.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.
When you live lies, the truth hurts.
Trump does not need nor want to engage the MSM.
The media thinks that communication relies on them.
How 20th century of them.
Therefore, TRUMP will issue press releases directly to the public. It will be biased to his favor.
The MSM will issue biased criticism.
The public does not trust the MSM.
The public will learn to trust Trump more first because Trump has a leg up and moved first. The public will perceive the MSM as in damage control for a while.
So the MSM is anti republican. So what. Everyone knows that.
Part of debates in the past have relied on “reputable” sources. Those on the left have poo-pooed any source that was not “mainstream”. What the MSM did this election was show they are not “reputable”. So when the left sources a claim to the MSM, it will justly be dismissed unless it can be sourced either from the primary, or from the alternate media on the Internet.
Donald Trump did not destroy the press. They did it to themselves. And perhaps more than anything else that the election of Trump has or will accomplish, that will be the longest lasting. Trump will bypass the MSM. They have shown themselves to be dishonest – even after the election (the NY Crimes piece of Tump/Climate Change for example).
I cannot believe that Anthony published a second thread on this nonsense. {rolls eyes}
Is it just me or do there seem to be more contrarians than usual on here today? Names I’ve never seen before. It’s almost as if we’ve been targeted. I’m not saying debate is a bad thing, it isn’t.
It’s the whole threat to their cherished Warmunist ideology thing. Like a dog whistle.
No, it’s not only you. Two articles trumpeting a fall in a specific measurement, which even the owners of the dataset in which it belongs suspect of being erroneous, and one which is not supported by other satellite measurements.
Weird.
This post may have made it onto the Drudge report. That brings a flood of neophytes. Some will stay and learn.
It was https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/01/noaa-forecasts-major-december-cold-blast-for-nearly-all-the-usa/ that appears to have hit Drudge. There may well be spillover here.
I hope you’re right, Ric. And well spotted (on Drudge).
I projected al Gore’s face on a cloud over Greenland and lo! the call was answered…
(not really. People in the UK have no idea who he is or what he looks like)
Does anyone have any evidence to support this quote? This is the kind of stuff President Trump has to expose. Simply having this clown testify in front of Congress explaining how El Ninos don’t have an impact on temperatures would destroy this field of “climate science” for all time. People only believe in this garbage because the public trusts the “experts.” Trump needs to destroy the credibility of these activists masquerading as academics. Forget Hillary, Lock Mann Up.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/SwZPs1_TUQI/AAAAAAAADhk/xL8UrgkPdgQ/w1200-h630-p-nu/michael-mann-prison.jpg
The “less than .1C” was stated as El Nino’s contribution to 2015’s warmth, under a heading of “Why is 2016 smashing heat records?”. El Nino had a much greater contribution to global temperature in 2016 than in 2015.
It’s a case of couda woulda shoulda. Bernie Sanders coulda been a contender, but he wasn’t.
Sander’s indicated that he never had any intention of winning when he instructed his followers to ignore e-mail gate.
To be honest, the very large increase in average temps followed by a very large decrease is a transient event an has nothing to do with long term trends. It is not wise to make too much of this change and James has done no one a service trying to make a big deal of this.
Feel the Bern, then the freeze. Or be a relic of Mann-ipulated science.
heh, heh… “Mmm… Freezer Bern”…
Nice
In terms of the politics of this issue (which has become its most important aspect), public perceptions probably will not change until the average global temperatures actually decline from their trend since 1990. The short term decline from an all-time peak is gratifying for those of us who want to undercut the rationale for massive state interference with the global energy economy, but it won’t be enough. Let us hope for a very strong and prolonged La Nina.
Bob, some of us would rather see the whole thing brought into true focus through discussion and debate involving both sides, before Congress instead. A downturn in temps will just as easily be sold as Anthro-climate change by the doctors of spin and besides that, it would “suck an icicle”.
People have developed a god-complex since man said let there be light and there was fire, and then there was electricity, and man turned to a narcissistic faith, atheism, and conflated the logical domains.
