.jpg){kind=link}
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.”
.@BreitbartNews: Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists https://t.co/uLUPW4o93V
— Sci, Space, & Tech GOP (@housesciencegop) December 1, 2016
Here’s how the Vermon senator responded.
Where'd you get your PhD? Trump University? https://t.co/P5Ez5fVEwD
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 1, 2016
…
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.”
…
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Too much emphasis on short term climate events. I think that the lack of continuous global warming shown by the existing temperature record plus the apparent pattern of warming and pause in warming should be continuously pointed out to Sanders and crew as a wooden stake in the heart of their “Man-made CO2 as the warming villain” argument.
Such short term apparent global temperature changes do not mean anything in terms of real climate change. Such changes are indicative of weather cycles and not true climate change.
Then why does each year’s slight temperature variance make the news as a reliable drum beat of “hottest year ever” when that temperature rise is on the magnitude of ~0.01 to ~0.1?
Either the current temperature and short term (<30 years) trend matter – or they don't. The political narrative doesn't get to have it both ways.
It is all politics and not science. “Ever” really refers to the “adjusted” modern temperature record which does not go back very far. We are near the peak of the Modern Warm Period so “hottest year ever” during the peak of the Modern Warm Period does not mean all that much. There is evidence that temperatures were warmer during the previous Medieval Warm Period and other warm periods during the Holocene. There is also plenty of evidence that the previous interglacial period was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet CO2 levels were lower than today. There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. For example, if CO2 really affected climate, one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The AGW conjecture is based upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption bands of so called greenhouse gases but there is no evidence that such a greenhouse efect exists on either Earth, Venus, or any planet the solar system. Without evidence of a radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW conjecture is just poor science fiction.
I doubt Bernie’s BA (Chicago) would stand him in good stead against many sceptics. You don’t need a PhD to know when the temperature is crashing.
This whole farragio turned into a pure and unadulterated PR/marketing/propaganda campaign in the lead up to Paris and the prospect of an El Nino about the same time or shi=ortly after. Now the reality of the post El Nino truth is hitting home these buffoons are going into melt down as the egg on their face starts to fry as their idiocy turns their cheeks redder and redder.
LOL
Unfortunately, we have lots of Bernies in Australia.
boy do we!
after the SA wind debacle?
now western vic local free paper it touting 3 wind gen setups all the way round horsham and down to the sth
and some idiocy re soalr farm too
some of em need shooting..
hardly worth the cost of a bullet though
“Why are climate advocates so upset?”
It’s he post-truth era we seem to be entering. The reports are just false. The House science tweet said:
“Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists “
But global temperatures haven’t plunged. The index cited (erratically) wasn’t global. And it wasn’t surface, which is what most people think of as global temperature. And it comes with an unreliability warning.
And the trouble with post-truth is that if anyone is seriously following, they get whiplash. So you have Roy Spencer:
“November Temperature Up a Little from October; 2016 Almost Certain to be Warmest in 38 Year Satellite Record”
And October dropped only 0.03°C from September. I suppose WUWT will cover UAH soon. So we have simultaneously “massive drop by 1°C” and “No change – record year almost certain”. Incoherent.
Is that an “icy silence” from Roy?
Poor Nick doesn’t know what a “transient” is
He will find out once this scam is dumped where it belongs.
Start looking for a comfortable park bench now, Nick.
Although you probably have a fair deal of climate trough money stashed away.. right 😉
AndG55
You just can’t help but resort to threatening childish behaviour can you? NS is making a valid point (backed by the data) in a gentlemanly way and your way of rebutting is to play the man…. every time it seems. Why explain to him why he is wrong?
The desperation become palpable.
You know there will not be an El Nino next year, don’t you. 🙂
The issue is a respect for facts and truth.
Though with arctic sea ice at a record low in extent and volume and thickness one third into the freeze season, perhaps you want to predict a ‘recovery’ for that in 2017 ??
Predictions are not science,. Which you should be glad for since that alone would negate the concept of CAGW.
Griff there has been persistent low pressure in the arctic that has been drawing in warm air from the Atlantic and at times the Pacific. Where do you think that heat is going? Do you think it just sits up there?
El Nino is a cooling event and the warm arctic is the second half of that cooling event. We are loosing a lot of heat to space right now. Cooling will follow.
“The issue is a respect for facts and truth.”
Then stick with UAH6 and RSS3.3
NOT the fabrication that is the fairy story of the surface data.
AndyG55, your bias shows by brushing these inconvenient facts off. UAH land LT for November saw no drop, actually went from +0.23 to +0.48. Roy has commented on the discrepancy on his webpage:
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
December 1, 2016 at 9:40 AM
we think that the RSS diurnal cycle adjustment, which is largest over land, is biased. That would be my first guess
Even the RSS authors say it has issues and is being updated (http://www.remss.com/node/5166).
