If You Put Junk Science In, You’ll Get Junk Science Out

By Chris Martz | September 16, 2019

There are plenty of climate scientists in the world that I highly respect, many of whom I don’t share the same views with on climate change. However, these scientists are respectful towards others, they’re pretty honest with their data, and still have scientific integrity.

There are a select few scientists out there, however, whom I have lost all respect for - Dr. Michael Mann being one of them.

I haven’t lost my respect for Dr. Mann because I disagree with his claims that there is a climate crisis (that I could care less about; that’s his opinion and he’s entitled to it), but rather for the way HE treats other scientists and his poor judgement and representation of data.

His true colors really shined last Friday, September 13 when he posted this Tweet:

The chief meteorologist at the CBS affiliate in Boston, Eric Fisher, posted a Tweet noting the record heat that was occurring in the Southeastern United States Friday afternoon.

On Friday, temperatures as high as 100°F (37.8°C) were recorded in Alabama (Huntsville), and many locations in Alabama and nearby states neared, tied, or set new daily record highs.

Just to the east in Georgia, Atlanta recorded record high temperatures on four consecutive days (Figure 1).¹ The high of 96°F (35.6°C) on September 11 was a tie with 2010, thus it was not a new record.¹

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image.png

Figure 1. Highest maximum temperatures recorded in Atlanta, Georgia by day between September 10 and September 13. – Threaded Extremes.

Of course, Michael Mann decided to quote Eric’s Tweet and use this heatwave as an opportunity to ridicule University of Alabama Huntsville‘s (UAH)Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist, and Dr. John Christy, Alabama’s state climatologist, who monitor satellite-based global temperatures.

Mann stated “Hey John Christy & Roy Spencer: hope you’re not finding that record century mark heat too uncomfortable down there in Huntsville.”

Aside from Mann making himself look like a fool, he couldn’t get his facts straight either.

The supposed record high of 100°F (37.8°C) on Friday in Huntsville that Dr. Mann alludes to wasn’t even a record. Had Mann actually looked at temperature data from NOAA, he’d have realized that September 13th’s record high actually still stands at 101°F (38.3°C) from 1927.¹

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-1.png

Figure 2. Highest maximum temperatures (degrees F) in Huntsville, Alabama by day between September 1 and September 13. – Threaded Extremes.

Dr. Spencer stumbled upon Mann’s Tweet and replied stating that Alabama has around 100 years of temperature data showing no long-term warming trend, in addition to the very simple fact that we can not confuse weather and climate; something both most climate activists AND quite a few skeptics have a hard time comprehending.

Instead of cherry picking a handful of days to declare a climate emergency, I’m going to look at the long-term trends, because that is what climate is.

Raw NOAA USHCN data from Tony Heller‘s UNHIDING THE DECLINE software shows little to no warming in Alabama over the last 124 years. Two takeaways from this are a.) there is a lot of year-to-year variation, and b.) there’s a lot of multidecadal variability.²

Alabama’s warmest year on record was 1927, with an average statewide temperature of 77.2°F (25.1°C)  66°F (18.9°C) Conversely, Alabama’s coolest year on record was 1903 with an average temperature just above 67°F (19.4°C) 59°F (15.6°C)  (Figure 3).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is average-temperature-at-all-alabama-ushcn-stations.png

Figure 3. Average temperature at all Alabama USHCN stations. – UNHIDING THE DECLINE software.

In 1954, all USHCN stations across the state averaged around 109 days (~30% of the year) with maximum temperatures of at least 90°F (32.2°C) (Figure 4).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is percent-of-days-at-or-above-90c2b0f-at-all-alabama-ushcn-stations.png

Figure 4. Percent of days at or above 90F at all Alabama USHCN stations. – UNHIDING THE DECLINE software.

So, instead of apologizing to Roy, Michael decided to dig his hole deeper and cherry pick data. He responded with “Who’s confused Roy?”

The map that Dr. Mann posted is from a 5-year-old Climate Central article. Climate Central is an organization that is made up of scientists and journalists who research and report facts [and opinions] about climate change. The map shows meteorological summer temperature trends in the U.S. from 1970 to 2013 (Figure 5).³

So, right of the bat, this map is essentially useless now since it hasn’t been updated in six years.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 6_3_14_Brian_SummerTemperatureTrends_720_405_s_c1_c_c.jpg

Figure 5. Summer temperature trends. – Climate Central.

Even so, I would like to address two other issues I have with this map.

The first issue I have is that the data used in this map is not only NOT up-to-date, but also, the beginning of the time period used is 1970.

The U.S. has by far the most coherent surface temperature record in the world with many station databases extending as far back as the 1890s. Globally, only 762 stations have data spanning from January 1905 to January 2019 (Figure 6), and that number is significantly less the farther back you go.⁴ Most of these stations are in the U.S. Since 1880, only 106 stations have been continuously active globally.⁴

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-3.png

Figure 6. GHCN V3 station locations in January 1905 and January 2019. – NASA GISS.

Because the U.S. has such a good temperature record, I find it rather peculiar that Climate Central chose to start their data in 1970.

In fact, starting graphs in 1970 is quite a common move by Climate Central. I have pointed out numerous times on Twitter that their graphs need to cover the entire period of record, or at least back to 1900 to see the full trend.

The graph below (Figure 7), titled “U.S. Summers Are Getting Hotter,” was published by the organization back in June of this year.⁵ As usual, they started the x-axis in 1970 and they completely obliterated the period 1895 to 1969.

Summer Temperature Trends in the Contiguous U.S.

Figure 7. U.S. summers are getting hotter. – Climate Central.

Why did they do this? Answer: because they want to fool their followers into thinking the U.S. is burning up. Had they included pre-1970 data, their argument wouldn’t hold water.

