The drop in temperatures at least merits a “Hey, what’s going on here?” story.
Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes,“was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”
Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?
In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage.
In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown’s story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism’s impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that “our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly.”
Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump’s face into a glacier to prove climate change “is happening.”
In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades.
That’s not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax. Two years out of hundreds or thousands doesn’t necessarily mean anything. And there could be a reasonable explanation. But the drop in temperatures at least merits a “Hey, what’s going on here?” story.
What’s more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven’t seen any stories pinning Hawaii’s recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won’t be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.)
We’ve noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.
Hiding The Evidence
There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.
Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsvilleshowing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.
How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven’t seen any increase in violent weather in decades?
Crickets.
Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden “deniers” and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.
But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.
Full story here
Source for data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This article is nonsensical.
2016 was a big el nino year with a sharp rise in temperatures over the plateau they had been on for years before that called “the pause”.
He cherry picks the top of that peak and the subsequent fall of temperatures almost back down to what they were, and calls that “global cooling.” It’s not global cooling any more than the sharp rise before it was global warming. It’s just two sides of an upward blip.
I think you miss the point. The alarmist were touting how the years leading up to and including the 2016 “big el nino year” were the warmest ever, but now that the temps are going the other way, crickets. In other words it is intentionally as nonsensical as all that nonsense which you seem to have had no problem with.
The warmunists and their parrots in the media
will use a temporary El Nino peak
for warming headlines.
We expect that dishonesty from them.
We skeptics should not use a temporary EL Nino peak
for cooling headlines, as this article does … or else we are
just as dishonest as the warmunists.
Richard Greene
I didn’t take the article as anything other than pointing out an interesting observation.
As as one of the great unwashed, sceptics really need to communicate with, I think it’s notable that I saw nothing sensationalised about it.
Slight erratum: While I’m searching for a drop greater than .56 degree C in exactly 2 years (haven’t found one yet), I found that the drop from February 2016 to February 2018 was by less than .56 degree C. It dropped .54 degree C in that time, according to the above-cited https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Most people in this thread have decided to ignore just how stepped on GISSTEMP is.
Tom
I’m all ears. But need a layman’s explanation.
Probably the easiest site is Tony Heller’s RealClimateScience. He is a bit shrill, but is fairly good at documenting the problems with infill and adjustments.
The article reads, “Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, ‘global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.’”
Well, Aaron Brown apparently has trouble with basic subtraction. The difference between the February 2016 GISS LOTI value of +1.34 deg C and the February 2018 value of +0.80 deg C is 0.54 deg C, not 0.56 deg C. See for yourself:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Riddle me this: Why is a 25-month drop in GISS LOTI of -0.54 deg C (from the February 2016 peak of the global temperature response to the 2014/15/16 El Niño to February 2018) significant, when the 25-month rise in GISS LOTI from February 2014 to the February 2016 peak of the response of the 2014/15/16 El Niño was +0.82 deg C? In those utterly meaningless terms, it looks like the warming far exceeded the cooling.
Maybe the T-diff was 0.56 at the time when Aaron Brown wrote the article, but the data has since been adjusted! /SARC
That’s true. The figures always have minor changes a few months after the initial publication as more data comes in.
Bob Tisdale
Maybe the article was more about the MSM utterly ignoring something worthy of at least curiosity.
That’s not the drop Mr. Brown is referring to. He’s selling the drops or “big chills” between the February’s and June’s of 2016 and 2017 each, which is patently ridiculous. Do you recall having to get out your long johns in June 2016 after putting them away in February. We’re those June’s really colder than the February’s? Feb 2016 was the warmest February ever recorded, June 2016 was the 2nd warmest June ever recorded (2nd only to June 2015 by 0.01°C). And of course we all know that 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded, with 2017 the 2nd warmest. Its hard to believe that even WUWT could publish this nonsense.
