The Froth of the Fourth

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I see that the Fourth US National Climate Assessment has just been published. It’s here, and it should be required reading for those masochists who like overblown claims, flimsy justifications, and ridiculous pretensions.

The fun thing about each of the Climate Assessments is that after an initial flurry of media hype following the publication of their latest hyperbolic claims, everyone ignores them. They sink with the sad finality of an outboard motor spark plug accidentally dropped overboard two miles at sea …

As a result, the authors apparently have concluded that with each successive incarnation of the Assessment, they have to ratchet up the alarmism to new heights. And as you might expect, the most recent one is the most over-the-top to date. It contains statements like:

The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. In the absence of significant global mitigation action and regional adaptation efforts, rising temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities.

… climate changes will “disrupt and damage labor productivity”? Say what?

They continue:

Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on rangelands, and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly disrupt agricultural productivity in the United States. Expected increases in challenges to livestock health, declines in crop yields and quality, and changes in extreme events in the United States and abroad threaten rural livelihoods, sustainable food security, and price stability.

Seems like they have been reading too much of Paul Ehrlich’s endless failed serial doomcasting about STARVATION! FOOD RIOTS! MASS DEATH! CROP FAILURES! and the like …

They go on, there’s no stopping them:

Climate change has already had observable impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and the benefits they provide to society. These impacts include the migration of native species to new areas and the spread of invasive species.

And here’s a quote from a typical media report, under the headline of

Government climate report warns of worsening US disasters

“We are seeing the things we said would be happening, happen now in real life,” said report co-author Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University. “As a climate scientist it is almost surreal.”

And report co-author Donald Wuebbles, a University of Illinois climate scientist, said, “We’re going to continue to see severe weather events get stronger and more intense.”

It’s already happening, so be afraid … be very, very afraid …

After reading all of that, I got to wondering about the recent temperature history of the US. I went to NOAA’s Climate At A Glance, got their recent monthly data, and graphed it up, along with the dates of the four US National Climate Assessments. Here’s that result:

Figure 1. Recent US temperatures, most recent (October 2018) temperature, and dates of the US National Climate Assessments.

As you can see, since the First US National Climate Assessment some 18 years ago, the US average temperature has gone up by … well … about zero degrees Celsius. Or for Americans, it’s gone up by … well … about zero degrees Fahrenheit.

I can see why the hype in the Climate Assessments has had to keep increasing in order to keep the alarmism alive …

… it’s to distract us from the most embarrassing fact that the US temperature hasn’t increased in the slightest in the 18 years since the first US National Climate Assessment.

Oops …

My best wishes to you all from a lovely rainy midnight,

w.

As Usual: I politely request that when you comment, you quote the exact words that you are discussing, so we can all be clear about who and what you are commenting on.

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “The Froth of the Fourth

  1. ” … climate changes will ‘disrupt and damage labor productivity’? Say What?”

    Sure, Willis. I mean, how can we toil well in the vineyard when we’re all treading water, running from rampant wildfires, or dodging hordes of tornadoes?

    • And all while trying to drain the swamp so we can choose whether to be eaten by crocodiles or alligators. At opposite ends of Oz are the two truth testing machines: the Fremantle Tide gauge at GMT +8 hours and the Fort Denison Tide gauge at GMT + 10hours. Each shows a gentle rise in sea level consistent with the billions of tonnes of soil &c washed into the sea by the rivers. The important point is that in each case the sea level rise has been significantly less in the most recent sixty years than in the previous sixty years.

    • ” … climate changes will ‘disrupt and damage labor productivity’? Say What?”

      OK then, the UNIONistas will demand $20/hr. min. wage in lieu of $15/hr. … problem solved.

  2. I fear this is something hard wired into half the population, that they really like being scared to death. Maybe they like horror movies. Actually, horror movies aren’t on my first list, unless it has a real theme to it, is very well done and not just mindless horror. It would be very interesting to see further research into what makes an alarmist and a skeptic tick. I really do think we would find differences in basic character that would explain why two people of equal intelligence and basic background, could have opposing views on the same subject of climate science. I am seeing this watching PBS this very minute on NewsHour, about how the PBS media is linking almost every weather event as evidence of CAGW and climate change, to the tune of hundreds of billions now and trillions into the future. The same drivel, the wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, cold snaps, droughts, record flooding in a paved over city…everything is just climate change. And we have to do something. It used to be everybody talked about the weather, but nobody did anything about it. Now the sad part, is they are trying to do something about it. Like limiting access to basic energy for the masses. Maybe this will never end, because it is part of fundamental human nature.

      • Never saw that movie yet, and not really a Stephen King fan anyway. King’s horror movies might be better technically written with better plots and themes, but really not my interest. Although it was probably well acted if Jack Nicholson was in it. Maybe I will try and watch that one to just see if there is anything there that might interest me. I am not really into the shock factor. Maybe I should watch that instead of the news.

        But I did see An inconvenient Truth, and thought that was a very poorly done ‘horror’ movie. A real ‘B’ Grade movie if there ever was one.

        • Don’t think too much about it, just watch it. Sure, Stephen King wrote the book, but the film is all director Stanley Kubrick’s baby. It’s more psychological thriller, really, than horror. Nicholson at his best, but the small supporting cast is top notch.

    • My wife loves her horror shows but doesn’t believe the climate alarmist meme.
      The issue hyped is never the real issue with the progressives. Gun control is not about crime or shootings but about control. Same with climate change. It’s not about the climate it’s about fundamental changes in society enabled by government control of the power generation and transportation industries. So truth and facts have nothing to do with their reports because they have nothing do with science.

      • Laughing at the utter absurdity of such people seem appropriate, but that marvelous POS report was put together with tax money. And that isn’t funny, that’s a really disgusting perversion and a very crooked administration of government that needs to be abolished.

        Otherwise, it would be hilarious.

      • I don’t believe in AGW but there should be much more control of who can own a weapon. Equating the two is really silly.

        • Silly only because you won’t admit what is right in front of you. Both are about government control. Both are about transferring certain basic individual liberties to the state. At least in the case of firearms the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. We have no such protection from the multifaceted threats to our liberties that the “climate change” meme presents. Do you not see that the same people that demand “gun control” or have already taken firearms from the individual are the same that demand globalism on the pretense of fighting “climate change”?

          • We have gun control in Canada. We’re pretty similar to Americans, but our per capital fatality rate from firearm deaths is on tenth that of the U.S. just a thought.

