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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
581 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 2, 2016 12:57 am

SO Bernie is a one way temperature denier?

George Tetley
Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 3:05 am

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.

Reply to  George Tetley
December 2, 2016 3:31 am

‘Tis clear, Grasshoopper, Confucius understood Confusionism.

B.j.
Reply to  George Tetley
December 2, 2016 3:53 am

George Tetley
What did you say?

commieBob
Reply to  George Tetley
December 2, 2016 4:01 am

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

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

Menicholas
Reply to  George Tetley
December 2, 2016 7:14 am

He said:
” Say what you mean
Mean what you say
One thing leads to another”

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  George Tetley
December 2, 2016 9:36 am

son of mulder — You have a sick mind. Stay off your meds.– Eugene WR Gallun

Bryan A
Reply to  George Tetley
December 2, 2016 10:00 am

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

Gunga Din
Reply to  George Tetley
December 2, 2016 1:21 pm

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.

george e. smith
Reply to  George Tetley
December 2, 2016 3:22 pm

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

Greg
Reply to  George Tetley
December 2, 2016 11:47 pm

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.

cedarhill
Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 4:23 am

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?

skimrg
Reply to  cedarhill
December 2, 2016 5:07 am

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!!!

Bryan A
Reply to  cedarhill
December 2, 2016 10:05 am

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.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  cedarhill
December 2, 2016 12:06 pm

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!

george e. smith
Reply to  cedarhill
December 2, 2016 3:27 pm

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

Barbara
Reply to  cedarhill
December 2, 2016 8:42 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  cedarhill
December 2, 2016 8:52 pm

Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain (Montagne Verte) boys rebelled against New York before the colonies rebelled against George III.
But they went on to figure prominently in the early days of the American Revolution against the British crown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Allen

Chimp
Reply to  cedarhill
December 2, 2016 8:55 pm

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.

JimG132
Reply to  cedarhill
December 3, 2016 3:15 am

Vermont was an independent country at the time of the American revolution.

Reply to  cedarhill
December 3, 2016 4:36 pm

these are some great comments …. hahahaha

Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 5:15 am

But he is a curmudgeon! And he misses his 15 minutes. 😉

Resourceguy
Reply to  philjourdan
December 2, 2016 12:53 pm

+1

Resourceguy
Reply to  philjourdan
December 2, 2016 2:23 pm

Out at the assisted living center there are many Bernies and a number of them with the same curmudgeon behavior that staff have to deal with.

Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 5:41 am

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
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1030751950335700&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
December 3, 2016 2:08 pm

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.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
December 3, 2016 9:13 pm

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

Sanata Baby
Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 6:01 am

The leftist belive they have politicized climate science in order to promote their agendaes?

John Silver
Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 7:35 am

“Here’s how the Vermon senator responded”
Vermin.

Marcus
Reply to  John Silver
December 2, 2016 8:06 am

..Vermont…?

oeman50
Reply to  John Silver
December 2, 2016 9:03 am

No, Vermin Supreme. Got a boot handy?

Bryan A
Reply to  John Silver
December 2, 2016 12:06 pm

Where is the Verminator when you need him???
Didn’t he say “I’ll be back”

george e. smith
Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 7:39 am

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

Bryan A
Reply to  george e. smith
December 2, 2016 2:10 pm

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

JohnKnight
Reply to  george e. smith
December 2, 2016 3:14 pm

“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

Reply to  george e. smith
December 2, 2016 8:39 pm

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.

JohnKnight
Reply to  george e. smith
December 2, 2016 10:18 pm

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 ; )

ferdberple
Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 8:30 am

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

george e. smith
Reply to  ferdberple
December 2, 2016 3:31 pm

Well I wouldn’t say the University of Chicago is a mediocre College.
g

patrick bols
Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 8:49 am

time to pay the piper.

afonzarelli
Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 11:56 am

“SO Bernie is a one way temperature d*nier?”
Yes, he only “feels the bern”…

Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 1:43 pm

They spelled “vermin” wrong as well.

Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 5:34 pm

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.