The average summer temperature across the U.S. has increased slightly over the last 124 years (Figure 8).⁶ The Dust Bowl era had summers just as warm as recent summers, the only difference being the 1930s had warmer days and cooler nights while more recent years have had cooler days, but warmer nights.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-4.png

Figure 8. Contiguous U.S. average summer temperature. – NOAA Climate At A Glance.

In terms of describing how hot a summer has been, I don’t like using the average temperature (mean of the maximums and minimums). Rather, I like to use the average maximum temperature, because overnight lows are not generally “hot.”

The average summer maximum temperature has seen even less change since 1895 (Figure 9).⁶ The 1930s by far had hotter summers than anything that we’ve seen in the last four decades.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-5.png

Figure 9. Contiguous U.S. average summer maximum temperature. – NOAA Climate At A Glance.

Another metric I like looking at are heat wave indices.

Heatwaves are very typical of summer and thus the frequency and intensity of them are very important statistics for long-term trends.

According to the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment, the average duration of heat waves has declined from eleven days during the 1930s to 6.5 days during the 2000s (Figure 10).⁷ That’s a 41% drop!

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 9e7cf-warm2bspells.png

Figure 10. Warm spell duration. – U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment.

Moreover, the average maximum temperature during a heat wave has also declined from 101°F in the 1930s to 99°F since the 1980s (Figure 11).⁷

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is baac8-warmest2btemperature.png

Figure 11. Average warmest temperature each year. – U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment.

The other issue I have with the Climate Central map doesn’t have to do with the map itself, but rather with the way it was being used.

In Mann’s original Tweet, he attempted to blame the heatwave on global warming. This is probably because he has no training in meteorology, and thus can’t come up with a meteorological explanation for this. If he just did a simple Google search, he’d find some really good articles on heatwave mechanisms… just sayin’.

It’s also important to note that the heatwave Dr. Mann is referring to has occurred in September. Because of this, the Climate Central map he posted is an invalid scientific argument against Dr. Spencer. He’d have a much stronger case if he were to post September temperature trends, specifically for Huntsville, Alabama, which is the location he mentioned in his initial Tweet.

So, let’s take a look at the average maximum temperature in Huntsville for the first 15 days of September throughout the entire period of record.

So far this month, the average maximum temperature in Huntsville has been exactly 95°F (35°C).⁸ 2019’s month-to-date average maximum temperature for the city is so far ranked as 7th warmest.⁸ That is statistically significant, no doubt about it (Figure 12).

Another thing to note about the table below is that of the top ten warmest first 15 days of September for Huntsville, eight occurred prior to 2000, seven occurred prior to 1960, and six occurred just in the span of 17 years between 1922 and 1939. ⁸ That’s even more statistically significant than this year ranking 7th place.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-6.png

Figure 12. Maximum 15-day mean max temperature for Huntsville, Alabama. – xmACIS2.

The average maximum temperature for September 1-15 in Huntsville, using the standard period 1981-2010, is 86.8°F (30.4°C).⁸ Since 2000, nine Septembers have had average maximum temperatures at or below average for the first 15 days (Figures 13 and 14).⁸

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-7.png

Figure 13. Average September 1-15 maximum temperature in Huntsville, AL. – xmACIS2.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-9.png

Figure 14. Average September 1-15 maximum temperature in Huntsville, AL. – xmACIS2.

During the period 1920-1939, only seven September 1-15ths were cooler than average by maximum temperature (Figure 15).⁸

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-8.png

Figure 15. September 1-15 average maximum temperature in Huntsville, AL. – xmACIS2.

As for the leftover Septembers that were above average for the first 15 days, the average temperature departure was 6.6°F during 1920 to 1939 and 3.9° from 2000 to 2019, nearly 3° cooler than 1920-1939.

These statistics are very easy to find and take little time to evaluate. Instead of Dr. Mann being honest and/or credible with his data, he cherry picked one hot day of weather and ignored the long-term trend, which is what climate is.

Here’s an analogy: weather is like the atmosphere’s mood, climate is the atmosphere’s personality. Both are prone to change, but on much different time scales.

If you put junk science in, you’ll get junk science out.

REFERENCES

[1] Threaded Extremes. Accessed September 16, 2019. http://threadex.rcc-acis.org/.

[2] Heller, Tony. “UNHIDING THE DECLINE For Windows.” August 14, 2017. Accessed September 16, 2019. https://realclimatescience.com/unhiding-the-decline-for-windows/.

[3] Kahn, Brian. “Here’s How Much U.S. Summers Have Warmed Since 1970.” Climate Central. June 3, 2014. Accessed September 16, 2019. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-summer-temperatures-climate-change-17510.

[4] “GISS Surface Temperature Analysis.” NASA GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Accessed September 16, 2019. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/.

[5] “Summer Temperature Trends in the Contiguous U.S.” Climate Central. June 5, 2019. Accessed September 16, 2019. https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/summer-temperature-trends-in-the-contiguous-us.

[6] “National Time Series.” Climate At A Glance | National Centers For Environmental Information (NCEI). 2018. Accessed September 16, 2019. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/.

[7] “Chapter 6: Temperature Changes in the United States.” CSSR. 2017. Accessed September 16, 2019. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/.

[8] xmACIS2. Accessed September 16, 2019. https://xmacis.rcc-acis.org/.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
122 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Jankowski
September 17, 2019 6:19 pm

He truly is a reprehensible and petulant child.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
September 17, 2019 7:08 pm

He has a problem with thinking twice before tweeting. Like the Donald and thousands of other prominent folks.
He probably thought he was thinking fast on his feet, like the time he tweeted that anyone thinking .04% CO2 is harmless should expose themselves to the same concentration of HCN for 30 minutes. Totally non-sequitur argument delivered as if it had some relevance or coherency.

John in Oz
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 17, 2019 8:21 pm

It’s a pity he didn’t use H2O as it would have the sam effect k

Bryan A
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 17, 2019 9:49 pm

Perhaps he should try exposing himself to the same concentration of O2 (.04%) for 30 minutes

Bill Powers
Reply to  Bryan A
September 18, 2019 10:01 am

Rather, he prefers to expose himself. He really needs to zip it up.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bill Powers
September 18, 2019 3:44 pm

👍 Twitters tend to expose themselves in unintended candor.