Chaos is a model for an incompletely and insufficiently characterized and unwieldy system that defines the need and limits of the scientific logical domain in both time and space, forward and reverse. Fortunately, we live in a system that is semi-stable and moderate. But chaos, evaluated by the limits of our perception and control, assure that we cannot make predictions, and that forecasts and inference are only accurate over a period of indefinitely limited span in time and space.
off topic: another link to: “Research Center Proposes Carbon Tax on Unsustainable Food” http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/12/research-center-proposes-carbon-tax-unsustainable-food/
Isn’t it odd that people who are concerned about “global warming” end up rooting for global warming as if it was some sort of a contest? Craziest thing I’ve ever seen. It shows they don’t really care about science or statistics, but only their political agenda. Caught ’em red handed.
+1
You haven’t been reading with the serious eye of a true skeptic. Your mischaracterizations aside, I’m interested in your response to the commentary and information provided by Nick stokes in this, and the other related thread. Nick’s description of the bizarre “post-truth” phase we’re living in could not be more spot-on.
And I’m interested in what makes you think anyone is going to spend precious moments of life in searching threads for the pearls of dung dropped there at random by Stokes? You espouse an always risible and now thoroughly discredited hypothesis of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ which when demonstrated to be wrong was cynically morphed into ‘anthropogenic climate change’ – something which isn’t even a scientific proposition as it is completely and forever unfalsifiable – and you want us to research Nick Stokes? Good luck with that.
global warming is an example of observations provided by science confirming science’s theory…
Objecting to it on political grounds – the so called skeptic viewpoint – is the opposite of science.
don’t you get it? you are on the side of anti science. You are the inquisition to climate science’s Galileo!
So, what is your purpose here, oh great sage?
“So, what is your purpose here, oh great sage?”
He is earning his living in the only way he knows, posting mendacious propaganda on the Internet for his employers in the wind and solar industry, the likes of “Sir” Reg Sheffield and “Lord” Deben AKA John Gummer of burger fame.
And, when the smelly brown stuff hits the fan – as it will quite soon now, if I don’t miss my guess – they will scuttle off with their massive bank accounts bulging with their ill-gotten gains, and the Useful Idiots such as Griff will be left to take the flak.
“Objecting to it on political grounds – the so called skeptic viewpoint – is the opposite of science.”
Griff, do you really believe that CAGW is being opposed on political grounds by the skeptics who comment at this website?
What’s political about asking: “Where’s the evidence that proves CAGW is real?”.
What confirmation of projections?
Every single projection made by the models has failed to pan out.
The world hasn’t warmed up, despite predictions of well over a degree of warming by now.
The arctic was supposed to be ice free in summer by now.
The tropospheric hot spot never showed up.
No increase in tornadoes.
No increase in hurricanes.
PS: I love the way Griffie declares that anyone who disagrees with his religion is doing it on political grounds.
I’ve noticed a style difference between the Griff of today vs Griff past. Sentence structure and word choice has moved from grade school to college level.
Looks like the handlers have decided to upgrade Griff, since the old one couldn’t hold his own here.
And Bernie got his phd in climate science from Burlington Cillege …
It’s unfortunate that politicians are not scientists but have no problem making decisions on matters that affect science. Global warming has not been established. See http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2015.612105. Or Google “climate change science & propaganda.”
A 2016 detailed study with actual data has been done to show that “fossil fuels” has very little to do with CO2 accumulation. See International Journal of Geoscience 2016 7, 1232-1282. This article shows with actual data (not opinions) that “fossil fuels” is only a very minor component to the CO2 rise (less than 1.5 % over 33 years.) That is to say, if burning all coal, natural gas and petroleum was stopped for 33 years, it would only reduce the CO2 increase by 1.5%. This means that fossil fuel burning would have almost no effect on energy (heat) trapping applicable to CO2. The article also addresses the fact that the reported CO2 concentration is overstated by 12 to 15 ppmv (10 years of accumulation) because they removed the water vapor prior to testing. This article can be viewed at http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJG_2016102714282839.pdf
or Google “Oceans, Ice & Snow and CO2”
Bookmarked. Seems like excellent stuff IMO, Michael.
nice post and if i may add what would be the impact to the global economy IF we indeed used NONE of those fuels for 33 years? would peoples lives be better? or would we even exist after that 33 years?