Jerry C
Reply to  pyeatte
December 3, 2016 5:16 am

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.

commieBob
Reply to  David Johnson
December 2, 2016 5:58 pm

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.

Frank Karvv
Reply to  David Johnson
December 3, 2016 12:08 am

and does Bernie he have a PhD? or just read the Chicken Little papers?

Lynette Johnson
Reply to  David Johnson
December 3, 2016 9:00 pm

I sent him this :
“we the people” are okay with you believing in imaginary things, we just don’t wanna PAY FOR IT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/ via

Jimmy Haigh
December 2, 2016 1:00 am

Global warmongering climate bollicks fondlers like Sanders haven”t a scooby.

François
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
December 2, 2016 2:20 am

Why do all your graphs start in ’98?

cohenite
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 2:38 am

Where would you like them to start?

Ian W
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 3:55 am

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.

TA
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 3:56 am

“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.

TA
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 4:03 am

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.

Hivemind
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 4:12 am

How about if we start them at the end of the last glacial period ?
http://www.mythsarehistory.com/uploads/2/1/2/8/21280596/hypsithermal_temps.jpg

Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 6:29 am

For perspective, start the graphs at the Eemian optimum, which was likely warmer than the Holocene.

george e. smith
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 7:43 am

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

William Astley
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 7:45 am

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.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.12.1.2016.gif

MarkW
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 7:54 am

Beyond that, much of, perhaps even most, AGW isn’t caused by CO2.

Chimp
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 10:34 am

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.

ParmaJohn
Reply to  François
December 2, 2016 5:59 pm

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.

Alex
December 2, 2016 1:00 am

I have an image in my mind of a brick falling on a house of cards

Bryan A
Reply to  Alex
December 2, 2016 12:17 pm

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Alex
December 2, 2016 12:27 pm

I like the analogy. Maybe a block of ice?

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  John Harmsworth
December 3, 2016 12:47 pm

Or a polar bear?

Margaret Smith
December 2, 2016 1:03 am

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.

Hugs
Reply to  Margaret Smith
December 2, 2016 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 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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Hugs
December 2, 2016 7:33 am

“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.

Winnipeg boy
Reply to  Hugs
December 2, 2016 10:32 am

And thus science progresses one funeral at a time.

Reply to  Hugs
December 3, 2016 1:12 pm

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.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
December 2, 2016 1:56 am

I can assure you she didn’t say this. It was an article in WUWT which sugggested this.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 3:57 am

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.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 3:58 am

Oh, no: typo again. RIGHT, not tight.

TA
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 4:22 am

“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.

observa
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 4:40 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 6:21 am

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.

Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 10:26 am

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.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 10:29 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 10:40 am

Have you ever heard them call Fox News, Faux News?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 3:24 pm

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.

JohnKnight
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 5:05 pm

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.

hunter
Reply to  Margaret Smith
December 2, 2016 1:59 am

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.

Reply to  hunter
December 2, 2016 4:59 am

“Dr. Strangelove” is a great movie, but it is not actually a documentary movie.

hunter
Reply to  hunter
December 2, 2016 5:30 am

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.

Reply to  hunter
December 2, 2016 1:43 pm

@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.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Margaret Smith
December 2, 2016 5:57 am

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…

Griff
Reply to  Margaret Smith
December 2, 2016 6:00 am

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…

EJ
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 6:18 am

” 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!

Reply to  EJ
December 2, 2016 10:32 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 6:24 am

But Griffy, when socialists are involved, any site that they don’t like is instantly labeled fake.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 7:15 am

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

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 7:37 am

” 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.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 7:37 am

“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.

Bob Boder
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 9:16 am

the Griff troll

Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 9:29 am

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.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 9:30 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 9:48 am

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

DonM
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 10:38 am

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)?

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 10:42 am

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

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 11:21 am

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.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 11:38 am

Griff December 2, 2016 at 6:00 am
Is this what you are referring to? Seems NPR went and track down a fake news story and guess what they found.
But then again is this fake news story by NPR itself fake news?
https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/11/23/npr-tracked-down-a-fake-news-creator-in-the-suburbs-heres-what-they-learned/
michael

Gerry, England
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 11:59 am

Griff is an expert on fake news – he reads the Guardian who are experts at it.

catweazle666
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 12:04 pm

“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.