Scissor
September 17, 2019 6:20 pm

Of all the bald, Michael Mann is among the baldest and according to Steven Mosher, you know what that means.
(Note: Mann’s picture hides his decline.)

RStabb
Reply to  Scissor
September 17, 2019 6:49 pm

Mann blocked me from his twitter feed after I called him a “hotdog head”. I knew it was coming, no great loss.

Scissor
Reply to  RStabb
September 17, 2019 7:23 pm

Some people can’t handle truth.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Scissor
September 18, 2019 11:32 am

Mann blocked me and I never called him anything before he blocked me(only after). He blocked me because he had read threads proving that I knew too much. BTW , Heat waves prove that they have nothing to do with CO2 levels. If you look at the previous year week or day for a heatwave you will usually find that the ave temp for that week or day was many degrees cooler. A 2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 can’t account for the vast temperature increase in 1 year.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  RStabb
September 18, 2019 7:16 am

He blocked me after I told him exactly how much of a stupid dolt he is.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  RStabb
September 18, 2019 9:10 am

This was the thread it happened on.
When he blocked me, a bunch of other people automatically blocked me at the same time.
Katherine Hayhoe for one.
Mann was claiming that proteins and nucleic acids are not “carbon based”.
Later in response to a avalanche of criticism, he doubled down on stupid by revealing he does not know what photosynthesis is…thinks carbon makes it’s way into the food chain by being taken up by roots or some crap like that.

I do not know how anyone can have a science PhD and be so uninformed.
Actually, he is the most annoying sort of person…head filled with misinformation but he thinks his misapprehension are true.
We all know people like this.
Often these same people will never ever admit it when they get something wrong.

https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1106113643945574401?s=20

trafamadore
September 17, 2019 6:23 pm

Okay. Mann has a problem with fools. Get over it.

Loren Wilson
Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 9:52 am

The guys he has a problem with are not fools. That is the problem. When he will show his work like a true scientist, then we will be able to verify if his work is valid or not. Until then, his work is unsubstantiated.

MarkW
Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 5:20 pm

Only if you define anyone who knows more than Mann does as a “fool”.

Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 5:52 pm

Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy are not fools. If they were fools, John would not be the Alabama State Climatologist, and probably wouldn’t hold university postiions or have worked for NASA.

Anna Keppa
Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 8:50 pm

What bullbleep.

Einstein put his General Relativity theory to the test when he predicted that space curves under the influence of gravity.

That predicted was confirmed in 1919, during a solar eclipse, when a star’s light was deflected by the Sun’s gravitation.

What falsifiable experiment has Mann ever offered to support his hypothesis?

ANSWER THAT or FOAD.

commieBob
September 17, 2019 6:30 pm

I will forever owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Mann because he convinced me that CAGW is bunk.

It gives me never ending glee that, by failing to produce discovery in his suit against Dr. Ball, he has entitled us to apply adverse inference. We may infer that the discovery materials would have proven that his hockey stick is indeed fraudulent. OMG, the man just keeps giving.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  commieBob
September 17, 2019 7:05 pm

I never agree with Commies, but I gotta go with commieBob on this one.

A true scientist (e.g. Einstein) wants to publish all of their data and methods for the whole wide world to see. If no one can prove them wrong, then there is a chance their science is correct. However, if a single person can prove them wrong, then their SCIENCE IS WRONG.

Dr. Mann (and many of the other alarmists) takes just the opposite approach. Which just reinforces my belief that he (and the others) is not an actual scientist.

I personally don’t get my science from used car salesmen.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
September 17, 2019 8:23 pm

I am not sure that Einstein would be classified as a true scientist according to your
metric. Firstly he was a theoretical physicist and as such never collected any data
let alone publish it. Secondly he did not publish something until it was extremely well
polished which means that his methods were highly opaque and it is very hard if
not impossible to reconstruct how he got his results. He was also extremely lax by
today’s standards in referencing other people’s work.

As a results his published papers are amazing to read and shine like a polished diamond but they do not give any insight into his methods or the years he spent thinking about problems and struggling with the solutions.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 18, 2019 12:41 am

Like Shakespeare’s plays. Polished, to be published..

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 18, 2019 9:35 am

Einstein is perhaps the most chronicled and interviewed scientist of all time.
He has described in detail how he came upon his ideas.

Each was regarding something that was ongoing in the physics community at the time.
If all you do is read the papers, you are not going to know any of this.

Which of his ideas do you not know how he arrived at his conclusions?

He was able, for example, to extend the idea of quantization that was Planck had years previously used in his calculations. But Planck considered it a mere mathematical shortcut, rather than indicating anything about physical reality.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 18, 2019 11:37 am

Einstein came up with the most ridiculous theory of all time “that space curves”. Cosmology is still trying to dig itself out of that black hole. Black holes don’t exist by the way despite the fake pic recently.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 18, 2019 11:54 am

I am not sure that even compares with Big Bang/Cosmic Inflation.
I was hearing something recently about the angular size of distant galaxies being way too big if they are as far away as implied by their red shift.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 18, 2019 12:43 pm

Alan Tomalty – September 18, 2019 at 11:37 am

Black holes don’t exist by the way despite the fake pic recently.

“WHAT”, ….. Black Holes don’t exist? I didn’t know that.

That’s OK, though, …… White Holes exist, ….. I know that for a fact.

“YUP”, …… the State of West Virginia is one of them White Holes, …… cause everything goes out of the State and nothing ever comes back in.

Been that way since 63’, ……. 1863 that is.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 19, 2019 7:26 am

OOPS, …. just read that Black Holes do exist, …. but they don’t have hair.