          • Trebla,
            Cities have higher homicide rates than rural areas. If one looks at the firearm homicide rates for northern US states (rural areas with high firearm ownership) they are very similar to the rate for Canada. There is more at play than just prevalence of firearms.

          • The steady eroding of our society’s moral base has far more to do with the current levels of violent crime than the number of guns in circulation.

        • hornblower,
          Are you advocating that training in martial arts should be outlawed or strictly controlled? After all, a well trained person becomes a walking weapon. Maybe, after training soldiers in hand to hand combat, we should find a way to erase their memories. In any event, considering how many people have been killed with hammers, axes, and knives, we should strictly license those who might have access to such things. Oh yes, don’t forget about cars and trucks. Despite universal licensing, not only are people killed accidentally with vehicles, but there are far too many instances where crowds have been driven into by ‘weapons’ behind the steering wheel.

          • Of course, with all of those knife murders in ‘gun free’ London, there was always someone who wanted to ban the sale of kitchen knives…

        • hornblower,

          I can’t control the weather but I CAN and WILL control a pair of thugs that try a home invasion or otherwise attempt to cause me harm.

    • Earthling2

      I think the difference between an sceptic and an alarmist is the half full glass syndrome. Is it half full, or is it half empty?

      Because sceptics take the time to delve deeper into the subject of climate change we are obviously curious, and curiosity is a positive character trait as far as I’m concerned.

      We are probably also less inhibited about expressing ourselves, especially when we see something wrong, even an every day practical thing like asking someone to pick up their litter.

      We look for positives in our lives rather than fearing everything negative. We are optimists and would welcome a half full glass of water rather than scorning a half empty glass.

      The positives of climate change, assuming the world is getting warmer, far outweigh it getting colder, we know that with 100% certainty, everyone knows that. We also recognise that no matter what we do, the climate and the world will change so why not make the best of what we have instead of whining about what might, or might not happen.

      We say, why not do something about the 120,000,000 people in developing countries who will die from smoke inhalation by 2050 (32 years away) because they are forced to burn cow shit and twigs to keep warm and cook with? We say, that could be me and my family right now were it not but for the grace of god.

      We are realists, we look at the problem of climate change and determine that attempting to solve the problem with wind turbines and solar panels which provide a 1% solution, lets forge on and deal with real issues affecting us now. With a healthier, wealthier population we can face anything coming our way far more effectively than one half of the world limping along dragging the other half in our wake.

      We are positive people. We’re not sceptics simply because we enjoy dismantling another’s argument, we point out the reality of the situation like the world greening by 14% in the last 35 years with no help whatsoever from wind turbines or solar panels. We recognise that there is not one single demonstrable negative effect yet attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 yet the 14% greening is entirely ignored by alarmists, why is that?

      We know that no one has ever demonstrated by empirical means that CO2 causes the planet to warm, that’s no one, ever, so why would we worry about an unproven hypothesis?

      We have seen claims for the last 50 years or so, flip flopping back and forth, between cooling and warming. We have seen claims of impending doom on a regular basis during that period, now being made on an annual basis. How can we possibly be positive about that when all the results of those claims are negative, none of them have manifested themselves.

      Sceptics are positive realist’s, alarmists are negative fantasist’s, there’s a bogey man around every corner, probably why they like horror movies, a phenomenon that has never interested me since I was a kid because my realistic nature assures me it’s all just fantasy and green screen technology.

      • NO. AGW alarmists are not just benign negativists.

        They are evil people that want to control most every facet of your life. They will use any opportunity to mess with your life. Lies and MSM propaganda are their favorite tools.

        Their utopian world cannot coexist with truth and individual freedom. Individual freedoms stand in their way…so far.

        Also…so far…their lies aren’t working to motivate the masses. Only misdirecting (i.e. stealing) $Billions into their pockets from the taxpaying masses… thereby significantly increasing their power…so far.

        This IS a major crisis…the nearly system-wide corruption of the entire scientific establishment (by its willing participation and by its almost universal silence). A precious gem tarnished almost beyond recognition. Fortunately, the kernel of that gem is nearly indestructible.

    • Earthling
      Intelligence and analytical reasoning are distinctly different. Rabid increases in extended education has not produced a noticible impact on average IQ, it has however increased the number of individuals that have uniform thinking patterns, skill sets and response process.
      Regards

      [The mods point out that, although many collegiate studies do appear to be “rabidly” crazy in the way they mold our youth, the rapidly increasing number of “almost crazy” and “somewhat crazy” college classes is indeed alarming. .mod]

  3. Last time I looked, the number of strong F3+ tornadoes was falling.

    https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/tornadoes-1954-2018.jpg

    And the number of tropical cyclones was also falling.

    https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Maue-06-06-18-major-hurricanes.png

    And the number of forest fires was reducing dramatically.
    (The high number of forest fires in the 1920s may include forest maintenance back-burning.)

    https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/US-Forest-area-burned-1926-2017.png

    And the winter snow extent in the NH has been increasing.

    https://www.iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Rutgers-Univ-Global-Snow-Lab-May2017.png

    R

    • ralfellis – You don’t expect the IPCC and MSM to report on empirical data do you? It’s not scary . . . unless your afraid of the cold.

  4. Willis, as a trained, and yes, as a still practising scientist, I greatly enjoy your thought-provoking and insightful posts. Long may they continue! To augment your point on the near-zero increase in continental US temperatures since 1990, however, I also note that US data sets on the frequency of F4 tornadoes, and on the frequency of severe hurricane landfalls since year 1900 show very slight decreases or no change at all: in short, the ~0.5 degrees C of warming across the continental US since then, is conferring a neutral to beneficial effect, is it not?. Could we not more loudly emphasise in the public domain the data on F4 tornado frequency and severe hurricane landfall frequency decline; and could we not emphasise the point that it is increasing population in F4 tornado prone and hurricane prone regions that is the cause of the increasing damage and fatality counts?

    • Sky news is doing the same thing, the sky is falling yet again. Nevermind, I’ll do the jobs I need to do around the house then adjourn to the pub to await the end of the world. 🍺

    • How are the BBC getting away with this incessant one sided propaganda? Why are questions not being asked in Parliament about their total lack of impartiality? You could not make it up and worse the public is being fleeced to pay for their propaganda.

      • Simple, it’s being lead by Parliament.
        Got to have the “Scientific support” for green taxes, renewable energy, closing reliable coal-fired power stations, switching us to electric cars & smart meters.

    • CBS lead with it, later on NBC, and ABC last, at least from Philadelphia, US perspective. Lots of weather and fire damage to spice up the hype.