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 2:21 pm

“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

RAH
Reply to  Griff
December 3, 2016 11:54 am

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.

Goldrider
Reply to  Margaret Smith
December 2, 2016 6:35 am

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

george e. smith
Reply to  Margaret Smith
December 2, 2016 3:35 pm

You aren’t my sister are you ??
G
I think the most famous Margaret Smith is now called Margaret Court for some reason.

Jimmy Haigh
December 2, 2016 1:11 am

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!

TerryS
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
December 2, 2016 1:58 am

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

Patrick MJD
Reply to  TerryS
December 2, 2016 2:20 am

That’s about the time male brains mature.

Flyoverbob
Reply to  TerryS
December 2, 2016 6:34 am

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

george e. smith
Reply to  TerryS
December 2, 2016 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. ”
Well She probably didn’t use street talk like ” a whole bunch.”
G

bobl
Reply to  TerryS
December 2, 2016 4:06 pm

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.

Reply to  TerryS
December 3, 2016 1:18 pm

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.”

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
December 2, 2016 4:47 am

“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

Reply to  Darcydog
December 2, 2016 6:37 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Darcydog
December 2, 2016 7:56 am

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.

HENRYSatSHAMROCK@aol.com
Reply to  Darcydog
December 2, 2016 8:22 am

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?

MarkW
Reply to  Darcydog
December 2, 2016 9:49 am

Tell em to get a job.

Patrick B
Reply to  Darcydog
December 2, 2016 9:59 am

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  Darcydog
December 2, 2016 2:47 pm

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

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Darcydog
December 2, 2016 3:06 pm

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

george e. smith
Reply to  Darcydog
December 2, 2016 3:43 pm

Begs the question; Why are those things taxed ?? Says nowt about that in the Constitution.
g

george e. smith
Reply to  Darcydog
December 2, 2016 3:48 pm

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 ??

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
December 2, 2016 7:39 am

“And Hillary had to cheat to beat him!”
Just shows what a horrible candidate she was.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 2, 2016 9:32 am

…and that’s just the tip of the iceberg, as the FBI will eventually prove.

Bryan A
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 2, 2016 2:51 pm

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

RockyRoad
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 2, 2016 4:40 pm

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.)

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
December 2, 2016 9:41 am

“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.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
December 2, 2016 9:45 am

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”

Reply to  dan no longer in CA
December 2, 2016 10:27 am

And Winston Churchill is some kind of genius?

Chimp
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
December 2, 2016 1:44 pm

Wrong 20th century political figure:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Georges_Clemenceau
One of his many bons mots.

Brian H
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
December 2, 2016 3:15 pm

dan;
“felt that”, surely.

george e. smith
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
December 2, 2016 3:55 pm

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 ….

RockyRoad
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
December 2, 2016 4:44 pm

@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?

MarkG
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
December 2, 2016 8:24 pm

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.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
December 3, 2016 12:14 am

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. .

Tim Hammond
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
December 3, 2016 1:41 am

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.

Warren Latham
December 2, 2016 1:11 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Latham
December 2, 2016 6:26 am

As valuable as WUWT has been. There are others who have worked in that effort.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Warren Latham
December 2, 2016 9:28 am

Keep it toasty til Feb., WL. We’ll be visiting Apache Jct.

Brian H
Reply to  Warren Latham
December 2, 2016 3:17 pm

its
Back away from the apostrophe key, slowly …

December 2, 2016 1:12 am

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Terri Jackson
December 2, 2016 9:31 am

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

decnine
December 2, 2016 1:13 am

Where did Sanders get his thermometer? Pulled it out of…

Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
Reply to  decnine
December 2, 2016 1:48 am

…his witty comebacks thesaurus

Perry
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
December 2, 2016 12:42 pm

Is there another word for thesaurus?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
December 2, 2016 1:37 pm

Perry, there used to be but it’s now extinct.

george e. smith
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
December 2, 2016 3:58 pm

Well there’s your arse ; Close enough !
g

Menicholas
Reply to  decnine
December 2, 2016 7:29 am

How can you tell an oral thermometer from a rectal thermometer?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Menicholas
December 2, 2016 7:43 am

The taste.