Well, the “icy silence” barb did it’s job – thus the “hurtful” where’d you get your PhD jab from Sanders. Who said the Climate Wars can’t be fun?
Sanders, of course, got his from Clown College.
Mother nature’s a bitch. Just wont do as she’s told.
Bernie Sanders/progressives think/s humans are a big problem. So what is he/are they waiting for?
No bridge in the neighbourhood ?
“Where’d you get your PhD? Trump University?”
Hey Bernie, you should be one to talk. You do know that an undergraduate political science degree from the University of Chicago doesn’t count as an actual science degree, right?
Bernie’s degree is probably a degree in how to scam the common folk by taking their money away and buying votes with a mandatory attendance in Reverend Wright’s church.
Bernie was just having one of his senior moments . Apparently his own party couldn’t stomach voting for him . A Chimp should have been able to beat the Clinton’s and their hedge fund backers yet poor Bernie
and his brand of socialists just couldn’t get past Podesta and the bankers .
Rant on mad man you are a loser .
This won’t disabuse Griff of his cherished catastrophist beliefs, but (for the record) the recorded temperatures in the Arctic were very similar back in the nineteen thirties and early forties when human CO2 emissions were relatively insignificant:
http://climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif
Diagram showing area weighted Arctic (70-90oN) monthly surface air temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4) since January 1920 (climate4you).
Except this year at this season they are markedly not: for the whole Svalbard year they are markedly not: for Alaska, not…
and you still can’t (won’t) explain the extraordinary state of the ice.
Looks to me your chart shows warming since 1960 up there for sure.
..you mean rotten ice doesn’t cover it!
“and you still can’t (won’t) explain the extraordinary state of the ice.”
And you still haven’t managed to understand the difference between “weather” and “climate”.
Why do you persist in making such a complete fool of yourself?
You must be making a LOT of money from your mendacious propaganda, I can’t imagine anyone with any self-respect whatsoever spouting such total garbage over such a prolonged period.
http://www.allthingsclipart.com/images_01c/mr.magoo.03.jpg
That you believe there is something unusual in current ice levels is just so cute.
Regardless, 30 years of records going back to the coldest point in the last 100 years is hardly definitive, unless your goal is not debating science but proving religion.
Nice cherry pick,Griffy! You get a gold star.
We do not have to explain anything. The advocates of the CAGW theory are the ones who have to do the explaining. These supporters predicted that, due to an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the TWO ice caps were going to shrink. In 2014 the Antarctic Sea Ice set record maximum.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/antarctic-winter-sea-ice-extent-sets-new-record-2014
CAGW predicts one thing, nature does the opposite. Antarctic Sea Ice record maximum invalidates CAGW. CAGW is refuted. End of story. We do not have to propose any other theory to refute CAGW. It would be nice to have one, but you cannot argue that, since we do no have an alternate theory then CAGW is correct. Antarctic Sea Ice record maximum refuted CAGW, The sooner you assimilate this fact the sooner we can work on a better theory.
Griiff , don’t worry you’ll have your ice back soon read this : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/30/the-blob-in-the-pacific-turns-from-warm-to-cold-and-its-even-bigger/
” End of story.”
It’s a never ending story. various factors go into determining sea ice – winds, currents etc. Here, on a radial plot, is the current situation of Antarctic ice (2016 in black, NSIDC). It’s way below recent years.
@Nick Stokes
And how does it correlate to CO2 levels?
Here it is a quick reminder of “The Key of Science” by Feynman.
First we guess (we propose a theory, CAGW in this case.