Which measure can I trust? And why?
The problem is Nick that your analysis as much as you may think otherwise, has just as much bias attached to it as those who think AGW is not happening. Hence why you get the responses you get. I don’t believe I have ever seen you come on here and say yes….hurricane activity has not increase, yes extreme weather is not increasing, yes polar bears appear to be fine despite all the claims from media and biased scientists. How about you start looking at both sides. You only comment from one side of the debate. There are very few scientist that are willing to tread in the middle ground between both sides of the debate. I suspect Judith Curry is about as close this as you can get, but the way she was treated by the pro AGW community, it is not surprising she leans a bit more to the sceptic side.
Let’s just hope we’ve reached the end of the “Science is settled, discussion forbidden” era.
Other than outright lies about weather extremes, socialist climate policy is based on the highest-warming IPCC climate models. They have been shown to exaggerate warming two to three times those of observed trends. See: https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/climate-models.pdf
> Is that an “icy silence” from Roy?
I guess I’m not sure what you expect. He reports the UAH data soon after the 1st of a month, UTC and moves on. Lately he’s been more interested in astrophotography than dealing with government types and people putting way too much emphasis on short term data.
He does note that “The paper describing the methodology [within UAH V6.0] has been accepted for publication.” That’s good news.
“I guess I’m not sure what you expect.”
What I expect is what I see from Roy on this occasion. A decent respect for truth and accuracy. I don’t think TLT measures are reliable, but at least he sticks to one measure (global) and says fairly what happened to it (nothing much).
So let’s look at that tweet again:
“Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists”
So “alarmists” are supposed to be icy silent. But there is Roy, a custodian of one of the records. And he isn’t singing along with Breitbart at all. That’s the contrast.
..maybe he’s mature enough to not give a rats rear what they think
I dont either. But at least they’re consistent over the short term – perhaps a decade or two. So in terms of anomalies they’re likely to be better than surface measurements. As the structure of the atmosphere changes, the underlying models will also need to change in the satellite calculations and that’s going to cause bias (imo). It is already.
TimTheToolMan December 2, 2016 at 2:46 pm
I don’t think TLT measures are reliable
I dont either. But at least they’re consistent over the short term – perhaps a decade or two.
Actually they aren’t, that’s the problem according to RSS and UAH which is why they are making adjustments because of change in orbits etc. In his recent presentation to congress Christy didn’t mention TLT at all, just the TMT product.
I like James Delingpole but I really do wish he’d steer clear of data and statistics. It’s pretty clear he’s used an obsolete data set and, despite what he says, ALL scientists (on both sides) understood there would be a decline in global temperatures once the recent El Nino subsided.
The El Nino was not the sole reason for the record high temperature. We’ve had El Ninos before (e.g. 1986/87) but the temperature (surface or satellite) never got close to that of the last 12 months.
UAH temperatures are still pretty elevated – much higher than anything in the 1980s.. Warming is taking place that’s for sure. Why ? – I strongly suspect that the increase in CO2 is causing the surface and atmosphere to retain more heat. How much more warming we can expect is up for debate but I suggest that’s where we concentrate the argument else the sceptic side is going to start looking a bit silly.
Mr Finn. The AGW hypothesis is based on CO2 causing relatively minor warming that results in an increase in evaporation and the added water vapor (shown as a feedback by IPCC because of this) is what causes the real increase in atmospheric temperature. That rise in temperature also causes more evaporation and the runaway water vapor feedback loop then causes the catastrophic global warming.
Yet there does not appear to have been any concomitant increase in relative humidity indeed many areas are experiencing the opposite.
Perhaps you could elucidate what the global warming hypothesis actually is as the one that was originally stated required water vapor feedback. Yet you and others appear to have abandoned mention of the water vapor feedback (possibly because it isn’t happening). So please would you step through the hypothesis again as it appears to have been falsified?
@Ian W
December 2, 2016 at 4:13 am: Thanks Ian W..
Hopefully we only have to keep repeating the true physics for another year or two before pennies drop at last…..
I understand the AGW hypothesis and if you read my post correctly you might notice that I questioned how much warming can be expected. I also suggested that this is the potentially productive area for debate from a sceptic point of view. This part of my comment might help
Tricky stuff I know but you’ll get the hang of it.
Another suggestion: Trying to score points from comments which, by and large, acknowledge the physics and the possible holes in the CAGW theory (Catastrophic) while ignoring the stream of nonsense from the solar crowd isn’t helping the credibility of the sceptic side. The world is not cooling – nor is it likely to be any time soon.