MarkW
Reply to  Menicholas
December 2, 2016 7:57 am

smell?

RockyRoad
Reply to  Menicholas
December 2, 2016 9:36 am

No, taste.
(Or the label that says “Global temperature averages may be approximated with proper use.”)

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Menicholas
December 2, 2016 9:45 am

color?

Perry
Reply to  Menicholas
December 2, 2016 12:43 pm

Length & width.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Menicholas
December 2, 2016 1:56 pm

Bernie can’t tell regardless because he’s full of it.

Jer0me
Reply to  Menicholas
December 2, 2016 2:25 pm

Rectal thermometers typically have a 90 degree bend in them. This is to avoid ‘losing’ it in situ.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Menicholas
December 3, 2016 1:36 pm

I knew someone years ago who worked as an orderlie where rectal thermometers were commonly used.
One day when the nurse asked him for the reading, he said he couldn’t tell. Instead of wiping it off, he ran it through his mouth to clean it.
He didn’t tell her that he had dipped a clean one in peanut butter.

Bill J
December 2, 2016 1:13 am

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.

Hugs
Reply to  Bill J
December 2, 2016 1:34 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  Hugs
December 2, 2016 3:56 am

The 8 month drop in RSS land data is the fastest and deepest in the WHOLE satellite record.

AndyG55
Reply to  Hugs
December 2, 2016 3:58 am

whoops forgot chart.
for good measure , lets include UAH land as well.comment imagecomment image

Reply to  Hugs
December 2, 2016 1:51 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bill J
December 2, 2016 7:44 am

There is no global temperature, Bill, so your statement is meaningless.

AleaJactaEst
December 2, 2016 1:15 am

Bernie thinks that NOAA is a character from the Book of Genesis.

Thai Rogue
Reply to  AleaJactaEst
December 2, 2016 1:34 am

ROTF LOL Very good.

Reply to  Thai Rogue
December 2, 2016 5:27 am

What’s so funny?
NOAA and Bernie were friends, back in the day.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  AleaJactaEst
December 2, 2016 1:58 am

Well, here’s another quote for Bernie, Mann and co..

Notanist
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
December 2, 2016 3:33 am

Thank you for that! One of my favorite tunes from that era..

Duster
Reply to  AleaJactaEst
December 2, 2016 1:59 am

+1, Luckily, I have a spare keyboard and a big bag of rice for drying out soggy electronics.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  AleaJactaEst
December 2, 2016 3:59 am

Because Noah knew all about rising sea levels!

AleaJactaEst
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
December 2, 2016 4:28 am

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…..

MarkW
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
December 2, 2016 6:29 am

Speaking of religious nuts, your house needs a little cleaning as well.

Chimp
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
December 2, 2016 3:09 pm

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.

george e. smith
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
December 2, 2016 4:04 pm

Moses thought otherwise.
g

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
December 3, 2016 1:30 am

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.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
December 3, 2016 1:26 pm

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

john karajas
December 2, 2016 1:17 am

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

Reply to  john karajas
December 2, 2016 5:09 am

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.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
December 3, 2016 1:40 am

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.

December 2, 2016 1:20 am

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.

Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 1:49 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 6:31 am

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.

TA
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 4:35 am

“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?

Griff
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 6:05 am

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.

Pierre DM
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 7:26 am

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.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 7:50 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 7:58 am

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.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 8:08 am

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.

Gamecock
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 9:04 am
Randy Stubbings
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 9:19 am

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.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 9:22 am

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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 9:45 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 9:51 am

Why should Griff care? It’s not like he’s spending his own money.