It looks like I’m not going to find a drop greater than .54 degree C over exactly two years within the past century. But I can find examples of this not being exceptional. For example, greater drops over exactly one year, such as by .72 degree C from January 2007 to January 2008, and by .61 degree C from February 1973 to February 1974. And drops well over .54 degree C over time stretches up to 2.5 years, such as by .77 degree C from March 1990 to September 1992, and by .72 degree C from January 1958 to March 1960. I found a drop over exactly 2 years greater than .54 degree C a little over a century ago, by .72 degree C from December 1914 to December 1916.
So, per Willis E, Minister of Statistical Reality, posted on daily, monthly, annual, and decadal Pacific regulation of temperature, the 2016 El Nino caused some heat energy to go poleward and radiate out. This followed by relax to previous 2014,5 levels. But Bob Weber has data showing ocean cooling since 2004, so the temp may just keep falling, into a 30 yr Micro IceAge. This slide into cold is showing up in German weather station records where the last 30 yrs of winter (DJF) are trending -19 dgC per 1000 yrs, much faster than the slow decline to normal glacials. Place your bets early, heh.
Sandy, Minister of Future
USA Today reported this in a breaking news headline: Earth just had its 400th straight warmer-than-average month thanks to global warming
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/17/global-warming-april-400th-consecutive-warm-month/618484002/
So I decided to check out Watt’s Up With That to see what they say and found this story. Not sure if the data USA Today is reporting is the same that’s being discussed here, but there it is for all to see.
That the world got warmer during the warm cycle of PDO/AMO cycle is hardly surprising.
Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz
Keep coming back, you’re demonstrating curiosity, not dogma.
I see that Bellman and Marmoset wail over warmest year on record arguments, using the junk GISS Temp data to make their case. It is always telling they use the most adjusted pile of crap not realizing the junk it has become.
Yet despite the horrid heat, were people dying like flies and that we are almost doomed?
Meanwhile that big temperature drop after El-Nino slinked away, seem to say that the magic molecule failed to keep it hot, HOT!
What happened to the CO2 “heat trapping” failure?
How can it cool down so fast with all those heat swallowing CO2 and CH4 milling around ready to gobble it up?
Snicker…………………………………………………
Sunsettommy,
“I see that Bellman and Marmoset wail over warmest year on record arguments, using the junk GISS Temp data to make their case.”
Which data set would you prefer I used? They all showed 2016 as being the warmest on record.
Sigh,
They ALL show warming, which I never disputed.
But warmists have a bad habit of saying warmest year on record this year, warmest record that year, on and on they go with this misleading and ultimately bogus argument, while often COMPLETLY ignore what the IPCC predicted/projected Per Decade warming RATE is expected to be.
The warmest year arguments are silly.
We have ice core studies to show that
there have been hundreds of mild
warming / cooling cycles.
It appears that we have been in a mild warming
cycle since about 1850.
During a warming cycle there will be many
“record warm years” until the warming cycle
ends and a cooling cycle begins.
The surface temperature compilations started in 1880,
DURING a warming cycle, so “record warm years”
are to be expected until the warming cycle ends.
The leftists use record warm years to scare people
without ever explaining we’ve had many record warm
years since the warming began in 1850!
They also claim one year was warmer than another
by several hundredths of a degree, which is bad science
if you believe their claimed +/- 0.1 degree C. margin of error,
and a brazen lie if you use a much more honest margin of error
of +/- 1.0 degrees C. for the global average … especially considering
that temperatures for a majority of the globe’s surface are
wild guesses (infilling) with no data to verify the guesses !
If you take the GHCN data with 45 million data points for the ~1000 temperature stations in the US from 1895 to 2018 and look at the Daily average maximum temperature for all 365 days of the year , you will find no warming. If you take each individual day of the year for average maximum daily temperature. you will find some slight warming for certain days of the year but in the vast majority of the 365 days of the year you will find no warming when you look at the daily maximum temperature. Can any alarmist like Bellman please explain to me how can you have CAGW or even AGW in the rest of the world when you cant show any warming over a 124 year period in the US?