  5. We had this report on our New Zealand evening TV news tonight .An over hyped scare mongering story that we all have to do something to stop the world from frying .
    And the droughts wildfires and floods are going to get worser and worser .
    I am sure that there is very little change to our underlying climate in the last 65 years in New Zealand that I can recall and the 1930s and 40s were warmer than the fifties and sixties by all accounts.
    The South Island had snowfalls last week some on the central plateau ,unusual for November as it is late spring.
    We had the massive 1958 flood in the Waikato and nothing like that since .There was a flood on the West coast last week with torrential rain that caused a lot of damage but the mountains catch the rain and that has always been occurring .
    We get regional droughts mostly on the East coasts of both Islands every few years .
    We have idiots who would love to knock down our hydro dams on the Waikato river and let the river run free.
    They have short memories or are just stupid as the Waikato river flooded the lower Waikato frequently and now the dams store the flood waters and release it gradually producing electricity through the eight power stations on the river .
    Our power charges are escalating as we have a lot of wind turbines that are at best intermittent.
    Our latest power account was 29 cents a kw hour and 19 cents per hour for controlled, for water heating with a few discounts to take off.
    Despite being at the bottom of the world our politicians are doing their best to screw our economy with increased fuel taxes and electricity charges which affect every one and every thing that is manufactured,grown and distributed in the country and the country relies on our agricultural exports to pay for all the things we cannot manufacture economically in a small market of 4.8 million people ,

  6. The BBC has been reporting the Fourth US National Climate Assessment one the hour every hour since it came out. They are (as is usual) using it to spike comments against President Trump’s opinion that anthropological climate change is just hokum.
    Still that is what modern journalism has become — fail to report the actuality, no dispassionate analysis of the assessment, just emote, emote, emote!
    Thankfully President Trump knows it and uses it against the media.

    • Having not seen the Beeb reporting on NCA4, I wonder if any of their reporters have slogged through the 13+ Chapters in the full report, or are they simply regurgitating the summary.

  7. Here is a sad statement from the Economist Magazine…which is a public mouth piece for the climate change industry for the intellectual.

    “Today slavery is less about people owning other people, instead, it is about exploiting and controlling them.”

    Well, that sort of sums up the entire climate change industry. In a way, the CAGW movement is about enslaving people, both figuratively with mind control, but also materially by making access to energy so expensive that it effectively makes slaves of many poor and disenfranchised, so that they have to spend a disportioncate amount of their income to just get by. Ironically, it was fossil fuel energy that did away with a large amount of the physical slavery 150 years ago. What’s old is new again, just in another convoluted way.

    • disproportionate…how does my fancy new MacBook Pro spell checker change that into a word that doesn’t even exist? And I even re-read it twice checking for errors…grrr.

      • It’s a poor machine that can only think of one way to spell a word.
        –with apologies to Andrew Jackson

  8. A climate “assessment” that is full of “expect”s doesn’t strike me as anything other than an abuse of language.
    I personally expect that it will continue to turn out nice again as the photo-synthetic base of the pyramid of life continues to expand due to the greater availability of carbon dioxide.

    Children used to be taught in primary school that plants take carbon dioxide and water and (warm) sunshine to make the building blocks of life. Only silly people would now try and convince us that more of this is now net negative.

  9. Hayhoe is not a scientist. She’s a compulsive liar.

    This is a woman who on her facebook asked me for evidence Mann’s Hockeystick was wrong, then blocked me from posting papers to show that very thing, when she actually asked me to provide citations.

    The ONLY reason this liar has a job is because she tows the line

  10. Every time I hear anything coming out of Katherine Hayhoe’s mouth, I think how on earth does anyone believe the BS that she spouts. She tried to convert me on Twitter and when I showed her evidence that she was wrong on many of her claims and that I have the qualifications to back up my arguments….she blocked me.

    I just don’t understand how anyone like this can be a key figure in a report like this. By her own admission she was an “average student”. How does an average student gain a PhD let alone head up a National Climate Assessment? Michael Mann was a newly minted PhD before being thrust into the limelight as well. I am getting the impression of a pattern here.

    • Yet Texas Tech continues to employ her. Her husband has a church not far from where this post was made. I personally feel sorrow for him and his followers. Sad.

    • Part of the problem is that there are too many institutions of “higher learning”. Filling seats requires flooding the corridors of academia with mediocrity. Pursuit of an academic career requires machinations far beyond the exercise of raw talent or intellect. We play lip service to the scientific method but there seems to be no code of conduct for so called scientists. Cherry picking of data, abuse of statistics and even outright lying should be deadly sins but instead are embraced by the community in pursuit of the “noble cause”.

    • pbweather,
      It appears to be a typical case of a party hack being rewarded for her faithful service to the good of the party. It is all about power and control. Thus, the end justifies any means.

  11. Someone wake me up when someone like Stokes et al criticizes this report’s inaccuracies publicly.

  12. Next time I’m going into the predicting business. I predict that No. 5 will smell even worse, unless you are a climate scientist, then you can grow roses with it. Who here doesn’t think that the next assessment will be worse than the last? They don’t need 1,000 people, unless you are hiding in the forest, I can write the next assessment.
    AGW is starting to do something different though, the timeline is changing. It has increased by 10 times. It was catastrophe in 8 years, now it’s 80, by the end of the century.
    In the next 80 years I predict, all of these are major, an earthquake, a vie volcano of 4 or greater, devastation by hurricanes, droughts, floods, record high temperatures, record low temperatures, record snowfall, record low snowfall. Seal level will not only rise but fall. Ships and airplanes will disappear. There will be wars, starvation, migration, and new unheard of diseases. And there is always the possibility of a large rock falling out of the sky.
    I also predict that enforced energy poverty will increase the severity of these events. All caused by some people’s fixation with the co2 molecule.
    So what to do? Elect me as Chairman for life. I can prevent all these things from happening. How you might ask? Put on your rose tinted glasses and… believe, they’ll be gentle rains at night and sunshine days, and anybody that disagrees will be severely punished.

        • Why do you think the buildings are climate controlled? The studies I posted were about factories, not vehicles or vessels. Trucks in hot climate countries like India are not air conditioned, so your point is irrelevant for those countries.

      • It’s not a matter of “noticing”, it’s the results looking at the productivity of 500,000 factories compared to temperature data. Go ahead and provide data to the contrary.

    • Chris,
      Climate change theory as expressed in the models show the highest temperature increase in the high latitudes and almost no temperature increase in the tropics. How do you square this with the nonsense about disruption of labour productivity?