Pat Frank
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 10:41 am

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
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 10:41 am

Melting Arctic sea ice precedes a new Ice Age. http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 12:14 pm

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

catweazle666
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 12:15 pm

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?

TA
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 4:38 am

“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.

Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 10:41 am

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.

TA
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 2:55 pm

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.

MarkG
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 2, 2016 8:27 pm

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.

Philip Schaeffer.
Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 7, 2016 9:01 pm

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]

Roger Knights
December 2, 2016 1:23 am

“the Vermon senator”?!

Reply to  Roger Knights
December 2, 2016 1:58 am

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

Reply to  Writing Observer
December 2, 2016 10:36 am

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.

DonM
Reply to  Writing Observer
December 2, 2016 10:58 am

Good ideals natur … stick to politically the correct (statements, thoughts, & ideas). Keep fitt’n in.

john
Reply to  Roger Knights
December 2, 2016 4:20 am

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.

TA
Reply to  john
December 2, 2016 4:48 am

You know, ole Bernie spent his honeymoon in the old Soviet Union.

Reply to  Roger Knights
December 2, 2016 5:46 am

My first thought was another presidential candidate, Vermin Supreme. He finished in 4th place in the NH presidential primary. His 4th plank was his most popular:

4. Free ponies for all Americans (“A federal pony identification system and you must have your pony with you at all times.”).

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vermin-supreme-finishes-fourth-in-new-hampshire-democratic-primary/

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 3, 2016 1:48 am

If you like your current pony, you can keep your current pony.

Griff
December 2, 2016 1:33 am

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

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 1:39 am

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.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 2, 2016 2:19 am

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

commieBob
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 2, 2016 4:54 am

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

Griff
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 2, 2016 6:07 am

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

Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 2, 2016 2:04 pm

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.

Philip Schaeffer.
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 7, 2016 6:19 pm

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.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer.
December 7, 2016 8:13 pm

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.

charles nelson
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 1:40 am

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!

Robert from oz
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 1:40 am

Griffs wrong that would be NOAA and BOM own this one .

yarpos
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 1:41 am

according to Griff, so it must be so

John Harmsworth
Reply to  yarpos
December 2, 2016 2:08 pm

Griff and Bernie Sanders! Griff and Gruff huff and puff!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 2:22 am

Like cleantecnica,ABC, BBC, Gaurdian, Wikipedia etc etc etc…well done Griff

Brian H
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 2, 2016 4:00 pm

Guardian

Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 3:54 am

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?

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 3:59 am

No Griff… any of your sources are the MOST unreliable.
You have NOTHING but baseless propaganda.

Griff
Reply to  AndyG55
December 2, 2016 6:09 am

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…

EJ
Reply to  AndyG55
December 2, 2016 6:27 am

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!

Bob Boder
Reply to  AndyG55
December 2, 2016 9:22 am

Griftroll
don’t feed the troll

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
December 2, 2016 12:00 pm

“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

Bill Illis
Reply to  AndyG55
December 2, 2016 6:04 pm

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.

catweazle666
Reply to  Bill Illis
December 3, 2016 7:36 am

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.

Chimp
Reply to  AndyG55
December 2, 2016 6:16 pm

Bill,
IMO no science. All spin.

pbweather
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 4:21 am

http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
Take some time to look through this Griff. It may surprise you.

Griff
Reply to  pbweather
December 2, 2016 6:11 am

Great site… lot of data… I don’t see any surprises… care to direct me?

Reply to  pbweather
December 2, 2016 11:01 am

Griff, since you say it is a great site, then you should accept this empirical data based chart:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/EquatorSurface300hPa200hPaDecadalTempChange%20BARCHART.gif
At total refutation of the “Hot Sport” conjecture.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 4:49 am

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

TA
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 4:49 am

“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.

Griff
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 6:14 am

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..

RockyRoad
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 9:53 am

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.

TA
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 11:07 am

“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
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 11:12 am

“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.