Since CO2 is supposed to be a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, you cant have global warming in the rest of the world and NOT have global warming in a land mass as large as the US.
But it is useless to argue with people like Bellman because global warming is a religion to them and we will all fry in hell or drown in the seas because of global warming. Maybe we should build an air conditioned ARK.
That would only be true if there were no natural cycles capable of moving heat from one part of the globe to another.
There’s more “infilling” for the rest of the world (vs. US)
and with infilling you can have any temperature you want,
with no way to verify or falsify the wild guesses
made by government bureaucrats !
The UAH lower troposphere dataset, although it only starts in December 1978, shows the USA 48 and USA49 trends as greater than the global trend (.18, .18 and .13 degree C per decade respectively).
Yes recently in the US that was a warming period but if you look back at the 1930s the US had temperatures so hot we havent seen since.
Hansen (1999) shows 1934 as being 0.5C hotter than 1998, which makes it 0.4C hotter than 2016. Which makes it the “Hottest Year Evah!” (at least since 1900).
I don’t have the chart handy or I would post it.
Alan wrote: “Since CO2 is supposed to be a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, you cant have global warming in the rest of the world and NOT have global warming in a land mass as large as the US.”
That makes sense and the historical record shows that other parts of the world closely track the temperatures in the United States. Unaltered charts from all over the world show the same temperature profile as the U.S. profile: The 1930’s being hotter than subsequent years. This is true for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
TA: US temperature does not track global temperature all that closely. US temperature had a peak in the 1930s during a protracted regional weather event, the Dust Bowl. Global temperature rose through that time and continued rising when US temperature was falling, to a peak in the early 1940s.
The warming of the world caused by the recent El Nino is proof of global warming.
The cooling now that the El Nino is passed is just weather.
Source link: Trend statements after the data for individual months in https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
I now have proof that my Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada is the stupidest person ever to walk on the face of the earth. Even if you believe in AGW here are the stark facts of trying to do anything about it.
Canada puts out 1.5 % of world total of CO2 and has not had any increases for 11 years.. China puts out 30% of the world total and increased their output 4.1% in 2017.
Canda has committed to reduce per Paris agreement by 2030 of reduction of 33%. 33% of 1.5 % = 0.5%
Trudeau in the 1st phase of reductions which will culminate by 2022 will reduce by 3/4
3/4 = 0.75 and 0.5% = .005 The said reduction of temperature goal is 1.5 C by end of century
So you have 0.75 * .005 * = 0.0375 and then multiply by goal of 1.5C = 0.005625 C
That is a reduction of a little over 5 thousandths of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years.
Since China’s increase last year as per the above is .3 * .041 = 0.0123 or 1.23% of world total
Canada’s reduction will be .75 * .005 = 0.00375
That means China’s increase for 1 year is 0,0123/ 0.00375 = 3.28 times the amount of Canada’s reduction for each year. Dont forget that Canada’s reduction is only at a maximum by 2022. In the 1st year 2019 the reduction will be 20 % of that. China has refused to decrease its output and only promised to try to limit their increases by 2030.
What will all of this cost Canada?
Price of carbon by 20222 will be $50 per ton by 2022 and at 700 million tons = 35 billion $ Can
This will still leave Canada short 66 million tons of its Paris commitment to cut by 2030 and trudeau has said that Cnada will meet its commitment by 2030.
what will this cost each household in Canada?
Minimum of $1100 Can and maximum of $2500 Can depending on rebates given back by each province. Some provinces have promised to give all of it back.
THIS IS ABSOLUTE MADNESS.
Sorry mistake in calculation
“So you have 0.75 * .005 * = 0.0375 and then multiply by goal of 1.5C = 0.005625 C
That is a reduction of a little over 5 thousandths of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years.”
CORRECTION IS
So you have 0.75 * .005 * = 0.0375 and then multiply by goal of 1.5C = 0.05625 C
That is a reduction of a little over 5 HUNDREDTHS of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years.