John Finn December 2, 2016 at 5:44 am
“Trying to score points from comments which, by and large, acknowledge the physics and the possible holes in the CAGW theory (Catastrophic) while ignoring the stream of nonsense from the solar crowd isn’t helping the credibility of the sceptic side. The world is not cooling – nor is it likely to be any time soon.”
“ignoring the stream of nonsense from the solar crowd” John Solar infuence on the climate system is a never ending battlefield here. Why would you make such a statement? Are you saying the subject should be banned? Why would anyone want to? The subject has been under discussion within the Astrophysics community for many years now. Open discussion is how science moves foreword.
“The world is not cooling – nor is it likely to be any time soon.” Maybe maybe not. John if natural variance is what drives the climate system your statement is without value.
And since natural variance was the sole driver of past climate change I think you are SOL.
michaeel
“Warming is taking place, that’s for sure”. Yes, because with you Warmists, it’s always cherry-picking season. Oh, and you “suspect” CO2 is causing the warming? Of course you do – it’s in the Warmist manual. Evidence-free, of course.
I don’t know why you refer to me as a “warmist”. Do you consider Richard Lindzen a “warmist” – or Roy Spencer? Their views are similar to mine.
Anyway, . I do not need to cherry pick to show that the satellite data has a warming trend.
If you want evidence that CO2 affects the flow of outgoing radiation from the earth atmosphere then simply take a look at emission spectra from outer space. If more CO2 is added to the atmosphere then the average height at which energy is emitted to space will increase. This means energy will be emitted form colder layers of the troposphere which means rates of emission will be reduced ( S-B Law). If the rate of emission is reduced then the earth will warm because we will have more incoming energy (from the sun) than outgoing energy.
We can expect an increase of about 1.2 deg C for a doubling of CO2. However this ignores feedbacks which may be positive or negative. Herein lies the real debate between “warmists” and “sceptics”
One gets to spot a ‘concern troll’ early on on the internet.
“Basically I am on your side…but….I have a concern…”
Leo Smith December 2, 2016 at 6:03 am
Oh dear – here we go again. Tell you what why don’t you select the following link at Steve McIntyre’s site
https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/
Then scroll down to this
I’ve been looking into this stuff for nearly 15 years and was challenging Michael Mann about the H-S reconstruction 5 years before “Climategate”. Now if you’ve got any useful points to make let’s have them otherwise I suggest you just read and learn.
@John Finn, oops but that doesn’t make any sense The only way that “Higher emission layer” (which is a fictitious representation anyway) could be colder is if there was a simultaneous increase in the lapse rate. If the temperature at the earth is higher by say 1 deg then if we assume the lapse rate stays the same then the height of the emission layer must be around 180m higher AT THE SAME TEMPERATURE because it takes 180M at 6 deg per km lapse rate to account for the extra deg on the surface. Now remember the so-called theory calls for the specific humidity of the air to be higher, more water vapour actually LOWERS THE LAPSE rate so the emission layer will be hotter in spite of the increase in height and MORE emission occurs, this is what satellites actually see happening, it’s feedback alright but it’s negative.
As for that emission layer, that’s a fiction, there is no such thing, indeed the “effective height” of the CO2 emission depends on the departure from the central frequency of the emission band. Only hot WV molecules emit doppler frequencies significantly away from the central emission frequency so as emission frequency depart from the central frequency they come from faster (hotter) molecules which are on average deeper in the atmosphere. The emission layer idea is a convenience and fictional simplification of what really happens, something like assuming the earth is a flat-earth disk receiving uniform 24 hour illumination of 347 Watts per square meter.
Mr Finn, while I agree with you, there is one small point of disagreement. Actually, before the adjustments of more recent years the charts that I remember would have shown that the peak of the 1998 El Nino was of the same order as that of 2016 and, possibly, even higher. But that was before Karl et al and other climatologists got nibbling away at the data.
I only refer to UAH. I don’t want to get bogged down in the merits or otherwise of the surface temperature records.
Delingpole cherry picks and distorts, to please his audience.
This link reports what the UK Met Office said about on of his articles:
http://leftfootforward.org/2013/01/delingpole-debunked-by-met-office/
It was just the first one to come up – there are pages of similar
Another ad hom by proxy, eh Griff?
You are consistent, if nothing else.
…cherry picking, like pointing out a rather meaningless sea ice report? Cherry picking like THAT?
Mr. Kettle, there is a Ms. Pot on the line for you…
“Leftfootforward”…You’re kidding, right?
Bloody hell Griff, you’ve really excelled yourself this time!