When physicists say black holes don’t have “hair,” said Maximiliano Isi, a physicist at MIT
https://www.foxnews.com/science/stephen-hawking-was-wrong-black-holes-are-bald

GaryP
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 18, 2019 4:50 pm

Good grief, have you ever worked out an original math/physics problem on your own? One of the greatest pleasures about this type of work is that it is self checking. When you make a mistake the results become silly. Back to the problem and find the mistake, fix it and check the results again.

I just went through this last week and of course my final results look polished and simple and easy to understand. Why would 20 pages of scrawling on paper with math mistakes and dead end approaches be shown to anybody. They are embarrassing. The final result showed a wonderful bit of symmetry in my asymmetric structure. When I mirrored all of the curves used to create the geometry, the inside curve became the outside curve on the mirror and vice-versa. I didn’t expect that. I knew there was a hidden internal symmetry but I did not expect beauty.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
September 17, 2019 11:55 pm

Used car salesmen are paragons of honesty compared with Mann.

trafamadore
Reply to  commieBob
September 17, 2019 7:11 pm

Mann’s hockey stick has been repeated so many times, it’s ridiculous. and yet you bimbos still think it’s fake.

Sort of sad.

commieBob
Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 8:04 am

Would you be kind enough to explain “Mike’s Nature Trick” to us.

Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 8:35 am

trafamadore September 17, 2019 at 7:11 pm

Mann’s hockey stick has been repeated so many times, it’s ridiculous. and yet you bimbos still think it’s fake.

Sort of sad.

Yes, and each time he or the little Mann-alikes have made the same mistakes. Post-analysis proxy selection. Upside-down records. Mann’s magic method that mines for hockey sticks and will find one in random red noise.

Here’s a look at one of the ridiculous “replications”, which are nothing of the sort. Here’s another.

And if you want some real fun, go over to Steve McIntyre’s blog, where he has systematically disassembled and falsified not only the original Hockeystick, but just about every. single. one. of the Mann-alikes.

w.

Bryan A
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 18, 2019 9:22 am

Now there’s a wretched thought.
Mann and his Mini-Menn minions

Gator
Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 9:41 am
Loren Wilson
Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 9:54 am

The hockey stick can even be repeated when you feed it random temperatures. That means it is a bias in the software, not a physical effect.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Loren Wilson
September 18, 2019 4:35 pm

See? It CAN be replicated!

Joel Snider
Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 4:33 pm

trafamadore:

Willful ignorance is the worst kind.
Sort of sad.

MarkW
Reply to  trafamadore
September 18, 2019 5:22 pm

Acolytes using the same data and the same methods get the same result.
Somehow trolls believe this to be impressive.

Rob
Reply to  commieBob
September 17, 2019 8:01 pm

Nothing to do with failing to produce discovery. Everything to do with Ball asking for relief because he is frail. sickly, old and financially strapped. We’ll see how the Appeal goes by Mann.

commieBob
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 8:12 am

I’d love to see the judge’s written decision.

As far as I can tell, Mann got slapped down for failing to produce discovery.

If Dr. Ball asked for relief due to his frail condition, it wasn’t aimed at changing the decision. Judges don’t do that. It was aimed at speeding up the decision. If that’s the best excuse Mann could come up with, you know he’s up the creek without a paddle.

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Gator
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 10:11 am

Mann also could not get even one of his peers to submit a letter defending his character! LOL

So appears Mann got b*tch slapped by a “frail. sickly, old and financially strapped” Canadian, sans apology.

commieBob
Reply to  Gator
September 18, 2019 5:45 pm

When I read your comment, I was between cups of coffee. That’s the reason I didn’t ruin my keyboard. 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 5:24 pm

Once again, when the data doesn’t support his beliefs, Rob lies through his teeth.

Read what the judge wrote, instead of what Mann wrote.
Mann lied and his paid trolls lap it up.

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2019 6:25 am

Mark Steyn has commented on this. link Apparently there will be no written decision per se. What we have is the court stenographer’s transcription. here it is

The judge was unkind to our dear Dr. Mann. Steyn piles on brilliantly. His article brightened my day.

MarkW
September 17, 2019 6:34 pm

Measuring from the coldest time during the last 100 years is par for the course for the climate cabal.
Of course the same people will tell you that all of the warming since the bottom of the little ice age is due to CO2.

J Mac
September 17, 2019 6:41 pm

What a Homer…. “You mean the record is really 101F? D’OH!”

RStabb
September 17, 2019 6:42 pm

Thanks,

Well done.

Reply to  RStabb
September 18, 2019 5:58 pm

Thank you very much! Glad you liked my article.

Latitude
September 17, 2019 6:48 pm

Excellent post!….thank you

…or you could say global warming has made Sept 12 …1 degree cooler….in 92 years

Reply to  Latitude
September 18, 2019 5:59 pm

Thank you! Glad you liked the post! It took me many hours to write.

Pop Piasa
September 17, 2019 6:51 pm

Chris, I’d like to know what the global SST picture was like during 1936 vs 2012. It seems to me warmer oceans are increasing the atmospheric moisture and that would account for the dust bowl having more desert-like diurnal temperature ranges, compared to the recently observed compression of daily temp cycles.

By the way, were you ever a St Louis weather caster? Your name seems familiar.

lee
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 17, 2019 8:02 pm

Remember Phil Jones and the lack of SH ocean data prior to at least 1950

Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 18, 2019 5:57 pm

Hi Pop, I’m Chris who wrote this article (this article is a re-post from my own site).

Unfortunately, we do not have maps of SST from 1936. Warmer oceans combined with a warmer atmosphere would allow more evaporation to occur, which seems to be occurring. This in theory would explain the dust bowl era having warmer days, and cooler nights, while more recent times have had warmer nights, but cooler days.

And to answer your last question, NO, I was not a weather forecaster in St. Louis. I’m actually a 16-year old high school student who aspires to become a broadcast meteorologist.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Chris Martz
September 19, 2019 12:51 pm

I’m actually a 16-year old high school student who aspires to become a broadcast meteorologist.