AndyG55
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 12:15 pm

“they have repeatedly been caught presenting inaccurate data”
No they haven’t. Just data you don’t understand and that disagrees with your “beliefs”

AndyG55
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 12:17 pm

“there are a dozen lunatics and liars out there.”
And you are one of them.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  TA
December 11, 2016 1:11 am

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?

Leo Smith
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 6:00 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 6:33 am

Trnslation: They disagree with me the most.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  MarkW
December 2, 2016 2:12 pm

Your Mom should be really proud of you!

RockyRoad
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 9:49 am

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

Reply to  RockyRoad
December 2, 2016 10:11 am

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. …

brians356
Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 3:41 pm

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?

December 2, 2016 1:34 am

https://twitter.com/JoelNihlean/status/804409966874525696
Gavin is fighting back. Interesting @ClimateOfGavin did not tweet this. But he must’ve written it.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  mark4asp
December 2, 2016 1:58 am

I’ve often thought of producing a Global temperature where I just keep adding a downjust to the figures. So, I could be just as Juvenile as Gavin.

Catcracking
Reply to  mark4asp
December 2, 2016 4:25 am

Is this after adjustments?

spetzer86
Reply to  mark4asp
December 2, 2016 4:32 am
Reply to  spetzer86
December 2, 2016 2:19 pm

Thanks for the link , astounding!

TA
Reply to  spetzer86
December 3, 2016 9:21 am

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.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  mark4asp
December 2, 2016 7:56 am

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.

Reply to  Steve Fraser
December 2, 2016 6:33 pm

“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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  mark4asp
December 2, 2016 10:04 am

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.

Simon
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 3, 2016 10:59 am

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.

catweazle666
Reply to  Simon
December 3, 2016 12:14 pm

” 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.

Stephen Richards
December 2, 2016 1:36 am

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

Robert from oz
December 2, 2016 1:38 am

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 .

Mat
December 2, 2016 1:40 am

No such drop in the UAH Lower Troposphere over land just released (which readers here usually put above all else). In fact UAH shows a big jump in November over land from +0.23 to +0.48 anomaly. Why the sudden trust in RSS?
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt

charles nelson
Reply to  Mat
December 2, 2016 1:43 am

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!

TA
Reply to  Mat
December 2, 2016 4:58 am

“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.

Catcracking
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 7:01 am

” 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.

MarkW
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 8:02 am

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.

Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 11:08 am

“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.

Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 11:19 am

“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:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/12/uahadj1.png
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.

TA
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 11:21 am

“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.

TA
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 11:28 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 12:19 pm

NOAA/GISS fabrication is CERTAIN to be exactly what NOAA/GISS want it to be. !!

Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 12:31 pm

“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.

AndyG55
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 1:24 pm

“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.

TA
Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 3:08 pm

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.

Peter Champness
December 2, 2016 1:47 am

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

Catcracking
Reply to  Peter Champness
December 2, 2016 7:05 am

Land is where we live, grow crops and shovel snow and may be more important.

Reply to  Catcracking
December 2, 2016 11:21 am

But we don’t live where UAH and RSS are measuring.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 2, 2016 1:46 pm

We don’t live on Earth? What planet do you live on?

TA
Reply to  Catcracking
December 2, 2016 11:34 am

“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?

Reply to  Catcracking
December 2, 2016 3:03 pm

“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.

Reply to  Catcracking
December 2, 2016 4:08 pm

Not true Nick,comment image

Reply to  Catcracking
December 2, 2016 4:16 pm

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,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-9-1.jpeg
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

bobl
Reply to  Catcracking
December 2, 2016 6:47 pm

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.

Reply to  Catcracking
December 2, 2016 6:48 pm

“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.

Chimp
Reply to  Catcracking
December 2, 2016 7:02 pm

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?

Reply to  Catcracking
December 2, 2016 10:17 pm

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.

Reply to  Catcracking
December 3, 2016 4:52 pm

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.

bobl
Reply to  Catcracking
December 3, 2016 5:39 pm

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.

Scottish Sceptic
December 2, 2016 1:53 am

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!

TA
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
December 2, 2016 11:40 am

“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.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
December 2, 2016 2:27 pm

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”.