global warming” out loud right now because they have suffered through temperatures about 20C below normal for two months now. They will get the snot beat out of them if they said global warming. Northern Europe periodically as well.

    Right now, the Arctic is -30C. Some parts are above normal but most of it is below normal. Siberia is experiencing the dreaded -40Cs (where sh_t happens and cars don’t start and people get beat up for saying global warming etc).

    It is coming over to the North American side in short order and the Arctic will be farking colder than it is right now, -30C or so being warmer than normal or something.

  50. You would think the temperature drop would be great news for those concerned about global warming. Hmm, I wonder what they are really focused on instead?

  51. Since the climatards got so bent out of shape over Delingpole’s little short-term temperature trend observation, it would be most amusing to see someone in Congress tweet out his we will bury you missive.

  52. I’ve met Delingpole. He’s an A grade nutcase.

    [I’ve met Delingpole too, and I think he’s a A grade satirist- Anthony]

    • “As usual, Mann is lying.”
      Switching to temperatures in the troposphere is a local way of twisting facts. Mann, like most of the world, refers to surface temperatures when speaking of global.

      • “Mann, like most of the world, refers to surface temperatures when speaking of global.”

        You mean the “massively altered” GISS surface temperatures? Data manipulation is a form of lying

        “Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.” – Dr. Karl Ewert

        http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.Qqhve9Y1.C14bpeCZ.dpbs

      • Lies, damn lies and statistics

        Dr Schmidt told Senator Roberts in letters and emails obtained by Fairfax Media. “The claim that GISS has ‘removed the 1940s warmth’ in the Arctic is not correct.” From the Canberra Times

        The Climategate scientists discussed their desire to get rid of the 1940s spike.

        From: Tom Wigley
        To: Phil Jones
        Subject: 1940s
        Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
        Cc: Ben Santer
        It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

      • Dr. Strangelove on December 3, 2016 at 3:11 am; etc etc

        You mean the “massively altered” GISS surface temperatures? Data manipulation is a form of lying

        Dr Strangelove, you are all the time talking about “lies”.

        My opinion is that such qualification would give a far better fit when applied to sites like “notricks(?)zone”, and thus, by extension, to you as a willing replicator of that site’s primitive manipulations.

        Ewert’s superficial nonsense has been debunked here in Germany since longer time. But his thoroughly unscientific work will stay visible on the Internet for decades.

        Here is a comment on the post you refer to, which perfectly reflects Ewert’s lack of technical knowledge:

        Eli Rabett 27. November 2015 at 12:39 AM | Permalink

        First, the station data are not NASA’s but NOAAs, taken from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) with some additional adjustments for such things as urban heat island issues.

        Second, NOAA issued V3 of the GHCN effective May 2011. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php

        Third, NASA GISS updated to v3 of the GHCN from v2 of GHCN in December 2011 and v3.2 in September 2011 as shown on the update page
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

        Perhaps Prof. Dr. Ewert might take a look at the dates of these updates and his discoveries.

        Everybody has access to the NASA pages (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/ & ff) explaining in detail what has happened at transition time from GHCN V2 to GHCN V3.

      • Thanks for pointing out that NASA and NOAA share temperature data, and Hadley Center too. They are not independent, they are all unreliable as revealed in Climategate. That’s why warmists insist in using surface temperatures. See animation above posted by TA how NASA manipulated data. If you have questions for Dr. Ewert, contact him directly (see Notrickszone article)

    • Shouldn’t you be comparing 2015 with 1997? El Nino is a 2 year phenomenon, with the first year typically warming towards the end of the year (as in 1997 and 2015) and typically cooling from the Northern spring onwards (as in 1998 and 2016)

  53. What pee’s me off is that the alarmist are up in arms over someone claiming that there is some cooling, while ignoring the numerous claims of warmest for the past year and half. Especially the severe weather claims. Why aren’t they questioning the nonsense of those claims? F’ing hypocrites and I’m getting fed up by it! We need to rise up and take a stand against this crap.