Shut the front door! That just blew me away.
YOU GO, kid! I’m proud of you! 👍👍😁

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Chris Martz
September 19, 2019 1:41 pm

Hey also I wish you the best of fortune in the industry. I myself think Fox news needs you.
Maybe your networking here will establish helpful contacts. Don’t give up on your dream.

September 17, 2019 6:55 pm

How can anyone have respect for the alarmist climate scientists when they conveniently ignore the 51% of the Solar irradiance that is in the infrared part of the spectrum. At the Earth’s distance from the Sun, it contains more than double the amount of energy emitted by the Earth’s surface.

This mandates that if there was a Greenhouse Effect, more of the Sun’s heat would be back-radiated into space than the Earth’s internal misconstrued Greenhouse heat and the Earth would cool as the concentration of greenhouse gases increased.

This has not happened so the Greenhouse Effect is false being a meaningless result of using an unrealistic model to determine the supposed 33 degree Kelvin warming.
Nowhere in their colourful illustrations of the Sun’s warming of the Earth do you see an arrow showing back-radiation of the Sun’s infrared out into space arising from the greenhouse gases.

September 17, 2019 7:00 pm

How can anyone have respect for the alarmist climate scientists when they conveniently ignore the 51% of the Solar irradiance that is in the infrared part of the spectrum. At the Earth’s distance from the Sun, it contains more than double the amount of energy emitted by the Earth’s surface.

This mandates that if there was a Greenhouse Effect, more of the Sun’s heat would be back-radiated into space than the Earth’s internal misconstrued Greenhouse heat and the Earth would cool as the concentration of greenhouse gases increased. This has not happened so the Greenhouse Effect is false being a meaningless result of using an unrealistic model to determine the supposed 33 degree Kelvin warming.

Nowhere in their colourful illustrations of the Sun’s warming of the Earth do you see an arrow showing back-radiation of the Sun’s infrared out into space arising from the greenhouse gases.

Paul Stevens
September 17, 2019 7:03 pm

Excellent article that has given me at least four pieces of evidence of the absence of any “climate emergency.” Numbers have meaning, despite attempts to twist them into meaninglessness by the alarmist crowd.

Jeff Alberts
September 17, 2019 7:09 pm

“that I could care less about”

So you DO care.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 17, 2019 11:00 pm

He could care less, as you point out … but he’d have to care enough to do that, and he doesn’t.

w.

michael hart
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 18, 2019 4:54 am

Yes, in the UK people say they “couldn’t care less”
It’s a good example of the US and UK using diametrically opposed statements in English to mean the same thing.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  michael hart
September 18, 2019 7:34 am

Only people with bad ears and no sense of logic say “could care less”.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 18, 2019 9:25 am

Not necessarily…
If you care the least amount possible, you Couldn’t Care Less
If your level of caring is only Middle of the Road, you Could Care Less

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bryan A
September 18, 2019 11:45 am

I was considering what is the case in the usual context of the phrase.
It is a dismissive remark.
Anytime I heard someone say it wrong, they used in a dismissive tone of voice, but it makes no sense in that context.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 18, 2019 5:42 am

He could care less, but the difference would be statistically insignificant and the y-index scale would have to be grossly exaggerated for effect. > ; }

Steve Case
September 17, 2019 7:36 pm

Yes indeed, if you want to know how hot it got, then you should look at how hot git. Looking at the average temperature doesn’t tell you that, Averages lose important information. As Dixie Lee Ray said, beware of avengers, the average person has one breast and one testicle.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steve Case
September 18, 2019 11:14 am

Using Tmax charts is a good idea if one is wanting to know if it is hotter today than in the past. What better metric to use is there for this purpose?

Dave O.
September 17, 2019 8:05 pm

I live in the north central U.S. – the only part of the country that is getting colder. Apparently, we are cooling so rapidly that they can’t alter the data fast enough to make it look like we’re getting warmer.

Patrick MJD
September 17, 2019 8:22 pm

Does anyone listen to Mann anymore since the IPCC dropped his hockey stick?

Scissor
Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 17, 2019 9:04 pm

Apparently. He won a share of the 2019 Tyler Award (shared $200K with another). https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/ps-mma021319.php

Rod Evans
Reply to  Scissor
September 18, 2019 12:36 am

You Americans and your unique spelling of English words.
I have learned something here of interest though. Michael Mann is a Tyler!! He has won the award.
I am looking for a tiler (UK English spelling) to redo my roof. Maybe I could call Mann and see if he is free to take on the work. I often wondered what his basic skill set was, and now I know.
I have to say, I am surprised by the revelation that he is a tiler, because most tilers I know are very respectable, honest people….

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 18, 2019 3:41 am

He is certainly not a toiler…

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 18, 2019 5:28 pm

Though he does remind me of a toilet.

Gary Pearse
September 17, 2019 8:42 pm

UHI should have given us a heck of a lot of new records. Yeah, yeah, they ‘adjust’ for that but if you are a temperature adjuster and your schick is Thermaggeddon, you can be sure you’ll hang onto as much of that heat as you can get away with. Charts by sceptics showing the longterm adjustments by subtracting the instrumental readings from the adjusted readings shows the warming has indeed been very “man-made” indeed.

J Mac
September 17, 2019 8:44 pm

Early onset of cold fall rains here, in the Great North Wet. Temps 50F-60F and rain every day. This usually holds off until mid October. It might be warm in AL but it is cold and wet here, just south of Seattle!

James R Clarke
September 17, 2019 8:45 pm

Michael Mann’s emotional development appears to be equivalent to that of an average ten-year. (No offense to actual ten year olds.)

Mike
Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 17, 2019 10:42 pm

But…but… co2 warms the planet – Mosher said so – so it follows that co2 concentrations in the 30’s (not to mention the MWP etc) must have really been high – like today or higher!….unless that is…..that something other than the miracle molecule can warm the planet……Why can’t the co2 enthusiasts answer that simple question I wonder??