You really are a mendacious little waste of bandwidth, aren’t you?
catweazle, as I said, just first reference to come up… and whatever it is, it accurately reports one of Delingpole’s many shameful mistakes.
Just google ‘James Delingpole debunk’ and watch those hits roll in.
“Just google ‘James Delingpole debunk’ and watch those hits roll in.”
Oh, I’m absolutely sure they will – and every last one a fabrication.
As James Delingpole is one of the most effective sceptic commentators, I’m absolutely you and your poisonous environment-hating solar and wind-sponsored friends have flooded the Internet with lies and hate postings about him.
I remember your dismissive sneers at the number of the sick and elderly that even your pet Guardian journalist was complaining about dying because of the price of energy, and I’ve seen your lies about the destruction of bats, birds and habitat by the ‘unreliables’ you are paid to propagandise about.
You are a very unpleasant, greedy, mendacious piece of work with no care for anyone except yourself, and fortunately, this year the World has changed and you and all your vile ilk are going to be brought to book.
Bank on it..
We have seen the far-left AGW agenda cherry-picking and anti-science before, Griff.
No need to look at it again.
““Just google ‘James Delingpole debunk’ and watch those hits roll in.””
As I suspected, I cannot find one respectable science site that debunks the article.
Its all just propaganda handwringing.
“How much more warming we can expect is up for debate”. Oh good. So “the debate” isn’t over then. How gracious of you. Except that, you still assume that a) we are currently warming, and b) that the assumed current warming will continue, because of the third assumption of yours c) that the increased CO2 caused by man is primarily responsible for the warming since 1979 (which, yeah is a cherry-pick), and thus the “warming” will continue.
Oh what a tangled web you Warmists weave.
“The El Nino was not the sole reason for the record high temperature”
It will be funny to see you repeat that next year when there is no EL Nino 😉
If the plunge doesn’t go any lower then we have an upward trend in temperature. This one hasn’t even crossed the line yet which makes the upcoming upward trend even higher.
Well of course it doesn’t matter if *just* the land cools down – its not like there are any houses & homes, farms or people living there very much.
As long as the big cities, suburbs, wide open prairies and shopping malls out there on the Pacific and Atlantic oceans stay toasty & hot, doom mongering can proceed at full speed ahead.
Bring it on.
Personally I’m glad I live a a piece of driftwood in the middle of the Atlantic – I’ve got a more reliable supply of electricity than South Australia and increasingly, Western Europe in the early evenings.
;-D
Thanks for the chuckle, well written for Bernie
All that extra CO2 is not helping to keep the temperature up?
No, the CO2 isn’t keeping the temperature up. El Nino’s heat is dissipating and the temperatures are dropping.
The alarmists will say “but it hasn’t dropped very much, and may not drop very much in the future, so CO2 could still be involved.” Maybe, maybe not. It’s supposed to be real cold this month.
So far, this current climate pattern duplicates the warming from 1910 to 1940. Then it cooled from 1940 to about 1978. Now it has warmed back up to almost 1930’s levels. If the temperatures go higher from here, then skeptics will have to reassess their positions.
Unfortunately, if the temperature goes lower, the alarmists will just claim it is CAGW. I have already seen a claim in the last few days that we could have another 20-year pause, that would be consistent with CAGW. So hot or cold, the alamists are going to claim it is CAGW.
The political hacks can claim that CAGW is consistent, real scientists can not. The reason is based exclusively on the math. Deadline after deadline is passing on the need for urgent action. And the only tool left that they have to talk about is Arctic ice extent.
Now it has warmed back up to almost 1930’s levels. If the temperatures go higher from here, then skeptics will have to reassess their positions.
Let me guess. You’re an American. While the US did have a warm 1930s this was not the case for the rest of the world.
No. They wont. The fact of the matter is that correlation of the size claimed by the alarmists, between temperature and CO2 levels has been broken for good.
WE have seen major temperature fluctuations that are happening obviously independently of CO2, and that has to at least cast doubt on et fundamental assumption that underpins CAGW: Namely that after you have eliminated all the stuff you know about, what’s left must be caused by CO2.
The data for the past 20 years implies the opposite. After you have eliminated all the stuff you know about what’s left can’t be down to CO2, because its doesn’t correlate.
CAGW is irretrievably broken. CO2 may have a minor effect, but its patently dwarfed by much much bigger unknowns. And there is no positive feedback at all, in fact its likely that its negative.
Except in the arctic.
I love the way Griffy keeps shifting his focus. Whatever small portion of the world is behaving as he believes it should, is proof positive that CAGW is live, well and going to kill us all.