Then we compute the consequences. In this case both Ice caps should shrink.
Then we compare with experiments. or with experimental data.
“If it disagrees with experiments, it is wrong” That simple statement is the key of science. It does not matter how many experiments agree with the theory, if you find one experiment that disagrees with the theory, the theory is wrong. END OF STORY.
GAGW disagrees with 2014 Antarctic sea ice record, among other experimental data, (stratospheric hot spot, lack of CO2 production – CO2 levels – temperature increase correlations…)
The sooner you aknowledge that the CAGW theory is wrong and has to be modified, the sooner we can move on.
So far, the only things you guys have done are being more imprecise when presenting the computational results and adjusting the experimental data more often. (what is the most recent version of HadCRUT? which HadCRUT version was used when models were computed? How many adjustments have been done between the two versions? Does it make any sense to run a model with, say, HadCRUT3.1 temperatures and compare the results to HadCRUT4.12 temperatures? I do not think so.)
There is a natural factor, and it is higher than you want to admit.
Griff, evidentally you have been rudely ignored here in your quest for an explanation for the reduced ice in the Arctic and warmer temperatures in the Svalbard area: the cold from the Arctic is redistributed in meridional lobes down through North America on one side and down through Russia/Asia on the other side of the globe. You can walk from the Texas Panhandle over the Pole to northern India on frozen ground and ice. Because of this deep southerly cold air flow, it has to be countered by a northerly return air flow from the south (vacuums not permitted!) which brings warm air lobes into the Arctic. This is not a rare occurrence. This is why there has been a 1C drop in average land temperature and only a modest drop in global average temperature.
I’ve seen considerable agonizing by commenters on the apparent paradox between the issue of the cold snap on land, a more modest decline globally on the satellite data sets and slower advance in ice extent in the Arctic. The above is the reason.
Climate science is complex but this particular phenomenon is much less controversial between scientific combatants. You would appear to be relatively new to the discussion (like Bernie Sanders who would have the descriptive “talking points” version only) but have a genuine interest. Be careful to not overuse a priori reasoning when engaging scientists. Nature has more tricks than the uninitiated expects. I hope this helps. Cheers, G.
Thanks for this chart, Chris. I’ll have to add it to my list of other charts that show the 1930’s as being hotter than subsequent years. It wasn’t just the U.S. that had very hot temperatures in the 1930’s.
http://climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif
Yes, thanks
“As a matter of interest where were the thermometers in 1920 and where are they now?”
I’m not sure what HADCRUT has, but here (from here) is a google map of GHCN-M land stations north of 70°. Cyan are all stations; pink are those that started reporting before 1921.
Forrest,
I would expect a big reduction, mainly because of the big cutback in Canada in about 1992.. But I’d suggest try an earlier year – maybe 2012. The reason is that the dates are frozen when the data was uploaded, so if that was 2015 (i’m not sure) it could be to harsh a test.
Chris Hanley on December 2, 2016 at 12:14 pm
… the recorded temperatures in the Arctic were very similar back in the nineteen thirties and early forties when human CO2 emissions were relatively insignificant.
Correct.
When using GHCN V3 unadjusted as data source for the plot, it even gets a lot warmer in 1920-1930 than is shown by HadCRUT:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161203/qniw7v5j.jpg
There are no GHCN stations above 82.5N.
Data source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
That doesn’t change anything to the fact that in UAH’s 2.5° gridded data, over 90 of the 100 grid cells showing the highest trends (over 4.5 °C / century) are located in the latitude stripe 80N-82.5N (there is no UAH data above these latitudes).
Forrest Gardener on December 3, 2016 at 2:09 pm
… how many weather stations do you think there are in the “100 grid cells” and where are they located?
Forrest, you misunderstood the end of my comment: I was writing there about UAH grid data, i.e. about measurements in the troposphere.
The GHCN record actually has only 3 stations within 80N-82.5N:
– 22220046000 80.6200 58.0500 20.0 GMO IM.E.T. (Siberia)
– 40371082000 82.5000 -62.3300 66.0 ALERT,N.W.T. (Canada)
– 43104312000 81.6000 -16.6700 34.0 NORD ADS (Greenland)
Oh, and what data do you use for your 4.5C calculation?
Apos: I forgot to mention UAH grid data’s origin. It is in the same UAH directory as the “traditional” 27 column dataset: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/.
There you find the files “tltmonamg.1978_6.0beta5” till “tltmonamg.2016_6.0beta5”. Each of these files contains for the year’s months up to 12 grids of 72 latitudes rows of 144 columns each.
One of many data processing possibilities consists for example in calculating, for each grid cell, a linear estimate over a given period, e.g. 1979-2016, and to sort the output by descending anomaly (here the top 20):
4.62 80.0N-82.5N 60.0W-62.5W
4.61 80.0N-82.5N 57.5E-55.0E
4.59 80.0N-82.5N 55.0E-52.5E
4.59 80.0N-82.5N 67.5W-70.0W
4.59 80.0N-82.5N 62.5W-65.0W
4.55 80.0N-82.5N 67.5W-70.0W
4.52 80.0N-82.5N 70.0W-72.5W
4.50 80.0N-82.5N 57.5W-60.0W
4.48 80.0N-82.5N 22.5W-25.0W
4.48 80.0N-82.5N 72.5W-75.0W
4.46 80.0N-82.5N 27.5W-30.0W
4.43 77.5S-75.0S 30.0W-32.5W
4.43 80.0N-82.5N 25.0W-27.5W
4.42 80.0N-82.5N 57.5W-60.0W
4.42 80.0N-82.5N 55.0W-57.5W
4.40 80.0N-82.5N 20.0W-22.5W
4.40 80.0N-82.5N 75.0W-77.5W
4.39 80.0N-82.5N 97.5W-100.0W
4.39 80.0N-82.5N 20.0W-22.5W
4.39 80.0N-82.5N 92.5W-95.0W
An interesting detail: the 1979-2016 trends for the 144 UAH grid cells at latitudes 80N-82.5N range from 3.74 °C up to 4.62 °C / century, giving a latitude average trend of 4.20 °C.
If you now calculate the average trend for the 3 cells encompassing the coordinates of the 3 GHCN stations mentioned above, you obtain 4.46 °C / century. What indicates in my opinion that even such a small number of stations gives a well representative average. I tried the same for Australia, CONUS and the Globe, with even better results du to the higher number of stations involved.
I would like to know where the solid science is behind Mann’s claim that the recent El Niño only contributed .1° C to the global average. Breaking heat records – yeahrite. AGW enthusiasts never bother to mention the increase is mainly due to increased lower minimum temperatures.
I doubt if there is. Bob Tisdale, IIRC, points to .3°-.5°C step up per El Nino.
As so often here, the problem is not linking to source, and hence mis-quoting. Mann’s observation is here. He’s talking (in March 2016) about the El Nino contribution to the record heat in 2015. The El Nino upsurge only began in October, and came to about 0.2-3 degree per month, so averaged over a year, 0.1 sounds reasonable.
I see the link (ad quote) was given in the head post. But that is the context. El Nino made a small difference to 2015. It will be bigger to 2016.
Everything that we’re seeing in this unremarkably unique weather year has been brought to you courtesy of water in its constantly changing states. Water and its vapors are what metes out the solar changes and makes them impossible to directly correlate with global temperature in real time. The ocean cycles run in autonomy from each other, so the storage and distribution of heat on the planet is constantly changing. Cloud and wind patterns also delay or accelerate tropical ocean heating and modulate the surface wind patterns, storing and releasing heat depending on the conditions.
And if the Berning Man is wrong, so what? He has plenty of other complaint categories to choose from.
That was one of Bernie’s main policies (if not the top one). That’s probably why he lost…
I don’t feel any warmer or cooler…
463 comments in 17 hours. Loving it! Delingpele just rattled the cage.