September 17, 2019 10:08 pm

The Earth has existed for 4.5 Billion years. Temp records, shall we say a slightly shorter time? Why are temp records a thing? Makes no sense whatsoever. How hot was it in Alabama the year before the temp records were first recorded, whatever year that was?

Ludicrous…

Chris Hanley
September 17, 2019 10:10 pm

Mark Steyn has posted a piece further commenting on the Mann vs Ball case that may have put Michael into a bad mood.

PaulH
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 18, 2019 5:27 am

Here’s a link to the Mark Steyn piece:

https://www.steynonline.com/9742/michael-e-mann-loser

“For a start, although Mann always presents himself as the victim, it is important to remember that, in this case as in mine, he is the plaintiff: He chose to sue – and without that conscious choice there would be no legal action. So, when Mann says there was no “finding that Ball’s allegations were correct”, Ball did not allege anything: That is a legal term and the only allegations before the Court were Mann’s, in his statement of claim against Ball. Those Mann allegations have been dismissed with prejudice – so, in layman’s terms, Mann lost and Ball won.”

September 17, 2019 10:16 pm

This is annoying. I put a comment in a couple of minutes ago, then wanted to add to my thought. I refreshed the page, and then closed and reloaded the page, my comment is not there. This once-an-hour thing is true?

Anyway, foolish to look at temp records from such a short history, and claim a new high. My favorite quote about temps down south, “Biloxi Blues,” Matthew Broderick, set in WWII, gets off the troop train to Basic Training, “It’s really hot. It’s Africa Hot!”

So not a new thing…

Reply to  Michael Moon
September 17, 2019 10:57 pm

Michael, the site is moderated to keep the amount of bile to a minimum. This means that all comments are read and a very few bad apples rejected.

It’s a 24/7 world out there, so WUWT needs volunteer moderators around the planet. And many of them have lots of other stuff to do.

As a result of all of that, there will be a lag between submission and publication. It’s a sad reality for a hugely popular site like this one.

w.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 18, 2019 3:58 pm

Thanks Willis, I wonder if that information should be posted in a separate article to reduce the amount of duplicate submissions by commenters who are unaware of the delay.
Can you tell us why the comment editing function was terminated?

rah
September 17, 2019 10:26 pm

Par for Mann. Very weak in science and personal character. He also went after Tony Heller personally for pointing out the deficiencies in his “map”. As seems to be a common practice for Mann, those he goes after on Twitter are blocked from his twitter account.

September 17, 2019 10:30 pm

So, “Biloxi Blues,” of course Mississippi not Alabama, WWII troop train lets out in Biloxi, Matthew Broderick gets out of the train, says, “It’s really hot! It’s Africa Hot!”

Short records of an old Earth, 4.5 Billion years, and we know this never happened before because of temp records back to 1880 or so? Who is this Mann person trying to kid?

Mark Broderick
September 18, 2019 12:18 am

Chris Martz

“So, right of off the bat, this map is essentially useless now since it hasn’t been updated in six years.”

Reply to  Mark Broderick
September 18, 2019 6:03 pm

Thanks for the spell check Mark, I didn’t catch that one. Sometimes I accidentally forget to add the “f.” I know how to spell, and thanks for correcting it. Appreciated.

Phoenix44
September 18, 2019 2:27 am

Regardless of records etc has anybody ever said it can’t get hot? The point is whether what we are seeing is due to natural variation or not. Having a bit of hot weather somewhere – and given the almost infinite ways of dividing the Earth somewhere will be a record just about all the time – proves nothing whatsoever.

Craig
September 18, 2019 4:54 am

“Climate Central is an organization that is made up of scientists and journalists who research and report facts [and opinions] about climate change.”$200K comp including two at or near $400K+. Together, nine officers were >$100K and pocketed over 34% of the non-profit’s total contributions (which dropped 24% vs the prior year). Total compensation consumed 79% of their total income. For the year, they operated at a $940K loss which was 3.3X their remaining fund balance. No wonder Heidi Cullen left. There was no more money to pay her $394,000 price tag.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/261797336/201813199349305036/IRS990

Craig
Reply to  Craig
September 18, 2019 6:45 am

When you censored the opinion part of my post, you also trimmed out some important facts…

Yooper
September 18, 2019 5:43 am

This quote is the most interesting:
“the only difference being the 1930s had warmer days and cooler nights while more recent years have had cooler days, but warmer nights.”
UHI effect? I REALLY like the approach of using daily maximums to look at trends, not the averages. If the world is warming the maximums should be going UP, even if they aren’t record highs. Night time highs are too distorted by UHI effects for so many stations that they are worthless.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Yooper
September 18, 2019 11:21 am

“UHI effect? I REALLY like the approach of using daily maximums to look at trends, not the averages.”

It sounds like UHI to me. I agree about using daily maximums and not the averages.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 18, 2019 10:10 pm

I agree too averages are completely misleading and are calculated after adjustments. They also do not factor in wind direction which can change temperatures by as much as 10c here in Sydney.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Yooper
September 18, 2019 11:49 am

More humid air does the same thing.
Dry air gets cold at night by allowing radiations to flow freely out to space and heats up easily by day due to having a lower specific heat.
Also less humid = less clouds = cooler night, hotter daytime.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 18, 2019 6:04 pm

Correct, this is a combination of more water vapor in the atmosphere and increased UHI. In rural areas, it’s mostly water vapor.

Kenton
September 18, 2019 6:32 am

Like “climate change” ..”global Temperature” is a Guess. NOAA uses about 6500 world wide sites to actually measure Temperature and then uses Guesses/proxy data to “smooth” the resulting “Projections”. Throwing darts at numbers on a wall has become Climate Science.
Media fails to make the distinction between Projections and Predictions and that Scenarios (made up stories) based on Proxies (made up data) are fed into unreliable computer models to produce the projection (wild a** guess).
NOAA could provide more accurate global Temperature ESTIMATES by taking the Temperature at the 23,000 locations of Starbucks Coffee.