    • What pee’s me off is that the alarmist are up in arms over someone claiming that there is some cooling, while ignoring the numerous claims of warmest for the past year and half. Especially the severe weather claims. Why aren’t they questioning the nonsense of those claims? F’ing hypocrites and I’m getting fed up by it! We need to rise up and take a stand against this crap.

      Selective Moral Outrage is the defining characteristic of a left-wing political movement. That is why this AGW has no credibility to any thinking person. “Facts” that support the case are celebrated, any disagreements are either ignored or attacked. This isn’t real “science” it is a political movement based upon poorly Cherry Picked data. If they truly wanted to find the truth they would incorporate data from both sides. They don’t, they simply try to silence critics. Real science doesn’t do that.

  54. Surely a change either way is climate change so how can they call it change denial unless they are admitting that they still think all change is global warming and have deceived us from the day they started using the term climate change instead of global warming?

  55. I wish one of you ‘experts’ on here would comment on the above post by:
    Michael D Nelson December 2, 2016 at 8:51 am.

    Maybe Mr Nelson should be encouraged to submit his writings to Anthony for using as an essay, so that his findings could be properly reviewed/discussed?

  56. “the plunge in land temperatures over the last 6 months is the fastest drop on record.”

    And who gives a hoot? We don’t have any climate records. Remember? This is just more hysterical noise.

  57. How can temperatures plunge if they are still above average? It does sound misleading to be honest. Temperature now only such and such above normal may have been a more honest statement. But there we go, if you are going to rely on Briebart news, the Daily Mail and National enquirer for your news these problems are going to occur.

    • Temperature now is only such and such below normal Holocene Climate Optimum. The temperature plunge isn’t so bad to blame Brietbart

      • How many times does that chart need to be debunked before folks here stop using it?

        It says Alley’s GISP2 data series ends 95 years before present, ‘where present is 2000’. That would put the end of the series at 1905 – long before the onset of late 20th century warming.

        But even this is wrong. Although Alley’s first paper was published in 2000, ‘present’ in the GISP2 data set means the conventional ‘present’ used in geology and palaeoclimate studies. It means 1950, not 2000. 95 years before 1950 is 1855 (actually, the data end in mid 1854).

        Apart from that, the data are from a single location, in this case the top of an ice sheet in Greenland! Even if they stopped in 2015 they couldn’t reasonably be used to infer global temperatures.

      • “How many times will warmists deny the Holocene Climate Optimum?”

        They don’t and it has a known cause …. look up Milankovitch cycles.

    • LAND temp 1C down. Global avg down a bit. Take a look at NH temp on the sea ice page and note the lobes of bitterly cold air down through both N. Am and Russia/ Asia. Return warm air from the Atlantic has warmed Svalbard east. It is 30C below in the center west

      • Dr. Strangelove

        That chart looks mighty familiar. Where have I seen it before? Looks very like the one produced for an article on GISP2 a few years back: http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png

        Funny how, in your version, the upper grey line is marked ‘1855’ yet the cross on the right, which is exactly where the year 1855 should be, is marked ‘2009’. Most odd.

        Looking again at the incredibly similar chart I linked to, you can see that in fact the1855 line does terminate at the year 1855, as you would expect. The year 2009 is there too, but it is way, way higher than any other peak in that chart – up at a balmy -28C.

        Don’t tell me someone has cut out the original 2009 mark and pasted it where 1855 was, but just wasn’t sharp enough to notice that this completely contradicts what the upper grey line is telling us. That would just be pitiful, wouldn’t it?

    • Dr. Strangelove on December 3, 2016 at 4:15 am / December 3, 2016 at 7:12 pm

      Temperature now is only such and such below normal Holocene Climate Optimum.

      Dr Strangelove seems to appreciate manipulations, as show the graphs (s)he publishes.

      Such persons mostly you can’t convince – independently of the matter discussed, and independently of the position they choose to defend, sometimes even ad hominem if “necessary”.

      Nevertheless, a hint on a paper presenting ideas counterbalancing an opinion based on ideology often is useful :-)

      https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Pages_2013_NatureGeo.pdf

      The paper’s abstract

      « Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia.

      The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them.