Again I made a mistake in calculation the correct post should be
I now have proof that my Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada is the stupidest person ever to walk on the face of the earth. Even if you believe in AGW here are the stark facts of trying to do anything about it.
Canada puts out 1.5 % of world total of CO2 and has not had any increases for 11 years.. China puts out 30% of the world total and increased their output 4.1% in 2017.
Canda has committed to reduce per Paris agreement by 2030 of reduction of 33%. 33% of 1.5 % = 0.5%
Trudeau in the 1st phase of reductions which will culminate by 2022 will reduce by 3/4
3/4 = 0.75 and 0.5% = .005
The said reduction of temperature goal is 1.5 C by end of century
So you have 0.75 * .005 * = 0.00375 Don’t forget that carbon trading and a carbon price dont actually guarantee that any reductions will ever occur.
But if the promised reductions do occur then you multiply by goal of 1.5C so that you have 0.00375 * 1.5 = 0.005625 C
That is a reduction of a little over 5 thousandths of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years.
Since China’s increase last year as per the above is .3 * .041 = 0.0123 or 1.23% of world total
Canada’s reduction will be .75 * .005 = 0.00375
That means China’s increase for 1 year is 0.0123/ 0.00375 = 3.28 times the amount of Canada’s reduction for each year. Dont forget that Canada’s reduction is only at a maximum by 2022. In the 1st year 2019 the reduction will be 20 % of that. China has refused to decrease its output and only promised to try to limit their increases by 2030.
What will all of this cost Canada?
Price of carbon by 20222 will be $50 per ton by 2022 and at 700 million tons = 35 billion $ Can
This will still leave Canada short 66 million tons of its Paris commitment to cut by 2030 and Trudeau has said that Cnada will meet its commitment by 2030.
What will this cost each household in Canada?
Minimum of $1100 Can and maximum of $2500 Can depending on rebates given back by each province. Some provinces have promised to give all of it back.
THIS IS ABSOLUTE MADNESS.
Again a mistake
This should be the correct Canada’s temperature reduction by 2100
But if the promised reductions do occur then you multiply by goal of 1.5C so that you have 0.00375 * 1.5 = 0.005625 C
That is a reduction of a little over 5 thousandths of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years.
Bingo Alan. Our premier here in Saskatchewan is taking the Feds to court to test the constitutionality of the carbon tax. The next premier of Alberta will no doubt do likewise and/or decline to assist the feds. The very likely next premier of Ontario says he will axe the carbon trading arrangements and refuse to institute the carbon tax. That gets us pretty close to half the country in revolt against what you rightly describe as insanity.
Meanwhile, Trudeau is taking B.C. to court and imposing legislation to force the construction of the Trans-Mountain pipeline. We just need to keep losing at the same rate, Lol!
If temperatures do go down, Canadians get to claim the merit. That might be worth something, so it is not a total loss.
Are you serious? 5 one thousandths of a degree? And how would they go down if China every year increases by more than Canada’s reduction? Even if China only increases by 1.17% every year that will equal Canada’s reduction. China is not a developing country. China has 45% of the world’s skyscrapers over 1000 feet tall.
Another fact. China is NOT a developing country. China has close to 45% of the world’s skyscrapers.
I would think Canada would want temperatures, especially at night in the winter, to go up.
Robert
You’d be wrong.
They want it darker
They kill the flame.
Yes, and the linear trend is – 1.2 °C/decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:24/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:24
I’ve been following the climate claims and counter claims since before ClimateGate and for the first time I believe that we are reaching a possible tipping point.
There is no evidence to support the alarmist claim that water vapour provides a positive feedback or that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives relentless warming. Instead, we see many papers claim that the water cycle provides a thermostat mechanism, an idea discussed here by Willis.
There is a growing realization that solar radiation warms the vast oceans and the heat stored there is released over many different time periods through a multiplicity of mechanisms, many cyclical. Our climate is mainly driven by natural variation, not emissions made by man.
