Warmist Phil is back! And all warmed up by January
I always enjoy Phil Plait's evasions but he is getting cleverer about them.
The NOAA/NASA figures show that January was unusually hot globally. Accepting that as true and not just another "fiddle", the interesting question becomes what caused it. Phil of course thinks it is all due to CO2 in the air. But there are other explanations and Phil cannily mentions both the major ones in order to discount them: The influence of El Nino and the extraordinary warming in the Arctic.
But he gives no reasons for discounting them. He quotes Gavin Schmidt saying that El Nino had only a minor effect but that is just a guess on Schmidt's part. There's no way of proving it. After the previous El Nino there was a big temperasture fall in the subsequent year. That surely indicates that an El Nino has a BIG effect.
And I have already said something about the Arctic yesterday. Temperatures there are so different that they clearly march to a different drummer and should therefore be adjusted out of the global figures. The Arctic is big and its temperatures were extraordinarily high so adjusting it out would knock the global average temperature down substantially.
But, finally, the killer for Phil: Cape Grim levels of CO2 have not yet been released for January 2016 but they are available for the previous 4 months of 2015. And they are remarkably flat, hovering around 398 ppm. So, contrary to Phil, the big changes he describes CANNOT be due to CO2 -- as CO2 levels show no such change.
How frustrating for Warmists: When CO2 levels were going up, temperature wasn't and now that temperatures are going up, CO2 levels aren't. Pretty poor synchrony for an alleged causal relationship. Warmists can't take a trick.
Hot enough for ya? It should be: January 2016 was the hottest January globally since records began in 1880. And it didn’t just edge out the previous record holder for January, it destroyed it.
The temperatures used here are land and ocean measurements analyzed by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, using NOAA temperature measuring stations across the world. These are extremely high quality and reliable datasets of global temperature measurements—despite the fallacious cries of a few.
If you want to see how temperatures have changed over time, it’s useful to compare them to an average over some time period. GISS uses the dates 1951–1980; it takes all the temperatures over that range for a given month, averages them, then subtracts that number from the average temperature measured for a given month. This forces the monthly range of 1951–1980 to give an average equal to 0, which is used as the baseline. You can then easily read off how much monthly temperatures deviate from that average, which is called the temperature anomaly; if a month is colder than usual for that month in the data, that shows up as a negative anomaly. If it’s warmer, the anomaly is positive.
The global temperature anomaly for January 2016 was 1.13° Celsius. That makes it the hottest January on record (the previous record was 0.95° C in 2007). But there’s more: 1.13° is the largest anomaly for any month since records began in 1880. There have only been monthly anomalies greater than 1°C three times before in recorded history, and those three were all from last year. The farther back in the past you go, the lower the anomalies are on average.
Yes, the world is getting hotter.
On the blog Hot Whopper (and on ThinkProgress) it’s shown that a lot of January’s anomaly is due to the Artic heating up far, far more than usual, as it has been doing for some time. The temperature map at the top of this post makes that clear.
Look at how much warmer the Arctic is! Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice was at a record low extent in January 2016 as well, more than 1 million square kilometers lower than the 1981–2010 average. But almost the whole planet was far hotter in January 2016 than the 1951–1980 average.
A lot of deniers will say this is a statistical fluctuation; sometimes things are just hotter. That is utter baloney. If that were true, you’d expect just as many record cold days/months/years as warm ones. Two Australian scientists looked into this and found record hot and cold days were about even … until the 1960s, then hot days started outpacing cold ones, and from 2000 to 2014 record heat outnumbered record cold by a factor of 12 to 1.
As it happens, we’re in the middle of an El Niño, an event in the Pacific Ocean that tends to warm surface temperatures. This is also one of if not the most intense on record. Some of that record-breaking heat in January is due to El Niño for sure, but not all or even a majority of it. As I pointed out recently, climate scientist Gavin Schmidt showed that El Niño only accounts for a fraction of a degree of this heating. Even accounting for El Niño years, things are getting hotter.
The root cause is not El Niño. It’s us. We’ve been pumping tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the air every year for decades. That gas has trapped the Earth’s heat, and the planet is warming up.
Several of the months in 2015 were the hottest on record, leading to 2015 overall being the hottest year ever recorded (again, despite the ridiculously transparent claims of deniers). Will 2016 beat it? We can’t say for sure yet, but judging from January, I wouldn’t bet against it.
They're just guessing
Another study showing a large range in the estimated sensitivity of the climate to increased CO2. It's not remotely settled science when the estimated effects differ by up to 200%
Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity evaluated using high-resolution CO2 records
M. A. Martínez-Botí et al.
Theory and climate modelling suggest that the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to changes in radiative forcing could depend on the background climate. However, palaeoclimate data have thus far been insufficient to provide a conclusive test of this prediction. Here we present atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) reconstructions based on multi-site boron-isotope records from the late Pliocene epoch (3.3 to 2.3 million years ago). We find that Earth’s climate sensitivity to CO2-based radiative forcing (Earth system sensitivity) was half as strong during the warm Pliocene as during the cold late Pleistocene epoch (0.8 to 0.01 million years ago). We attribute this difference to the radiative impacts of continental ice-volume changes (the ice–albedo feedback) during the late Pleistocene, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is identical for the two intervals when we account for such impacts using sea-level reconstructions. We conclude that, on a global scale, no unexpected climate feedbacks operated during the warm Pliocene, and that predictions of equilibrium climate sensitivity (excluding long-term ice-albedo feedbacks) for our Pliocene-like future (with CO2 levels up to maximum Pliocene levels of 450 parts per million) are well described by the currently accepted range of an increase of 1.5 K to 4.5 K per doubling of CO2.
Nature 518, 49–54 (05 February 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14145
Coral ecosystem adapts to global warming
One of the great shrieks of the Warmists is that warming will destroy coral reefs. There have, however, been plenty of reports showing that not to be so. Latest below
Researchers in New Caledonia have uncovered a new type of coral ecosystem that may already be genetically adapted to global warming conditions.
This has sparked fresh hope for the future survival of coral reefs, after warnings from Pacific Island leaders in recent years about the impact of climate change on these important ecosystems.
French and Australian scientists studied a mangrove area on the west coast of New Caledonia and found corals thriving in warm and acidic waters.
Associate Professor from the University of Technology in Sydney, David Sugget said the new coral ecosystem provides an undiscovered source of genetic diversity.
"What we found in New Caledonia just totally blew us away, we saw almost 30 percent coral cover within the mangrove system, which is absolutely unprecedented," he explained.
"In fact, some reefs worldwide struggle to maintain 30 percent coral cover. Within that coral cover there were at least 20 species."
David Sugget said researchers have been trying for years to figure out how to assist corals adapt to changing climate conditions and mother nature may already have provided the answer.
Obama orders Pentagon, generals and admirals to make climate change Job One
Military triumphs and catastrophes have often hinged on how well (or luckily) armies and navies employed, avoided or benefited from weather and other natural events.
Severe storms helped the British navy defeat Spain’s Armada in 1588. George Washington knew horrid weather meant the Hessians would not expect an attack across the Delaware River on Christmas 1776.
Napoleon captured Moscow before leading his Grande Armée’s exhausted, starving, freezing remnants back to France through a bitter 1812 Russian winter. Hitler’s army never even reached Moscow; it was decimated by disease, starvation, bullets and frigid cold at Stalingrad 140 years later.
Eisenhower’s Normandy invasion plans anticipated a full moon that would illuminate bomber targets and bring low tides to expose German mines and obstacles along the beaches. Instead, overcast skies limited Allied air support – but persuaded the Nazi high command that no invasion would occur for several days. So senior officers stayed in Germany, leaving their army unprepared for D-Day, June 6, 1944.
Throughout history, commanders discovered that trying to predict the weather – or their enemies’ resolve – was fraught with peril. Even today, accurate weather forecasting is a highly uncertain science, even a few days in advance, especially for hurricanes or winter blizzards in Mid-Atlantic states where winds, storm tracks, temperatures and moisture are affected by the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Arctic.
But now President Obama wants to compound his social experimentation with the military, by ordering the Pentagon brass to focus not on imminent weather events surrounding battle plans – not on threats from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, ISIL, Hamas and other real hot spots – but on climate change years or decades in the future. He wants to replace Remember the Alamo with Remember the Climate!
Mr. Obama has issued an executive order directing the Department of Defense (and all other federal government agencies) to make preparing for global warming impacts a top priority, and treat climate change as our most serious national security threat. He even warned 2015 Coast Guard Academy graduates that “denying” climate change is a “dereliction of duty.” You can’t make this stuff up.
The EO directs the Pentagon to order all military commanders, down to battle planning levels, to include climate change analyses in combat planning, training exercises, intelligence gathering, weapons testing and procurement, fuel types and use, and practically every other aspect of military operations. This could include restrictions on the type and duration of training flights, amphibious landings and tank maneuvers.
It is sheer lunacy. It means bureaucrats and new layers of armed forces bureaucracies will waste time and money, and ignore real weapons and training issues. It means soldiers and sailors must now focus less on real natural and humanitarian disasters, and more on “climate refugee crises” that exist only in computer models, ivory tower studies and White House press releases. It could affect combat readiness and morale, make our warriors less prepared for warfare, and put them at greater risk of injury and death.
Other Obama orders forced the Air Force to spend $59 a gallon for “renewable” jet fuel and $67 per gallon for camelina-based F-22 Raptor fuel – and the Navy to spend $27 per gallon for biofuels from algae, waste grease and animal fat, and $424 a gallon for 20,000 gallons of “sustainable” diesel fuel. All that when conventional gasoline, diesel and jet fuel sell for $2.00-$3.50 per gallon (thanks to fracking)!
Like the other social experiments, this is being imposed by political operatives with little or no military service, few kids in the military, and minimal concern about how these policies, multiple deployments and stretched-to-the-breaking-point budgets might affect military readiness, morale, safety and families.
Even more absurd, the orders are based on pseudo-science and indefensible assumptions that carbon dioxide now drives climate change, and we have the knowledge and ability to predict climate shifts, extreme weather and related disasters years or decades in advance. Basing defense policies on these notions is ridiculous and dangerous. It’s like Eisenhower using tarot cards to predict Normandy weather.
The IPCC, EPA and White House continue to rely on still “murky” science, climatologist John Christy recently told the Senate Space and Science Subcommittee, “with large uncertainties on many crucial components, such as cloud distributions and surface heat exchanges.” This and other deficiencies cause predictions to be notoriously disconnected from Real World temperatures and weather events.
Contrary to those predictions, instead of rising a degree or more, average global temperatures have flat-lined for 19 years. Instead of more hurricanes, not a single category 3-5 hurricane has struck the U.S. mainland since November 2005 (a record ten-plus years). “Moisture conditions have not shown a tendency to have decreased (more drought) or increased (more large-scale wetness),” Dr. Christy noted.
Climate models still focus on manmade carbon dioxide and ignore most of the powerful, interconnected natural forces that have always driven climate and weather. In fact, “the theory of how climate changes, and the associated impact of extra greenhouse gases, is not understood well enough [for models] to even reproduce the past climate,” Dr. Christy explained to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. There is no way they can forecast future climates, and they have failed to do so.
Climate models pay minimal attention to significant effects of land use changes and major high-impact fluctuations like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Niño and La Niña) and North Atlantic Oscillation, University of Delaware climatology professor David Legates observes.
Adds Weatherbell forecaster Joe D’Aleo: they also disregard variations in the sun’s energy output; the important effects of the sun’s ultraviolet output, geomagnetic activity and cloud-enhancing cosmic rays; and the cyclical interplay of cold and warm water pools in our oceans, which significantly influence the severity of winters in Eurasia and North America (as just one example). All these factors affect weather and climate. They assume any warming is dangerous, rather than beneficial for people and agriculture.
Additional reasons for grossly deficient climate models are their “overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques,” and the fact that decadal and century-scale circulation changes in the deep oceans “are very difficult to measure and are not yet well enough understood to be realistically included in the climate models,” says Colorado State University weather and hurricane analyst Bill Gray.
Reliable predictive capabilities require that we end our obsession with carbon dioxide as the primary driver of climate change – and devote far more attention to studying all the powerful forces that have always driven climate change, the roles they play, and the complex interactions among them.
And yet, Christy noted ruefully, “demonstrably deficient models are being used to make policy.” That has been disastrous for domestic sectors, like coal and manufacturing. It could be lethal for military forces.
One can easily imagine how Gilbert and Sullivan would treat this insanity in an updated HMS Pinafore:
Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to be admirals at the DOD,
If your soul isn't fettered to the White House fools,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule:
Heed the climate models and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of Obama’s Navee!
The revised D’Oyly Carte lyrics notwithstanding, Mr. Obama continues to use climate change to justify his drive to fundamentally transform our economy, society, military, and energy, legal and constitutional systems. Equally ominous, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders share his obsession and objectives.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon brass and line officers must battle these climate directives as forcefully as they would any of the real dangers that face our nation and world. So must we all.
U.S. science teachers cool to global warming theory
So why do half of adult Americans not believe humans are changing the climate? A Penn State researcher went looking in the nation’s classrooms. But not at the students. Eric Plutzer asked what their science teachers believe.
Plutzer’s survey of 1,500 middle and high-school science teachers found they are cool to global warming theory. Specifically:
* While most do teach about climate change, 30 per cent of teachers in the survey said they emphasize that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes.” This is sharply different from what actual climate scientists say.
* Another 12 per cent downplay the human role, or never mention it at all, the survey found.
Plutzer wondered why this happens and dug deeper. “It doesn’t seem to be parents or administrators, as very few teachers reported external pressure not to teach climate change,” says the journal Science, which published his study in Friday’s edition.
Plutzer writes that American science teachers “may not be very knowledgeable about a wide range of evidence,” such as the carbon dioxide measurements from ice cores that span a long time.
His science teachers were also unaware that almost all climate scientists agree humans are changing the climate. Only 30 per cent of middle-school and 45 per cent of high-school science teachers think that a large majority of climate scientists believe this.
The teachers least likely to teach that humans cause climate change are the ones who also feel government shouldn’t interfere in our personal lives, the study found.
Al Gore’s global warming doomsday passes uneventfully
Do you feel the heat? Do you see the clouds are gone and the sky is glowing red?
Ten years ago, on Jan. 25, 2006, Al Gore stood before his Sundance audience at the screening of his “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore waved his quivering finger in the air and told his audience that unless the world takes drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the next 10 years, we will reach a point of no return.
Gore said our CO2 emissions would cause Earth to go into a runaway heat death.
The Washington Post reported Al Gore “believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”
CBS News wrote Gore predicted the earth would be in “a true planetary emergency” within the next 10 years unless drastic action is taken to reduce greenhouse gases.
Gore’s people have been singing like the Donkey in “Shrek,” “I believe, I believe.”
Eco-freak groups have tried in vain to save the planet from our CO2. Don’t they know it’s too late? It’s over? We’re done for? Nothing they can do now can save Earth. Al Gore said so. They can relax now and enjoy the heat before we all perish.
Could it be that Al Gore is mistaken? That cannot be. If Gore is wrong then he has betrayed millions of global warmers. They have devoted their lives to Al Gore. Their devotion is their religion. Because global warming is their religion, they cannot hear, see, or touch any evidence that might prove their religion is wrong.
But. But. But.
Unless there are no more clouds in the sky and no more snow on the ground, then Al Gore is wrong. You know what Richard Feynman said about the scientific method: If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong.
And if you reject the scientific method then you reject true science. Unless you reject your hypothesis that our CO2 causes global warming (or climate change) then your belief is a religion, not science.
You see, Al Gore believed the climate models. But climate models are not reality. Models are but an attempt to simulate reality. We must test models against reality. If the models’ predictions are wrong then the climate models are wrong.
According to the average of climate model predictions, Earth’s global temperature has risen 0.7 degrees centigrade since 1980. No wonder it’s so hot and there is no snow in Washington, D.C.
But wait. That is a model prediction, right? A model prediction is not reality, right?
Have you ever witnessed an incorrect weather prediction? Now you have witnessed an incorrect climate prediction.
The blue circles and green squares show the real data. They show the earth’s global temperature is only 0.2 degrees centigrade higher than in 1980. Al Gore is wrong. The climate models are wrong. The hypothesis that our CO2 causes global warming is wrong. Checkmate.
Isn’t it time the ecofreaks check their climate religion at the door and wake up to reality? If they did, they would save the world a lot of money.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here