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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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’!
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
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.”
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
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).
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?
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
I just posted this to the Gray Maine NWS weather office FaceBook page. Folks there made a post to announce this report.
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.
The Princess and the Pea:
“Ow, the pea is really hurting my back”
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
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:
From the Australian Bureau of Meteorology
From NOAA, the US National Oceanic and Space Agency
From Environment Canada:
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:
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.
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.
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.