Justin Burch
September 18, 2019 7:04 am

What I found most amazing was how my Twitter feed covered up all the graphs proving Mann wrong with “sensitive material” warnings. So I guess nay graph that upsets Michael Mann or contradicts him is “sensitive material”.

Bryan A
Reply to  Justin Burch
September 18, 2019 9:31 am

Alarmists have very sensitive eyes, psyches, and feelings. They must be protected from any truth that may offend them.
M. Mann is still waiting for his “Participant Trophy” for the Hokey Stick

Rudolf Huber
September 18, 2019 11:13 am

Why is this fraud not facing a trial for organized fraud? It’s not junk science – it no science at all. A lie is not science. An opinion is not science. I have opinions every second, even when I dump. That’s still not science. Mann has done science a disservice as we will never be able to innocently believe scientists anymore. Maybe that’s a good thing after all.

Alan Tomalty
September 18, 2019 11:41 am

Mann blocked me and I never called him anything before he blocked me(only after). He blocked me because he had read threads proving that I knew too much. BTW , Heat waves prove that they have nothing to do with CO2 levels. If you look at the previous year week or day for a heatwave you will usually find that the ave temp for that week or day was many degrees cooler. A 2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 can’t account for the vast temperature increase in 1 year.

Tom Abbott
September 18, 2019 11:46 am

This is a very interesting post. Thanks, Chris Martz.

Among the other things I take from this post, I think the charts are instructive.

All the charts show the cold period of the 1910’s; the warm period peaks of the 1930’s; the cold period of the 1970’s; and the warming from the late 1970’s to the present, with present warming being cooler than the warm peaks in the 1930’s.

So looking at these charts we can see the reason climate scientists were worrying about the Earth heading into another Ice Age in the 1970’s, because it had been cooling for decades and had reached a low not seen since the early 20th century.

Now, fast-forward to today and what do we see but the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart erasing all these features of the global climate in an effort to sell the fraud to the public.

Below is a link to the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart (on the left in the page), whose temperature profile looks very much like the charts shown in this article, with the 1930’s being warmer than today; and next to the Hansen 1999 chart is the fradulent Hockey Stick chart (on the right in the page).

Look at how the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart has cooled the 1930’s and warmed the 1970’s, in comparison to the Hansen 1999 chart, so if you didn’t know history and your only knowledge of past weather was the Hockey Stick then you would be completely unaware of the very hot Dust Bowl 1930’s and the very cool “ice age” of the 1970’s, because they don’t show up on the chart.

Everyone knows, even the alarmists, that the Ice Age scare occurred, and they know why, yet they erase the evidence from the global temperature record. They had no choice but to do this. It was the only way they could cool off the 1930’s. So they disappeared the ice age scare and hoped noone would notice. And, for the most part, noone has noticed, or at least it has not been a major topic of conversation, although it should be because it looks like pretty solid evidence of fraud.

All the unmodified regional charts from all around the world still show the warm peaks of the 1930’s, and the cold periods of the 1970’s. They all, more or less, resemble the temperature profile of the Hansen 1999 chat. So the Hansen 1999 temperature profile is the real global temperature profile. The real temperature profile says to us that there is no unprecedented warming today and therefore there is no need to worry about CAGW or an overheating world.

NONE of the unmodified charts resemble the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart. That would be because the Hockey Stick chart does not represent reality. It is science fiction created to fool people into being very scared, so they can be manipulated.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 21, 2019 2:43 pm

The hokey stick represents a well homogenized proxy that was abandoned at the point where it just couldn’t provide confirmation anymore, and the UHI tainted surface record was stitched onto it

Nicholas McGinley
September 18, 2019 1:16 pm

What kind of a human being is Michael Mann?
The sort to forge a Nobel Prize and award it to himself, then present the document and claim he is a Nobel winner.
Who does this?
A transparent lie, easily checked, as fraudulent as anything I have ever even heard of.
He makes the merely vainglorious seem humble by comparison.

Documented here by Tony:
https://realclimatescience.com/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 18, 2019 5:04 pm

Apparently, Mann not only bastardizes the historic temperature records, he also bastardizes the Nobel Peace Prize and creates his own version of the award to make it look like it was awarded to him personally.

Heller has it all documented on his website. I guess Mann is consistent: He makes up temperatures and he makes up awards for himself.

And we are going to turn our society upside down on the advice of this man? I don’t think so.

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/michael-mann-fake-nobel-prize-fake-science/

Here’s how the Nobel Institute described Mann’s bastardization of their Nobel Peace Prize:

Heller: “The Nobel Prize committee says the he was not awarded the Nobel prize, and that he forged his fake document.”

“1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.”

Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute

end excerpt

Gunga Din
September 18, 2019 2:22 pm

Dr. Spencer stumbled upon Mann’s Tweet and replied stating that Alabama has around 100 years of temperature data showing no long-term warming trend, in addition to the very simple fact that we can not confuse weather and climate; something both most climate activists AND quite a few skeptics have a hard time comprehending.

I’m sure “quite a few skeptics” do confuse weather and climate as alarmist do, but maybe not as many as your impression?
When some alarmist, like Mann and sources “hyping” the weather in support the “CAGW” meme (like TWC), use the a weather event, often past weather events are used in rebuttal.
Like you did in response to Mann. Countering the hype.

Gator
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 18, 2019 4:27 pm

I believe that most times that you see skeptics “confusing” weather with climate, it is done to mock alarmists. That has been my experience.

Reply to  Gator
September 18, 2019 6:06 pm

Yes, many skeptics use cold waves and snowfall as evidence that global warming isn’t occurring. That’s not good science either, but alarmists are the bigger problem.