      There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

      The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years. »

  58. This chart from Climate4You explains the warming patterns far greater than CO2. H20 near the surface has increased due to a greening of the planet and more solar radiation reaching the earth. H20 has fallen at 9km, which would explain the lack of a “hot spot” and actual stratospheric cooling. Once again, if you simply break this problem down to the most significant variables, H20 being one of the most, it starts to make sense. Only when you try to blame CO2 do the arguments turn to nonsense.

    • You know those awesome pictures put out by C/AGW ? I’m sure you’ve seen them of a plant supposedly releasing co2. What they are showing is the other greenhouse gas in much greater amounts, water vapor. They’ve even showed, in error, cooling towers from nuclear power plants.

  59. From that above chart, I think we can estimate the max temperature range for the earth. It would be about 28°C , which would occur is the earth was totally a rain forest.

    Looking at the geological record, the earth never gets above 22°C. That makes sense, even though CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm.

    Once again, if you focus on H20, things start to make sense.

  60. A focus on temperature spikes (either direction)that are obviously related to el ninos is data mining.

    Data mining is an outrage.

    Just looking at climate data from 1880 to 2015 is data mining too!

    How can one look at 0.0001% of Earth’s climate history and have any idea of the long term trend or what kind of climate is normal, assuming “normal” could even exist on a planet not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

    I wish there was some way to eliminate el nino and la nina effects from the average temperature data since they are obviously not CO2 related.

    I suppose one could eliminate the grids in the Pacific Ocean where the el nino effect is strong and calculate a global average excluding those areas.

    But I see several problems with that:
    – I’m not convinced a one0number global average temperature represents “the climate”., and

    – “Adjusting” data again, that has already been “over-adjusted” by goobermint bureaucrats, is not real science.

    • Richard Greene on December 3, 2016 at 1:18 pm

      I wish there was some way to eliminate el nino and la nina effects from the average temperature data since they are obviously not CO2 related…

      1. Your idea of calculating temperature anomalies excluding the ENSO kernel area unluckily has few sense, as ENSO modifies the anomalies in areas very far away from its own backyard.

      More surprising to me: as I extracted an UAH time series restricted to the Nino3.4 area, it showed less harsh peaks for 1982/83, 1997/98 and 2015/16 than was visible for the UAH time series concerning the Tropics or even the Globe. A kind of “Not in my backyard!” :-)

      2. Though subject to (sometimes very unqualified) critique, I propose that you read
      https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
      where the authors extracted out a temperature series (RSS3.3 TLT) not only ENSO signals but also volcanic activities (a similar exercise was made by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf in 2011).

      Santer, Bonfils & alii computed in 2014 a residual warming of about 0.85 °C / century for the satellite era (the original RSS trend for 1979-2013 was 0.125 °C / decade).

      Now, what this residual was originating from, wether or not CO2 based: no idea, it’s a boring, actually fruitless discussion.

  61. Convert Vermon to “Vermin” and you have Burning Bernie’s middle name !

    But the good news is (The absolute “worst” news (Thing) to/for virtually anyone/everyone else?) for Burning Bernie is that soon Old-Man-Nut-Job will soon have all of the Global Warming he could ever imagin !!

    Up to the Top of his balding Head a “pit” is waiting for him come last breath day (Which fortunately is not far off!) completely filled with Warming (Make that Scalding) and Burning Bernie will have eternity to enjoy (Suffer) it !!!

    And not only was it prepared solely (Soul-ly) for Burning but at the top of his pit (Cage) his name is written saying, “Here burns Burning Bernie, a renown wannabe Climate Scientist (And Senator ???) who “lies” every chance He gets” !

    So every time you see Burning, refer to him as “Mr. Burning” reminding him of his desolate future !

    LieOn Burning Bernie

  62. Why is it that whenever I see a picture of Bernie Sanders I think he should be wearing a propeller beanie cap? — Eugene WR Gallun

  63. Simply do the math, the Δ°C/ΔW/M^2 is highly variable for ΔCO2. The added energy attributed to ΔCO2 can result in warming, cooling and stagnation of temperatures. Above 400ppm additional CO2 does very very very little to alter the energy balance.

Comments are closed.