      • Robert, you said “nonsense about disruption of labour productivity.” Why is it nonsense? It’s amazing to see the knee-jerk reaction here on WUWT. Any impact of rising temperatures is dismissed out of hand, even things that are known to be true. Good grief. Gee, do world records in the marathon get set when it’s 40C? Of course not, they get set in Berlin when it’s cool, overcast and 8-10C. For factory work, humans perform best at 20-25C – this has been known for decades.

        As far as temperatures, in India they are forecast to increase by 3-4C by the end of the century. What is your evidence that no increase is expected in the tropics?
        http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/DEFRA-india-climate-Rainfall.pdf

        • Chris, if labor productivity was an inverse function of environmental temperature, there should be hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific papers documenting how workers in the tropic and subtropic zones (0-40 degrees latitude, north and south) are less productive than those in temperate zones (40-60 degrees latitude, north and south), who in turn are less productive than in the cold zones (60-90 degrees latitude, north and south). I’m not aware of any scientific paper that reaches this conclusion. Moreover, the history of labor productivity in the continental United States when it was comprised of 13-48 states (approx. bounded by 25 to 49 deg N latitudes) clearly demonstrates the fallacy of this theory.

          And athletic records have little, if any, correlation with labor productivity. Just my knee-jerk reaction to that implication.

        • Chris, a couple of things.

          First, whatever the optimum temperature for labor productivity might be, any warming will move some people towards it and some people away from it. So the NET change will be very small.

          Second, you say that

          As far as temperatures, in India they are forecast to increase by 3-4C by the end of the century.

          That is not true. The truth is that:

          a) The MODELED temperatures in a MODELED India are MODELED to increase by a MODELED 3-4°C by the end of the century.

          b) Anyone claiming that they can predict what the temperature will be in 100 years, when we cannot predict what the next decade will bring, is blowing smoke up your … fundamental orifice.

          Finally, regarding productivity, I find the following:

          A 2007 study showed that the fastest marathoners run about 1 percent slower for every 9 degree temperature increase above 40 degrees F.

          One percent for every 9°F (5°C). Over the entire 20th century the average temperature rose by 0.6°C … which would reduce productivity by 0.6 / 5 = about a tenth of one percent

          Color me unimpressed …

          w.

        • in India they are forecast to increase by 3-4C by the end of the century

          Some people are naturally credulous, especially when it suits their agenda or world view. I know ludicrous when I see it.

  13. Willis I have posted a query here before that went unanswered. In recent Allstate Insurance Commercials the former POTUS actor on Fox’s 24 who narrates the commercial makes the statement that we have had (26), 500 year weather events in the last decade.
    Is there a basis for this claim?
    Since you have a panoply of knowledge on many fronts I pose the question to you since no one has taken up the response.

    • I was curious about this and did a little research. Here is what I found:
      – 500 year weather events refer to floods.
      – They are not events that happen every 500 years. They are floods that have 0.2% chance of occurring. “For a 500-year flood, there is a 0.2 percent chance of having a flood of that magnitude occurring” in any given year, according to the National Weather Service.
      – Who calculates the probability? The NOAA
      – The data used are precipitation records collected from stations across the US and its territories.
      – Some of the station data goes back over a century, some only 20 years. The data is organized on a grid.

      Using this methodology, Houston, Texas experienced three “500 year” floods over a three year period 2015-2017).

      Clearly, the probability calculations that NOAA uses are absurd. If they were bookmakers that would be out of business in no time. But this does serve a purpose. If I tell you if you flip a coin there is only a 0.2% it will come up heads. Then when it does come up heads and will say, “Wow, this is a once in 500 years event.”

      • It’s like tossing 500 coins on the floor, finding 242 heads, and claiming 242 heads is a 500 year event.

        Right, no need to explain the statistics, we know they’d just embarrass themselves.

    • “In recent Allstate Insurance Commercials the former POTUS actor on Fox’s 24 who narrates the commercial makes the statement that we have had (26), 500 year weather events in the last decade.
      Is there a basis for this claim?”

      I’ve seen that commercial. Even if true, does that stat really have any dire meaning? Is it even unusual? If the 500-year events all occurred in one location, it might be a cause for concern. But is it really unusual for 26 geographically dispersed areas each to experience a 500-year event within a relatively small period of time? I would think it’s not.

      • I’ve seen that ad, too. I believe he says something to the effect, “500 year events should only happen once every 500 years, right?”

        Which totally misrepresents what “500 year event” means.

        • It’s great scare tactic to try and make people buy more insurance and coverage. Also justification to raise rates. Win, Win for them.

      • Right.
        “500 year events” are occurring regular as clockwork throughout the world because statistically they should be happening with regularity. It is only when you observe a particular phenomenon at a particular location that said 500 year events should be rare and even then, pinning down the expected frequency of the event is fraught with error. But then, an insurance company can be trusted to give you the truth, right?

    • Records are local. Random 500 year flood events, which are admittedly far fewer than normal flood events are programmed into a random run of the events for just that one location. Now run 10’s of thousands of US locations that have records. Hell, add Canada and South America. My back of the envelope guess says there is a pretty good chance you would get a fair number of records in one year. Yawn.

      A better metric would be an increasing record trend at each individual site that bucks even natural cycles.

      Statistical analysis is these days meant for the putting on of lipstick on a pig.

    • Carbon Bigfoot,
      See what Pamela @ 8:55 writes.

      Here’s the solution for someone buying/building a house.
      Do not think that because your parcel choice was flooded two years ago it won’t be flooded for another 498 years.
      Rather, find the high water mark, and stay well above and back from that. When the next flood comes expect rapid erosion, chemicals, and “stuff” to impact the area.

  14. Willis Eschenbach
    “A storm system moving into the Great Basin on Sunday and Monday will turn winds out of the northeast and bring gusty winds to the normal wind prone areas,” AccuWeather Meteorologist Maura Kelly said.

    While she pointed out that this will be a weak to moderate Santa Ana event, they will still push dry air over the mountains and towards the Los Angeles and San Diego region.

  15. “They sink with the sad finality of an outboard motor spark plug accidentally dropped overboard two miles at sea …”

    While I appreciated the thrust of your column (as always), the quote above was simply excellent – I’ve been there too…

      • Was it the spare that sank? That seems more likely. All this is good to know since I am looking at a boat to buy next Saturday.

        • Pamela,
          Instead of using lead weights on your fishing line, use spark plugs. That will ensure that you have plenty of spares! 🙂

  16. All the focus on average mean temps l think is a distraction. lt would be far more useful to study the trends in the 0C isotherm over the years across the NH. As this would far more impact on the climate.
    The NH snow extent suggests this has trended sidewards the over the last 25 years. With the snow extent trends suggesting that the 0C isotherm expanding southwards during the autumn and winter has been off set by a retreat northwards during the late spring and early summer.

  17. “They sink with the sad finality of an outboard motor spark plug accidentally dropped overboard two miles at sea …”

    Brilliantly put, Willis, and just about as useful too!

  18. C02 is going down in America and they report temps are going up in America. So what is driving “their” temps up? Do we need to produce more c02 now to drive temps down?

    “The Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) latest energy report shows U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are the lowest they’ve been since 1992, and that per-capita emissions are the lowest since 1950.”

    • Earth’s atmosphere is gaining about 2 ppm of CO2 molecules each year. What happens in the USA is not the issue.
      As for temperature measurements going up, try this: Investigate 2 or 3 of the reporting stations near you from an historical point of view. When and where were measurements first taken. How? Are there changes in location, instruments, nearby land use, and a dozen others.
      When you are happy with your research, decide if any trend is relevant and related to CO2.

    • jjs,
      It is widely assumed that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is an increasing function. However, considering how finely tuned the climate system seems to be, it isn’t out of the question that the relationship is curvilinear and that there is a point where the slope reverses.

  19. From the article: “the impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country.”

    This is just a Big LIE! There is no evidence at all for this. It’s pure speculation/advocacy being put forward as fact. No reputable scientist would make this claim because there is no evidence on which to base it.

    A few devious, activists CAGW promoters put this claim out and then the echo chamber picks it up and uncritically spreads this lie.

  20. But we are chided that our use of CAGW or “catastrophic warming” to characterize the warmists’ predictions/ warnings like this assessment is inappropriate.

  21. This sort of crap is the antithesis of science…

    For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

    https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam isn’t even sound logic.

    https://judithcurry.com/2014/09/16/jc-at-the-national-press-club/

    43 years ago, it was,”The Ice Age Cometh?”…

    The bit they can’t explain with models since 1975 is the difference between “The Ice Age Cometh?” and:

    Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.

    https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/

    In any other field of science, this would be laughed at.

    • Along with that flashlight, there should be a magnifying glass. They like to make what they “find” way more scary than it is.

  22. “In the absence of significant global mitigation action and regional adaptation efforts, rising temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly disrupt [ yada yada yada pretty much everything ]…”

    Hmmm … aren’t the human adaptations made throughout our eons of history “global and regional mitigation actions”? I think the human race, acting as individuals over time, are up to the task. We can handle it without you just fine, Big Brother.

    • Ozone has bent molecule with dipole moment of 0.53D. The bonding can be explained on the basis of resonance .There are all the electrons in 03 are paired hence it is diamagnetic .If seeing 02 it is paramagnetic as it has two unpaired electrons .

  23. Roger Pielke Jr critiqued the report also, on two grounds: cherrypicked examples (as in the last NCA, where essay Credibility Conundrums in ebook Blowing Smoke deconstructed every example in the opening chapter); use of the absurdly implausible RCP 8.5 as the basis for all the CMIP5 model projections.

    • The main problem is that Mother Nature does not provide the predicted catastrophe, again and again. Hollywood to the rescue!

  24. More crap…

    Future projections show that by 2100, global mean sea level is very likely to rise by 1.6–4.3 feet (0.5–1.3 m) under the higher scenario (RCP8.5), 1.1–3.1 feet (0.35–0.95 m) under a lower scenario (RCP4.5), and 0.8–2.6 feet (0.24–0.79 m) under and even lower scenario (RCP2.6) (see Ch. 4: Projections for a description of the scenarios). Sea level will not rise uniformly around the coasts of the United States and its oversea territories. Local sea level rise is likely to be greater than the global average along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and less than the global average in most of the Pacific Northwest. Emerging science suggests these projections may be underestimates, particularly for higher scenarios; a global mean sea level rise exceeding 8 feet (2.4 m) by 2100 cannot be excluded (see Ch. 12: Sea Level Rise), and even higher amounts are possible as a result of marine ice sheet instability (see Ch. 15: Potential Surprises).

    https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/

    There is no basis to project more than about 1 foot of additional sea level rise between now and 2100.

    Eight feet of sea level rise over the next four decades would require a pace even faster than that required for 2 meters (~6.6 feet) of sea level rise by the end of this century. 1 meter of additional SLR by 2100 would require an acceleration to a rate at least twice that of the Holocene Transgression.

  25. Unintentionally hilarious that a climate “scientist” finds it surreal that something they said would happen actually happened.

    And of course she doesn’t quite note what that might be, since about the only things that have happened have been beneficial.

  26. Let’s judge the report not by what’s in it (it is unbelievable what nonsense a report can bear), but by what is not in it. Names of Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Ben Santer, or Dr. Al Gore are not there. Instead we see Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a specialist in fake extinctions. Maybe the ship is beginning to sink?

  27. Alarmists are just so determined to spread doom and gloom they can’t even see, let alone say that there is at least one good thing about climate change. That omission is what marks this report as bunkum – to be kind – because even a believer should be able to find something positive about climate change.

  28. When I saw the alarms ringing in the news, I popped over here for a reality check. They say that humans are causing 90% of the warming experienced in America. By my very rough calculations, that’s 90% of almost nothing (!).

    • Lizzue, here in Eastern Ontario, we’ve had lows of -15C this past week. This is late December weather. I suppose with the river starting to freeze up, I neednt worry about ice extent in the Arctic. It also snowed heavily in southern Louisiana, thats worse than most of winter there.

    • Lizzie, here in Eastern Ontario, we’ve had lows of -15C this past week. This is late December weather. I suppose with the river starting to freeze up, I neednt worry about ice extent in the Arctic. It also snowed heavily in southern Louisiana, thats worse than most of winter there. Looking at the temperature graphic below, you can walk from North Carolina to India all on ice and frozen ground!

      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmp_01.fnl.gif

  29. hayhoe says:

    “We are seeing the things we said would be happening, happen now in real life,” said report co-author Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University. “As a climate scientist it is almost surreal.”

    =====

    It is surreal. Nothing new or unusual is happening! Hayhoe bears false witness. She may be concerned about the heat she may feel in her future.

  30. Willis, thanks for reading these things. You got a chuckle with this line:
    They sink with the sad finality of an outboard motor spark plug accidentally dropped overboard two miles at sea …

    You might enjoy this short snippet of Nick on the Rocks:

    • John,
      OK, that one gave me a laugh! Just like you can never find a cop when you need one, where is the strong magnet and 50′ of kevlar kite string when you need it?

  31. I just wanted to take the time to say THANK YOU to Willis and everyone else who contributes articles here on wattsupwiththat.com, for Anthony Watts for having the vision and courage to create and maintain this most excellent website, and for all the commentators. Very often I learn more from the comments than from the article as different questions are asked and answered. Thank you ALL!

  32. I dunno. I went back to what I believe is his source data:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tavg/all/10/1990-2018?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

    He plots a particular 24 month moving average, which must imply including data from the previous 23 months for the first point. It must be a lagging average, or he wouldn’t have any value for “now” for another 23 months. It’s hard to tell what he is doing exactly. Taking the NOAA values, linear regression of the unfiltered data show that the trend over the period in question is:

    0.046 F per year ( 95% confidence interval: 0.020, – 0.072).

    The actual fitted temperature increase over this period is

    0.866 F (0.481 C)

    This is definitely statistically significant ( p-Value : 0.0005, small is better, p-Value is a measure of the likelihood that the observed trend is a result of the inherent variability of the data. In this case only 0.05%.)

    The month to month variability is nearly independent, the month to month correlation coefficient is about 25%. Applying a whitening filter to the time series would most likely result in a slightly higher p-Value, but the conclusion would not change much.

    I doubt that the pearl clutching by the scientists (acting in the role of political advocates) is justified, but the data cannot be dismissed out of hand.

    • Thanks, James. You say:

      He plots a particular 24 month moving average, which must imply including data from the previous 23 months for the first point. It must be a lagging average, or he wouldn’t have any value for “now” for another 23 months. It’s hard to tell what he is doing exactly.

      I’m using a 24-month Full Height Half Maximum (FWHM) centered Gaussian average. I extend it up to the present using the method that I described in my post “Michael Mann, Smooth Operator“. That method gives a very small error even at the most recent point.

      Next, you say:

      Taking the NOAA values, linear regression of the unfiltered data show that the trend over the period in question is:

      0.046 F per year ( 95% confidence interval: 0.020, – 0.072).

      The actual fitted temperature increase over this period is

      0.866 F (0.481 C)

      This is why linear trends are often not the best tool. Here’s the graph again:

      As you can see, all of the increase happened in the 1990s. Since 2000, there’s been no significant increase. This is all totally concealed by the use of the linear trend.

      Also, you have not allowed for autocorrelation in your calculation of the significance of the linear trend. After allowing for autocorrelation, the p-value is 0.11, which is NOT statistically significant. I use the Koutsoyiannis method for adjusting for autocorrelation, which I derived independently in my post entitled “A Way To Calculate Effective N“.

      Finally, you say:

      I doubt that the pearl clutching by the scientists (acting in the role of political advocates) is justified, but the data cannot be dismissed out of hand.

      The data cannot be dismissed out of hand, but that does not mean that any claims about the data are perforce valid …

      Best regards, and thanks for checking my work.

      w.

      • Willis.

        Can this curve be extended back through the 1980’s, 1970’s showing the same smoothing of through the years?

      • You presentation was still deceptive. You compare endpoints and proclaim no increase. But there is a definite trend in the data you selected. I calculated the autocorrelation of adjacent months as 0.25, not enough reduce the number of degrees of freedom significantly.

        Regardless, your chart is more polemic than enlightening.

        • James, I have presented the data. Is there a trend? Yes … but as I pointed out, a) it’s not statistically significant, and b) the main change is due to the lower temperatures in the 1990s. This doesn’t affect my point, which involves what’s happened since the first NCA in the year 2000.

          As to the autocorrelation, that’s why I use the method of Koutsoyiannis. It measures reality because it includes longer-length correlations rather than just the lag-1 autocorrelation. As a result, it gives an experimentally determined effective “N” rather than the theoretical one that you are using. The data contains 346 points since 1990 … but the experimentally determined effective N is only 61 …

          Finally, my presentation is not “deceptive”. The average temperature now is about the same as when the first NCA was published. I know you don’t like that, but it’s a fact. And the second and third NCAs took place when the average temperature was LOWER than during the first NCA. It’s only the uptick in temperatures due to the recent El Nino that has brought the temperature up to where it was in 2000.

          Regards,

          w.

  33. Well, the US National Climate Assessment has just hit peak lunacy. Representative-In-Waiting Alexandria Occasional-Cortex (D-Umb) has chimed in on the subject:

    “People are going to die if we don’t start addressing climate change ASAP,” wrote Ocasio-Cortez on Friday following the report’s release. “It’s not enough to think it’s ‘important.’ We must make it urgent.”

    “That’s why we need a Select Committee on a Green New Deal, & why fossil fuel-funded officials shouldn’t be writing climate change policy,” she added.

    WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!

    w.

      • We are all going to die. It is the one guarantee that comes with a life. Sooner or later it will end.
        Most of us would prefer later than sooner. There is one common factor that determines whether most of us will die from old age versus other factors. Our access to affordable energy and our capacity to use it in ways that protect us from the harsh environmental conditions of this world, and allow us to do work, other than spending our time, providing for ourselves the basic necessities of life.
        This AGW agenda is designed and funded with taxpayer funds to attack the energy production we need to prolong our existence. And the scientific community does not want to risk government funding, by condemning the utter lack of evidence supporting this agenda. This farce is an embarrassment to the high quality of Science and Engineering, that has changed our lives for the better.
        Are we willing to have Science become a “bought and paid for” propaganda production product going forward?

    • The young and dumb always think the sky is falling. Give her more rope. There is a LOT more in her brain that needs to come out. Hell, if we encourage her, the end of her silly sayings will come sooner rather than later!

    • “People are going to die if we don’t start addressing climate change ASAP,” wrote Ocasio-Cortez on Friday following the report’s release.”

      Well, the United States has been reducing its CO2 output, but China and India have a blank check to produce CO2 in any amount they desire from now until the year 2030.

      I suggest that if Ocasio-Cortez is serious she will address the China-India issue first. That’s where the majority of all the increases in CO2 are coming from.

      One thing about it: With Ocasio-Cortez and the Democrats in the House taking jabs at Trump, we ought to get a lot of good, funny, insighful quotes from Trump.

      Have you ever noticed how really good a writer and communicator Trump is? He seems to have a special talent for getting right to the heart of an issue in very few words. I’m impressed (ymmv).

  34. Willis, I got this in the hopper to read, probably in the morning while my tolerance to overly verbose bullshyte is strongest, and the coffee is hot. Already went through several hyperbolic “news” articles on it and it is the same “we are all gonna die in a fiery flood” shtick as the “media” spews all the time.

  35. Willis writes: “As you can see, since the First US National Climate Assessment some 18 years ago, the US average temperature has gone up by … well … about zero degrees Celsius. Or for Americans, it’s gone up by … well … about zero degrees Fahrenheit
    … it’s to distract us from the most embarrassing fact that the US temperature hasn’t increased in the slightest in the 18 years since the first US National Climate Assessment…. Oops …

    However, according to your graph, US temperature HAS gone up since the Second and Third Us National Assessment Reports. What does it mean when 2 two period show warming an a third doesn’t?

    Perhaps performing a Gaussian smooth over 24 months and then calculating a difference isn’t a particularly useful way of analyzing data that has changed from -3 K to +3 K at different times.

  36. The 2001 one was a gem. The future forecasts were based on the results of two different climate models. Both predicted warmer temps. Both predicted changes in rainfall. When combined together into moisture content, they were 180 degrees opposite for much of the US.

    It needs to be emphasized whenever possible that even when model results for a change in temperature on a global scale or even a regional one look accurate, these results are the sum of wholly inaccurate model results on smaller scales along with inconsistent and inaccurate parameter forecasts for things other than temperature (e.g., rainfall).

  37. The conceited media is insufferable as all of their coverage of the report is as if there is nothing to scrutinize, critique or challenge.
    The entirety of their coverage of the opposition is that clown Trump calls it a hoax.

    The universal, intellectually lazy and deliberate avoidance of any and all contradictions or fatal flaws makes these fake news people the enemy of the people just as Trump calls them.

  38. Willis,

    Thanks again for your ongoing wisdom.

    Could you put up a similar temperature graph for the wildfire area in California, please?

    Ideally under a separate article.

  39. “As you can see, since the First US National Climate Assessment some 18 years ago, the US average temperature has gone up by … well … about zero degrees Celsius. Or for Americans, it’s gone up by … well … about zero degrees Fahrenheit.”

    I wish this fact could be on the evening news, and the morning news too, presented just like that. Nothing like real data analysis. Thank you.

  40. calculate lost productivity to increased high temperatures, ignore improved productivity due to decreased low temperatures
    calculate agricultural losses from a theoretical model, ignore that actual agricultural output has risen consistently with the rising temperatures and co2 levels of the modern era.

    Even if their warming hypothesis was 100% true, this report would still be nothing but biased cherry picked propaganda.

  41. This is a mandated propaganda report.

    As an aside, there is a currency/economic crisis on the way.

    When the money runs out, pointless programs will need to be cut as the government will require money to limit the cuts to entitlements and/or tax increases.

    Mandated propaganda reports would be a good place to start. There will be no money to fight climate change when the money runs out.

    These guys are lost.

  42. Very good post, Willis. Thank you.

    You posted: “… it’s to distract us from the most embarrassing fact that the US temperature hasn’t increased in the slightest in the 18 years since the first US National Climate Assessment.” Well, it actually is a bit more embarrassing when making clear that during those 18 years, mankind has released about 35% of the total of all human-originated CO2 that has been deposited into the Earth’s atmosphere.

    To twist a common phrase: absence of correlation does indicate absence of causation.

    Not to pile on (or anything like, however richly deserved), but there is the extra embarrassment of all—well, I understand one Russian model might be an exception—30-something IPCC climate models totally failing to predict this “pause” (hah!) in global warming.

  43. For 30 years we have been told that doom was right around the corner. We have been told that we are passing tipping points of disaster. We have been told for decades that action must be taken immediately to avoid armageddon soon! For decades we have been told that every incident of ‘bad’ weather was likely made worse by man-made climate change.

    Katharine Hayhoe thinks it is “almost surreal” that what they have been saying is happening for the past 50 years can ‘ALREADY’ be seen happening! Their use of the word ‘already’ is what strikes me as surreal. They have apparently confused it with the word ‘finally’!

  44. Brenda Ekwurzel, UCS will be joining Bernie next month!
    Ekwurzel to join Bernie!

    20 Nov: HuffPo: Bernie Sanders To Host A Climate Town Hall, Amplifying Progressive Calls To Cut Emissions
    The likely 2020 presidential candidate is daring TV networks to finally cover climate change.
    By Alexander C. Kaufman
    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will host a livestreamed town hall summit on climate change next month…
    The 90-minute event ― scheduled from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Dec. 3 ― will be held at the Capitol Visitor Center Auditorium in Washington and broadcast over Facebook, YouTube and Twitter by seven progressive media outlets…

    Speakers include 350.org founder Bill McKibben, activist and “Big Little Lies” star Shailene Woodley, climate scientist ***Brenda Ekwurzel, activist and musician Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, and Mayor Dale Ross of deep-red Georgetown, Texas, whose avowedly pragmatic embrace of newly cheap renewable energy has made him a poster boy for how Republicans could quit climate change denialism…

    The summit, which took months to plan, will take place less than a month after Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) propelled talk of a so-called Green New Deal into the Democratic mainstream…
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/bernie-climate-change_us_5bf20e9ce4b0f32bd58aae6e

  45. Oh, great! Now we can look forward to a major winter storm in early December! It must be infuriating for so many our college indoctrinated narcissists to have reality keep slapping them in the face. But I suppose they prefer their cozy little fantasy world of safe spaces and “democratic socialism.”

  46. I want to thank you, Willis, and Anthony as well, for another interesting and informative article. This website is surely one of the most educational and enjoyable on the Internet with a comments section to match! As I lurk here I often feel like I should keep to the crevices in the reef as the barracudas, groupers and sharks swim by. Unfortunately, the coral is bleaching and dying from the acidic humor so prevalent hereabouts. /sarc

  47. I’m feeling pedantic about Willis’s statement that the US average temperature has gone up by about zero degrees Fahrenheit over the past 18 years.

    When I average NOAA’s annual min and max throughout the contiguous United States over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, I find the first 10 years of min (1998-2007) was 41.70F and in the second 10 years (2008-2017) it was 41.61F – down 0.09F.

    I find the first 10 years of max (1998-2007) was 65.52F and in the second 10 years (2008-2017) it was 65.37F – down 0.15F.

    Granted, my start point is the 1998 El Nino year (min 42.82F, max 65.63F) but when averaged the temps still suggest that over the past decade Americans have enjoyed a 0.12F cooler mean temperature than in the preceding decade.

    Removing 1998/99 and looking at the last 18 years (2000-2017), the US mean temp increased 0.26F from 2000-2008 (53.37F) to 2009-2017 (53.63F). If of interest, Jan-Oct 1998 mean temp in the US was 57.03F and Jan-Oct 2018 mean temp was 56.69F (the hottest first 10 months was 2012 at 58.35F).

    When I average the UK Met Office annual min and max throughout the United Kingdom over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, I find the first 10 years of min (1998-2007) was 5.79C and in the second 10 years (2008-2017) it was 5.52C – down 0.27C.

    I find the first 10 years of max (1998-2007) was 12.98C and in the second 10 years (2008-2017) it was 12.78C – down 0.20C.

    So the UK mean temp has dropped 0.24C over the past 20 years. Removing 1998/99 and looking at the last 18 years (2000-2017), the UK mean temp decreased 0.21F from 2000-2008 (9.37C) to 2009-2017 (9.16C).

  48. Willis, you wrote
    “As you can see, since the First US National Climate Assessment some 18 years ago, the US average temperature has gone up by … well … about zero degrees Celsius. Or for Americans, it’s gone up by … well … about zero degrees Fahrenheit.”

    Based on the graph you presented, I see that the “average” temperature has gone up around 0.6C since the third report. Why do you say zero?

    What is the yellow line on the graph? How can “the most recent temperature” be applied to a 30 year period? What does that mean?

  49. Thanks for this good analysis, Willis.

    Maybe I’m blind but in that report I didn’t find the assumed TCR/ECS when postulating the consequences for RCP8.5.
    Because this is essential it should be noted.
    Do you know the assumed CO2 sensitivity?
    Thanks!

    Werner

  50. I just posted this to the Gray Maine NWS weather office FaceBook page. Folks there made a post to announce this report.

    While I just criticized that Investors Daily report for ignoring El Nino, I guess it’s only fair I point out something similar in this report. This graph shows ocean temperature on the northeast continental shelf (i.e. good fishing grounds):

    https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/styles/figure18_4-1200.png

    The graph shows an overall positive trend, but doesn’t call attention to the cooling to the mid 1990s and warming afterwards. 1995 is when the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation change from a negative value to a positive value. Positive values are associated with warmth like this, an increased risk of at Atlantic tropical storms, etc.

    The AMO is expected to flop back to a negative mode in a few years, and that will usher in a new round of interesting times.

    It is appalling that this report makes no mention of the AMO. At least the editorial writers at IBD are not expected to understand the climate, I would have hoped the people behind this report would show better understanding.

    The IBD report I mention is https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/ where they proclaim “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.”

    February 2016 was the monthly peak of the recent major El Nino. Noisy, cherry-picked data. Sigh.

  51. I must admit its a little befuddling.

    How many people have commented on this and not one it seems has pointed out the glaring problem with the graph.

    The graph clearly says “temperature anomaly”, which makes sense since it is centered around 0 and hasplus and minus values.

    Temperature anomaly is not the same as average temperature.
    Yet the author doesn’t seem to know the difference …”as you can see, since the First US National Climate Assessment some 18 years ago, the US average temperature has gone up by…”

    The temperature anomaly is (in layman terms) a scale to see how far the measured temperature average has deviated from the predicted average.
    If the temperature anomaly was at zero degrees at these four times. That means the measured temperature was in line with the predicted temperature.
    And that prediction is that the temperature would rise with just under 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

    The graph literally shows that the US temperature average has not deviated substantially from the trend.

    In other words Eschenbach shows two things:
    1) He doesn’t know what temperature anomaly means. Unless he is intentionally misrepresenting what the data means, either way its not good.
    2) Eschenbach uses a graph which shows there has been almost no deviation from a warming trend of 0.44 degree’s Fahrenheit per decade. Meaning he literally proves that the annual average temperature has gone up by almost a full degree since the first report.

    • Torbjørn Nymark November 26, 2018 at 2:45 pm

      The temperature anomaly is (in layman terms) a scale to see how far the measured temperature average has deviated from the predicted average.

      Absolutely not. A temperature anomaly is the variation of a temperature about a preselected value. A typical value about which to take anomalies is the average of all or of some subset of the data. Often the anomaly is taken around a thirty-year average of the data. Here are a few definitions:

      From the American Meteorological Society:

      anomaly
      The deviation of (usually) temperature or precipitation in a given region over a specified period from the long-term average value for the same region.

      From the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

      Anomalies denote the departure of an element from its long-period average value for the location concerned.

      From NOAA, the US National Oceanic and Space Agency

      Anomaly
      The deviation of a measurable unit (e.g., temperature or precipitation) over a period in a given region from the long-term average, often the thirty-year mean, for that region.

      From Environment Canada:

      Temperature Anomaly
      The deviation of temperature in a given region over a specified period from the long-term average value for the same region.

      Note that NONE of them mention your curious idea that the anomaly is a deviation from the predicted average. Anomalies, despite your passionate claim, have nothing to do with predictions.

      You go on:

      If the temperature anomaly was at zero degrees at these four times. That means the measured temperature was in line with the predicted temperature.

      Not true at all. It means that the temperature was at the average of the data four times. It has nothing to do with predicted temperatures.

      And that prediction is that the temperature would rise with just under 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

      The graph literally shows that the US temperature average has not deviated substantially from the trend.

      In other words Eschenbach shows two things:
      1) He doesn’t know what temperature anomaly means. Unless he is intentionally misrepresenting what the data means, either way its not good.

      Sorry, Torbjørn, but I fear it is you who do not understand what a temperature anomaly is. It is NOT, as you incorrectly claim, a deviation from a predicted trend. Instead, it is a deviation from a selected value. In the case of the figure in the head post, it is the deviation from the average of all the data shown in the figure.

      2) Eschenbach uses a graph which shows there has been almost no deviation from a warming trend of 0.44 degree’s Fahrenheit per decade. Meaning he literally proves that the annual average temperature has gone up by almost a full degree since the first report.

      That is simply not true, because it is built upon your totally incorrect understanding of what an anomaly is. It has nothing to do with a predicted trend. It has nothing to do with a trend at all. Notice that NONE of the definitions say one word about trends or predictions of any kind.

      Let me suggest that next time, before you get all aggro and start dissing my understanding, that you actually look up the term(s) you are disputing. I got those definitions from a simple Google search for “meteorology glossary anomaly” … you can do the same for any weather terminology.

      My guess? The misunderstanding is because English isn’t your first language. But I could be wrong …

      Best regards,

      w.

Comments are closed.