Gator
Reply to  Chris Martz
September 19, 2019 8:22 am

You missed my point Chris, which leads me to believe you are missing the point of many skeptics who point to cold weather as climate as a way of illustrating the conflation of weather and climate found in the writings/ponderings/rantings of every alarmist. Often skeptics do this tongue in cheek, and assume that we will get the joke without a sarc tag. Can you show me examples of a skeptics seriously conflating weather and climate?

yirgach
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 19, 2019 8:26 am

weather is like the atmosphere’s mood, climate is the atmosphere’s personality

Or as someone put it:
The Climate Is What You Expect; The Weather Is What You Get

A synopsis of the history of this phrase is found here:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/06/24/climate-vs-weather/

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  yirgach
September 19, 2019 2:20 pm

“Here’s an analogy: weather is like the atmosphere’s mood, climate is the atmosphere’s personality. Both are prone to change, but on much different time scales.”

That is unquestionably the best analogy I’ve ever read – about anything.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
September 21, 2019 2:34 pm

Anthropomorphism is a way of expressing objective facts in a somewhat subjective manner.

Gunga Din
September 18, 2019 2:36 pm

(My previous comment hasn’t shown up yet. This is meant as a “PS” to it.)

For my little spot on the globe, Columbus Ohio, the record high for Sept. 13 was 95 set in 1897 and tied in 1939.
If you look at the current NWS records, you’ll see it listed as the record high 95, 1939.
They show the most recent tie as the year of the record now.
(To be fair, they seem to treat record low the same way.)
The year the record was set is not always what you see. You see the most recent year the high/low record was reached.

MarkW
September 18, 2019 5:26 pm

The same maroons who are proclaiming the current heat wave as proof of global warming were dismissing the record cold from this past winter as just weather.

Hypocrites, all of them.

observa
September 18, 2019 6:14 pm

They’re working hard on it-
“Simulating the conditions of a world long gone can make climate models – which scientists use to predict of the future of climate change – more accurate.”
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/a-new-model-of-the-earths-climate-50-million-years-ago-is-revealing-worrisome-clues-about-what-our-future-could-look-like/ar-AAHuXQI
Climastrology needs lots more stimulations like this to build a great edifice of climastrological models. That way the climastrologists can’t be accused of erroneously claiming settled science. Oh and send more grants for more fine tuning models.

observa
September 18, 2019 8:46 pm

Yowzah it’s unprecedented giant ice slabs forming an impenetrable turtle shell causing lots of runoff filling the oceans but wot could get under the slabs through crevasses and we’d all be doomed-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/something-strange-is-happening-to-greenlands-ice-sheet/ar-AAHuRth
Hold all the XYZocene stimulations for more accurate predictions with the current computer models as this is serious dooming stuff.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  observa
September 21, 2019 2:56 pm

In the course of a human lifespan, most cycles nature seem strange and frightening.

Coeur de Lion
September 18, 2019 11:02 pm

The dishonest BBC produced a TV programme recently called “Climate Change – the Facts” which was chortled at all over the blogosphere and jocularly renamed “Climate – Change the Facts”. It was a truly dreadful pack of lies and featured Mikey Mann. I asked the Beeb via complaints procedures whether they remembered Climategate and how could they spit in the face of their taxpayers by parading the most disgraced scientist on the planet. The answer was as you would expect.

Michael Spurrier
September 19, 2019 3:58 am

I was thinking of making and selling t-shirts “Blocked by Michael Mann” – even if only half the people bought them I could maybe retire……with a hockey stick type sales trend.

observa
September 19, 2019 7:00 am

Do you get the strong impression their science isn’t really that settled at all and it has stuff all predictive capability-

“Ultimately the whole design is to improve our models,” says Matthew Shupe, an earth scientist at the University of Colorado and NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory who will be on the expedition. “That’s why we’re out there. I think we’ll learn so much more about the physical processes that will help us in our predictive capabilities.”

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/scientists-are-about-to-spend-a-year-trapped-in-arctic-ice/ar-AAHvb7F

Kenny Smith
September 19, 2019 10:44 am

I have one hypothesis regarding choosing 1970 as the base start period. That is likely because of the systems that choose to do their calculations with are Unix/Linux based and thus uses the standard Epoch time. Rather than adjusting their code/programming to account for the default Date (such as in Java’s java.util.Date class), they chose to just start with 1/1/1970.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1090869/why-is-1-1-1970-the-epoch-time
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2533563/why-are-dates-calculated-from-january-1st-1970

observa
September 19, 2019 5:52 pm

You get glimpses of Green junk science all over the place as rapid technological advance with data gathering and number crunching exposes a dearth of like long term information and temperature proxies are the classic example of making it up. But you can’t make it up with whale numbers and there’s no proxies for the past other than whale kill numbers-

“The gray whale population could be the largest since whaling was ended in the 1940s. It’s possible that there are too many whales for the food that’s available.
It’s unknown whether there were similar die-off events before whaling began and whether this is part of a natural population cycle or something new. Scientists have no idea what the original gray whale population was before they began to be hunted for their blubber, which was made into oil for lamps.”
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/121-gray-whales-found-dead-on-beaches-cause-of-death-unknown/ar-AAHyn1v

Same story in Australia with Humpbacks crawling all over our coastline and the more threatened Southern Right numbers doubling every 10 years after the cessation of whaling. Basically the whales are saved everywhere (thank you fossil fuels) and have been for some time. Simple logic would tell you sooner or later their numbers would press on their food stocks and Nature would take its course on setting an upper bound for whale numbers.

But of course the great Green blob will be Hell bent on trying to pin every washed up whale on the evils of mankind but that will be a lot harder than tree ring circuses particularly as beachgoers get sick of the stinky carcases washed up. Rainbow Warriors your days are finished and now you have to get real jobs.

Editor
September 20, 2019 4:34 pm

Chris Martz ==> Very nicely done — informative and thorough.

%d bloggers like this: