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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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!
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.
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.
Witch!
Come on sir. Name calling taint no argument. Debate using logic! Now that is sexy.
But we are chided that our use of CAGW or “catastrophic warming” to characterize the warmists’ predictions/ warnings like this assessment is inappropriate.
This sort of crap is the antithesis of science…
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/
Argumentum ad ignorantiam isn’t even sound logic.
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:
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.
David,
How silly of you! If you don’t know about it, then it can’t exist. 🙂
“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.
Heat spots in the stratosphere in the north correspond to areas of magnetic field strength increase. The largest increase takes place over eastern Siberia.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_df.jpg
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 .
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!
More crap…
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 (!).
Ah, but they did say “experienced”, not measured. These Climate Liars are tricky that way.
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!
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.
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:
Watch every Nick on the Rocks video I can find. Love them.
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?
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!
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!
w.
Yes, a lot of people will die because of the cold.
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).
Strong drop in the AO index.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
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.
A wave of arctic air attacks in North Dakota and Minnesota.
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.
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).
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.