3 months ago, when the arctic ice was well above the lows of the satellite era, Griffy had nothing to say about the arctic. Now he can’t stop talking about it.
“Whatever small portion of the world is behaving as he believes it should” …
You mean like choosing data from one specific satellite? And then only including northern hemisphere land data? And then looking at only the 8 month change? Like that small portion of the world?
“Let me guess. You’re an American. While the US did have a warm 1930s this was not the case for the rest of the world.”
I am American. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Oh! You must think I am America-centric, and therefore am walking around with blinders on, only looking at it from the American point of view.
As for other areas of the world compared to the U.S. temperatures, it depends on what chart you look at as to whether it was hot around the world at the same time.
I see lots of charts from all around the world showing the period of the 1930’s-1940 being about the hottest point on the chart. They are not exact duplicates of the U.S. temperature profile, but they are close enough for government work.
Here’s an example:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Reykjavik.gif
As you can see, the unmodified “measured” chart shows 1940 as being as hot or hotter than any year subsequent. There are lots of charts like this, from around the world, that show pretty much the same temperature profile. Until NOAA/NASA got hold of them, that is. After that, they look completely different, like a hockeystick.
@ur momisugly John Finn
I believe my assumption of natural variation survives until we approach the Eeimian optimum of around +8 compared with 2016 if the world temperature even got 5 degrees ABOVE the natural temperature of the eeimian optimum due to little ‘ole me, I still think a warm 28 deg average (-60 to maybe +50 depending on latitude) is way preferable to the natural temperature of the Cryogenian period of -55 (-140 to maybe -15 depending on latitude). Good luck growing your lunch on a snowball earth using windmills and Solar Panels…
John, you have no idea about scale, the earths NATURAL temperature range is from around -55 to around 23 until we are out of that range natural variation reigns supreme. We aught to be looking at how mankind is gonna survive a snowball earth scenario rather than a slight movement of growing habitats just 10 deg poleward.
Detecting climate change involves multi-decade measurements, not yearly or monthly data. It’s propaganda when the alarmists cite extreme weather events as climate change, and its propaganda when skeptics point to data like this to discredit alarmists.
Wrong. It’s called mockery, aimed at Warmist propaganda, which people are continually fed through the compliant and complicit MSM.
so a decade of an open NW passage, or a decade of sea ice levels at pre -200y levels is climate then?
It seems you may be capable of learning after all.
Griffy, don’t panic. It’ll all be OK. The Arctic is freezing up right now — it’s cold up there. The polar bears, caribou, seals, etc aren’t dying — they’ll be OK. Many people will even have a white Christmas this yr, and for yrs to come.
er no beng…. it ain’t, though it is supposed to be.
The bears need ice to get on to – none in Hudson bay or round Svalbard.
another big storm coming in up there…
“another big storm coming in up there…”
Ahhh…. finally you admit its WEATHER related.
Well done Griff.
You are being a great help to the climate skeptic point of view. 🙂
Griff writes
So next time you feel tempted to write that sea ice extent is low right now, think back to this statement.
Griff “a decade of an open NW passage”
How exactly did the Inuit make it all the way over to Greenland in Kayaks and Whaling boats. You know boats.
Griff,
Bill is right. The NW Passage has been open more summers in the Holocene than not. It was open more often and wider for thousands of years before now.
Polar bear populations are booming. Your stool lacks even one scientific leg upon which to stand, let alone three.
If you look at all the data the temperatures still show a slight warming. Perhaps a bit better than 0.1c/decade. Delingpole is wrong. Now with the sun entering into a quiet period this warming trend may reverse. However, like the climate models we can’t predict the future.
Delingpoles position actually hurts the deniers position. We should not want to associate with that. It’s,probably better to see that temperatures will continue to show a modest increase for the near future. This increase does not represent problem and may very well benefit mankind
There’s only a few years, at best, to go before the insanity ends.I read the following news story the other day. This quote really lent me some insight into just how deep the insanity goes, however, as I said, it also illustrates that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.
“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”
Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.
“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
Allright, so American male life expectancy is 78 years. Lets say this deluded young staffer is 25; by his own words he expects to die in the next 13 years. When he doesn’t, and/or he sees little of what he fears is going to happen he will be in his mid-30s, probably with all the trappings of family, job and debt obligations. I think at that time, he, and the rest of his ilk will come to their collective senses.
I sometimes wonder what people would do if they couldn’t make all those pretty graphs and charts.
If they couldn’t show that Hockeystick chart as “evidence”, CAGW would be dead in the water.
Evidence that falsifies their end of the world theory is always met with fear, anger and denial. So either they WANT the world to end, or this is really about politics (i.e., money and power) and not science.
By the way, fear, anger and denial are stages of mourning. These people are subconsciously mourning the loss of the theory (and so the loss of money and power?).
Also, Bernie doesn’t have a PhD in Climatology, either. His got a BS in Political Science, but ironically that does qualify him to speak for the radical leftist side of the Global Warming theory because it’s just politics.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix8/socialism-bernie_sanders.jpg
Good picture, Larry. 🙂 Ole Bernie seems to have a personal bond with some of the others pictured. He went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon. A guy has to be a dedicated socialist/communist to do that, I would think.
Except climate science has nothing whatever to do with the left, or socialism.
The preceding public service announcement was brought to you by Bayer Pharmaceuticals…
…makers of Thorazine
Yes. Just like lysenkoism had nothing to do with the communist regime in Russia.
Hasta La Victoria Siempre!
Politicized climate science and advocacy-based science does
Except “the left, or socialism” seems to be incapable of applying or understanding the first principles of science. They are incapable of separating science correctly from their ideology. Clavels 1984 novel is regarded as an instruction manual and science textbook. Totally understandable when one’s brain leaks out the ears. Science should be immune from such propaganda utility. GK
Griff
can’t believe I am going to feed the troll, but who did you vote for?
As practiced with government grants, it also has nothing to do with science.
Whoa, Griffie! The social justice warriors at the IPCC will have your head for saying that.
“Except climate science has nothing whatever to do with the left, or socialism.”
That’s true, but the Left and Socialism have hijacked the climate debate to use for their political purposes, so they are involved whether we like it or not.
But climate consensus believers and promoters fo have a lot to do with lefty politics.
Not even close enough for fairy land, Griff! Both seek to destroy Capitalism and enslave and impoverish people. Are you a Socialist, Griff?
“Are you a Socialist, Griff?”
He just posted a link to leftfootforward.org – about as hard Left a site as you can get, so what do you think?
What’s so “scientific” about cherry-picking data, altering data to fit one’s theory, persecuting skeptical scientists out of their career fields, and brainwashing children with false propaganda in an thinly veiled attempt to replace Capitalism with Communism?
Exactly right: The climate consensus is largely a social mania veneered on sciencey sounding rhetoric.
Bang on, but it is certainly a carefully constructed and maintained social mania!
I have a observation to make, I know why Maxism failed. Look at the picture. First a great theory well received, then a seccessful revolution and the start of implementation. Then it all falls apart. Right when the leaders stop having beards.
michael
Bernie has a PhD in this:
https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiKhJKAztbQAhUm64MKHdwoCLUQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rolexmagazine.com%2F2013_02_01_archive.html&psig=AFQjCNEJAER5SuK2TFfW1syc2PY-y35AAg&ust=1480805884908713
Oops, my link didn’t work to the photo of Fidel & Che. you have to scroll down to find it…?
The facial hair of socialists seems to have been declining over time (picture). Maybe their is something to this global warming
Has it occurred to anyone that the blip in landtemps are due to the high temps over the Arctic and corresponding low temps over Siberia so it is just because of this switch that the temps are low over land, but the drop does not show up in the latest combined land and sea temps?
@Bob Tisdale perhaps?
…or the blip in the other direction was due to the AO concentrating the low temps in the arctic
The cold spots are a direct consequence of the effects on global circulation patterns/jet streams caused by current anomalously warm arctic
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/extraordinarily-hot-arctic-temperatures-alarm-scientists
..you don’t know what the AO is, do you?
What I suggest is that the falling land temps are not evidence of falling global temps as suggested in the original article, but a effect of the swap of cold and warm over land/ocean in the Arctic -> Hence there is no basis to expect it to be a sign of falling global temps.
Looks pretty cold in the Arctic of late…
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-79.97,96.33,478
Go to nullschool and study realtime earth observations.
Pop – sure it is – but! it supposed to be a whole heap colder, what with it being dark all day and all…
Patience and consideration of the now changing scenario will occupy your impetuous mind if you do nullschool research instead of flapping your virtual gums. I was just like you a few years back but the scientists that I provided facility support for changed my views of what the progressive ideological and scientific movement is really all about.
You big dummy, don’t you see, you’re like a junkie trying to convince former addicts to shoot up.
Griff, you will understand all this lateness of winter’s arrival in the western NH if you let Weatherbell.com educate you about the why before the what, and what years this happened as well as the opposite years. Don’t panic over the ice, man… The Iceman Cometh.
By the way, are you prone to walking out of the movie because you just know how it is going to end?
It is not cold in the Arctic compared to normal. That is sea.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
But it is cold over Siberia which is land, so we could argue that the cold of the Arctic had moved over land, hence the downspike in land temps should be mirroring a similar spike over the sea and is not a sign of coming cooling.
We wouldnt have these problems if we would just get back to ignoring real world observations.
Maybe Bernie Sanders should be compelled to read this
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen
More or less in line with what Tony Heller has been “preaching” but this is definitely more systematic and compelling.
Should have a separate presentation in WUWT and USA citizens should send a link to their Congress representatives.
Watch the protestors in North Dakota this weekend when the brutal global warming event moves in.
They wouldn’t build fires would they? All that CO2! Oh! The Humanity!
Small Windmills and solar panels, they’ll be just fine, warm and toasty… I can’t wait to see that.
Gotta love the squirming and cherrypicking!
‘Global temperatures show the steepest drop ever since the middle of the year’
NOPE
‘Global LAND temperatures show the steepest drop ever since the middle of the year’
NOPE
‘Global LAND temperatures IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE show the steepest drop ever since the middle of the year’
Getting close, but still wrong
‘Global LAND temperatures IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE show the steepest drop ever SINCE 6 MONTHS AGO’
NOPE
‘Global LAND temperatures IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE show the steepest drop ever SINCE
68 MONTHS AGO’YES! We finally found the one specific version of this statement for one cherrypicked area for one cherrrypicked time period that is true. Somehow it doesn’t seem so impressive anymore.
Maybe THAT is why “warmists’ and ‘greens’ don’t like the article. It is wrong and sensationalized in a very misleading way. :-/
(Not to mention that even this drop leaves northern hemisphere land temperatures above average. )
(Not to mention that a month later, UAH temperatures continue to hold steady at an exceptionally high level. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2016-0-45-deg-c/ )
And specifically, Anthony’s latest claim “As WUWT recently reported, James Delingpole’s claim is correct – the plunge in land temperatures over the last 6 months is the fastest drop on record.” is wrong, despite the renewed assertions.
The plunge in NORTHERN HEMISPHERE land temperatures over the last
68 months is the fastest drop on record. The 6-month drop (04/2016 to 10/2016) of 0.77 K is large, (between 2% – 3% of the time is the drop that large), but it is not a record.Dang. only the “6” was supposed to struck through.
Its the same as with the ice…
You have very low ice, then when winter comes -gosh! look at the rate it freezes.
You have record temps, then come N hemisphere winter -gosh! look how it plummets.
Its not a sudden tip into an ice age -its relative to previous high state… (low state, for the ice)
“Its not a sudden tip into an ice age -its relative to previous high state”
And now you finally see that 1979 was an EXTREME…
and that the drop in sea ice level is the Arctic getting back more towards to norm of before the Little Ice Age.
You are FINALLY starting to learn !!! Amazing.. I didn’t think you had the capability to learn.
Griff says: “Its the same as with the ice…”
You seem to be missing a major point. The temperature values are actually *anomalies* — deviations from long-term averages. As such, “then come N hemisphere winter -gosh! look how it plummets” shows a major misunderstanding. The values in the data set only plummet if the N hemisphere winter is colder than *the same month in other years* — not colder than the summer.
And (in this sense!) it is the same for ice. Of course the ice grows each winter and shrinks each summer. But if summer minima keep shrinking compared to earlier summer minima, that is something interesting. if winter minima keep shrinking, that is something interesting.
Sorry, buddy. You climate freaks claim every passing weather event is *proof* of dangerous climate change. You guys have the patent rights to climate cherry picking and are just whining that skeptics can indulge in a bit of the same. You wave your arms all you want and there will still be no climate crisis. And you will still be fools for claiming that skeptics don’t believe the climate changes.
Sorry, buddy, but name-calling doesn’t win any scientific discussions.
Sorry buddy, saying “the other side did something stupid and ineffective so my side gets to do something equally stupid and ineffective” is not going to win any scientific arguments.
BOTH sides should strive for a higher standard, but you seem to be striving for a lower standard. Why defend statements that are clearly false? (like “Global temperatures plunge” or “As WUWT recently reported, James Delingpole’s claim is correct – the plunge ins land temperatures over the last 6 months is the fastest drop ever recorded”). If you ARE going to cherry pick, at least do it right. 🙂
The drop in land temperatures is a good rebuttal to all the propaganda about the warm Arctic. And, just like that propaganda it is not really evidence of anything.
The big reason the global temperature anomaly has not dropped all that much, as many expected after the El Nino ended, is the lack of sea ice at the current time especially in the Arctic. With over 2 million square km of open sea water releasing heat into the atmosphere the temperature is going to go up. Since this is in polar areas it takes less energy to raise the temperature.
When this change is added into the rest of the globe you get an increase of a few tenths of a degree. This is the entire difference in temperature between now and before the El Nino. It will disappear when the sea ice reforms.
The only question is what caused the sea ice to melt and there is one obvious answer …. the AMO. However, we won’t truly know the answer until the AMO moves further down the cooling side of it’s 60-70 year cycle.
Truth to a warmist is like Kryptonite to Superman.
How can anyone look at the past El Ninos and claim they only contribute 0.1°C? Where did Mann get his PhD? Berkeley?
Where did he get his ‘Nobel Prize’?
I understand that Mann gave himself the Nobel Prize. WUWT took it from him.
Mark Steyn took it from him.
Mann sued Steyn for among other things “defamation of a Nobel Laureate.” He had to amend his suit when the Nobel Committee pointed out his lie.
Dave Fair..
Even better… heh heh… thanks
Is this still a science site? Is anyone going to discuss the latest UAH lower troposphere temperature? The El Niño does not seem to be decaying like the 1998 one. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2016_v6.gif
Should have read the other comments before I posted–much better than the article. Thanks.
Yup, all due to the loss of sea ice driven by the AMO. I mentioned this last spring that the sea ice loss had caused the El Nino driven peak global anomaly to be higher than 1998 as well.
Keep in mind that all this energy loss from the oceans will cause them to cool. This will eventually lead to the reformation of the sea ice and return to conditions that can be compared to the late 20th century.
When was Global Warming ever science?
More and more it is becoming a political blog. This week it is apparently bash Bernie Sanders week.
So you believe socialists should be given a pass when they make stupid comments because they care, or something?
Climate Science has been primarily about politics from day one.
Pointing out that the climate change consensus is a political movement is entirely relevant.
Has anybody noticed that, according to UAH LT, there was no warming during the 21st Century before this latest El Nino? Given the relatively large increases in CO2 concentrations, the bulk atmosphere is where most of the warming should occur if “climate science” is correct.
The multiply adjusted UAH? which doesn’t directly measure temperatures and then only in the troposphere?
“The multiply adjusted UAH? which doesn’t directly measure temperatures and then only in the troposphere?”
The troposphere is where the hot spot David Fair was referring to, is supposed to be located, if CO2 is causing the atmospheric temperature to rise. The rise is supposed to occur first in the troposphere. There is no hot spot in the troposphere. That must mean there is no CO2-caused atmospheric warming.
The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked…
—H.L. Mencken
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
—H.L. Mencken
……The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked…”
—H.L. Mencken
Exactly. The CAGW believers like Sen. Sanders react to contradictory falsifying evidence the way they do because they form an association or link between their belief in the evils of fossil fuels and the contradictory or falsifying CAGW evidence. If fossil fuels and the fossil fuel companies are evil, then the contradictory evidence is also evil by default—as are everyone suggesting that the contradictory evidence is worth considering. The link or association makes perfect sense to them.
The problem of course with that mode of thinking is that a good-vs-evil religious battle is just that—religion, not science. They might try to hide the religion by presenting a facade of science to justify themselves. When their “science” proves faulty however, the good-vs-evil religious battle going on in their heads becomes difficult to keep hidden. But they will keep trying anyway.
As I recall, Sanders is the one in the presidential campaign that wanted to totally ban fracking in this country. The detrimental impact that the ban would have on the economy is probably not hard to imagine–except for Sanders himself perhaps and his supporters. It is the proof of the non-scientific battle that is going on in his head.
The believers like Sen. Sanders only demonstrate their ignorance of how science works when we observe their behavior on the subjects of fossil fuels and CAGW. It is both amusing and sad to watch.
Adherents of the CACA religion are just as deluded as creationists. It’s worse with them, because they don’t have the excuse of being indoctrinated. They deluded themselves.
Sanders believes that the harm that is caused by his ban on fraking can easily be countered by raising the taxes on the rich to 90% and giving all that money to people who are (in his mind) more deserving.
So he’s delusional in multiple fields.
Some skeptics react the same way: all alarmists are communists, liars, fools etc.
Both sides are human beings, thus vulnerable to be partisan and confirmation bias.
@naturbaumeister: You are of course right to one degree of another. We are all human of both sides of this climate issue. That means we all have emotions that tend to cause us to behave a certain way—name calling for example—that are difficult to suppress when we feel so strongly about something.
But at least the climate skeptics do not treat the climate issue as a good-versus-evil religion. From what I have seen here at WUWT, they more or less treat it as a sound-science-versus-bad-science issue. And that is the way it is SUPPOSED to be treated. It seems that climate alarmists have yet to fully learn that, and I am not holding my breath waiting for it happen.