Clouds may be critical in our climate, integral in the thermostat mechanism and central to proposed solar cycle effects. We have eminent disbelievers, such as Leif, but the current solar minimum provides a live experiment that we can all observe.
Very credible understanding of our natural climate is emerging and in contrast, the establishment continues to support failed models and ignores the lack of supportive evidence for their alarmist claims. We have, in addition, some breakthrough proposals such as Christopher Monckton’s claim that feedback has been wrongly calculated and the more radical claim by Nikolov and Zeller that atmospheric pressure, caused by gravitation, determines our climate via the gas laws.
In conclusion, we skeptics have a comprehensive case. It is being ignored. But then, what would you do if you were guilty of creating a trillion dollar industry, perverted energy policies, transfer of wealth on a global scale and conclusions on which the governments of the world rewrote their economic models?
The purpose of my comment is to ask whether, in your judgment, my first sentence is wishful thinking and nothing will change or whether you think we will see significant changes in, say, the next two years.
The Trump Administration and Scott Pruitt
have barely challenged the fake science
of the coming climate change catastrophe.
If they do not, when in leadership positions,
then who will?
People believe in god, heaven and hell
with no proof, so why can’t other people
believe in CAGW with no proof?
Once the baby boomers retire (soon), almost everyone in
leadership roles will have been brainwashed about
CAGW in school.
I try to do my part with a free no-ads climate change blog at:
http://www.elOnionBlohggle.Blogspot.com
Your penultimate paragraph is sad but true.
Richard Greene/Schrodinger’s Cat
We were all brainwashed at school, look at us now.
For what it’s worth, my opinion is there will be an almighty backlash from our youth when they realise they have been taken for mugs.
will they though?
they are weak minded, physically feeble, intellectually bankrupt, androgenous hedonists. They will march, heads down to the camps.
They have no fight in them, and they deserve what they will get.
Babyboomers are people who were born from 1945 to 1964, which means the youngest of the Boomers still have about 10 more years before they reach retirement age.
Technically the cohort is 1946-65, followed by the Baby Bust of 1966-85 and the Millennials of 1986-2005. Alternatively, Gen X and Gen Y. I shudder to imagine Gen Z, 2006-25. Zombies, with mush for brains. Let’s hope they’re smart enough to call BS on CACA.
Richard Greene
May 17, 2018 at 11:15 am
I just get an error “blog not found” like someone else earlier on.
Since we live in a world of Oz , the wizard of Oz might as well sue Dorothy for the damage that Toto did to the curtain when he pulled it back with his teeth.
>> Since CO2 is supposed to be a well mixed gas in the atmosphere,
The atmosphere consists of 4 parts CO2 and 9,996 parts other.
Given that context, I’m having difficulty comprehending what
“well-mixed” means ….. ?
It is not well mixed, because CO2 has a high molecular weight and is heavier than air. Therefore, the most CO2 is at the surface of the Earth.
Look below.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
Fortunately for the plants that don’t live at sea level, there are plenty of processes that thoroughly mix the air vertically. Most of the CO2 is closest to the surface for the same reason why most of every other air molecule is close to the surface. That’s where the air is the densest.
You’re wrong. The H2O water vapor molecule has a low molecular weight. The water vapor packages are lighter than air and therefore they rise up.
Rex, it is an old warmist argument that now traps them.
The problem with all of this is that it’s a question of extracting measurements from below the noise floor of the system itself. Not unlike trying to make an A3 print from photo taken with your 1-Megapixel phone camera, and then trying to guess what the objects in the distance are.
Arguably, the whole of the claimed industrial era warming falls into this category since its magnitude is so much smaller than diurnal or seasonal variations. As with the enlarged photo, smoothing in Photoshop can hide the jaggies but it can’t put back information which was smaller than the pixels in the first place.
Maybe this article was written tounge-in-cheek but it won’t be interpreted that way. It’s a bad article with an overblown headline which demeans this site. Disappointing to see.
I wonder how today’s volcanic eruption in Hawaii will affect global temperatures.
When the pause returns, the alarmists will use the volcano as an excuse for why. That should give them a few more years of pushing their agendas before the excuse wears thin.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/05/16/breaking-news/kilauea-volcano-updates-wednesday/ says
To have a “volcano weather” impact, SO2 needs to become H2SO4 aerosols and get injected into the stratosphere, that starts at about 50,000.
This stuff will just rain out or the troposphere and have no global impact.
You knew scary global warming was over when Bill Nye stopped placing safe bets and
NASDA wouldn’t be tasked to whip up a bit of extra heat . Funny what happens when people start to be held accountable and government isn’t telling scientists what they expect the “earth’s temperature ” to look like .
Maybe that explains why the earth has a fever promoters have moved to some other suckers .
Population containment …. the next frightening campaign .
If you want actual news, April 2018 for GISS is out, and it was third warmest in the record. The numbers went:
April 2018 0.86°C
April 2017 0.92°C
April 2016 1.07°C
April 2015 0.74°C
GISS of course is a pack of lies, but even so, the trend is down from 2016 El Nino high. There’s a limit to how much GISS can make up, given that the satellites are watching. However they get to pretend where the satellites can’t see, ie high polar latitudes.
And, of course, it’s below what models have predicted. One should only expect that going on 170 years after the end of the LIA, Earth would be warmer than 70 years ago. In the real world, as opposed to the cooked books of HadCRU and GISS, it probably isn’t however warmer than 80 years ago.
GISS is a poor source for temperature data, since they erased the 1940’s to 1970’s COOLING trend, that was well documented to have existed.
That alone destroys the dataset as being credible.
“COOLING trend, that was well documented to have existed”
You say this stuff, but you don’t document it. Cooling trend of what? Global land/ocean? GISS is documenting that.
The usual dishonest Strokes comment
fails to offer context:
The “record” is entirely DURING a warming cycle
that started roughly 1850.
Warm year records will be set frequently
until the warming cycle ends,
and a cooling cycle begins.
Ice core studies show many multi-hundred year
warming / cooling cycles.
Never before in Earth’s history
has a warming cycle failed to
reverse to a cooling cycle.
According to Strokes,
it’s different this time,
and the proof is that
he says so (the usual “proof”
for modern climate “science”)
NOAA’s forecast for the Arctic sea ice minimum just rose to zero anomaly for Aug-Oct.
Interesting times ahead
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
These have not verified in previous years. I doubt they’ll verify this year. Even Joe Bastardi warns against putting too much faith in them.
Link?
These images are displayed on the WUWT Sea Ice reference page https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ (See the reference page link in the nav bar at the top of any WUWT page.)
The link for any image (at least on desktop browsers) appears when you move the mouse cursor over it, and should display http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif .
Climate graphs are up for laughs with wiggles full of giggles.
When they are up – they are up and when they are down – they are down.
With the bits in the middle an obvious fiddle and statistical arts just like f*rts.
So invoke the muse if you wish to amuse; as the World goes to hell in a cart.
On the contrary, I will be telling everyone that i meet about this singular undermining of Alarist CAGW
Im always amused when Phd’s discuss the “average” temp of earth..
temperature is not additive
but we know that, right? right ?? I mean we passed bachelor courses because we underztood the courses right? thermodynamics?? dingdingding
for the innumerate knuckledraggers who dont have phd:
an AVERAGE is a sum, its just a sum scaled back
to set the context you can have a temp of 10 degrees on 10% of gaiia and 20 degrees elsewhere and that could come and be equal to a temp of 19 degrees on a similar gaiia over the whole 100%
or alternatively a yet other gaiia at 11 degrees. the differences between gaias then pressure and humidity
the physicàl energetic constrai ts only are in the formof equality, no equality like sums , or equivalently averages.
but we know that dont we? because we learnt thermodynamics, right? right??