Friday, January 20, 2017
Media worldwide report another "hottest year"
The report below is from a major Australian news source. Once again we have an example of how to lie with statistics. It appears to be true that ON AVERAGE, 2016 was unusually warm. But my favourite graph below shows that the warm months were all at the beginning of the year during the El Nino weather phenomenon. By the end of the year and the end of El Nino, temperatures had slumped, with December 2016 COOLER than December 2015 -- with an anomaly of 81 compared to 111 -- According to the NASA raw data here
And how sad for Australia's BOM, that they could only report that the year was only 4th hottest for Australia, Australia is a rather large lump of real-estate so the warming we are looking at is not exactly global is it?
Two amusing things to note below:
1). The high temperatures reported are nowhere in the article attributed to "climate change". The BOM know that what was at work was El Nino and not CO2 and have become too embarrassed to lie outright about it.
2). The BOM carefully define the record they are dealing with as: "the 137-year history of modern accurate and standardised meteorological observation". The point of that, of course is to avoid confronting the careful and validated 1790 observations of Watkin Tench, which show that Sydney has had near-unbearable hot temperatures long before the modern era
It's official: 2016 set another record for being the world's hottest. Three international agencies have confirmed today that last year was the hottest on record.
NASA reported that 2016 was 0.99 degrees Celsius hotter than the 20th-century average, while the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) called it at 0.94 degrees Celsius. NOAA also calculated that global land temperatures were 1.43 degrees Celsius higher. The UK Met Office, using its own data, also reported that 2016 is one of the two hottest years on record.
The figures vary slightly, depending on the baseline reference period used.
Heat records don't linger for long any more. 2016 surpassed the 2015 record, which surpassed the 2014 record. Three record hot years in a row sets yet another record in the 137-year history of modern accurate and standardised meteorological observation.
For Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology described 2016 as a "year of extreme events" and the fourth hottest at 0.87 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average. The warming trend is clear.
BOM's key 2016 climate facts and events
Australia is already on average 8 degrees Celsius hotter than the average global land temperature, so further warming means our heat risk is far greater than for other industrialised countries.
This dangerous warming trend sends a dire warning, as average warming delivers many more extreme heat events, as we're currently seeing in Queensland and New South Wales. These are the killers.
As Australia lurches from heatwave to heatwave, the message is clear: extreme heat is the new norm - so Australia needs to get "heat smart".
In Australia the number of days per year over 35 degrees Celsius has increased and extreme temperatures have increased on average at 7 per cent per decade.
Very warm monthly maximum temperatures used to occur around 2 per cent of the time during the period 1951-1980. During 2001-2015, these happened more than 11 per cent of the time.
This trajectory of increased temperature extremes raises questions of how much heat can humans tolerate and still go about their daily business of commuting, managing domestic chores, working and keeping fit.
Richard Muller's "Berkeley Earth" at least mentions El Nino
And they also admit that temperatures dropped in the second half of 2016.
But there's still some very squishy language below if you know what is going on. They say El Nino was "imposed on top of a long-term global warming trend that continues unabated". How can something be imposed on a trend? It can't. You could impose an El Nino effect on another source of warming, such as an increase in CO2, but the pesky fact is that there was a complete stasis in CO2 levels during the whole of the El Nino period. There was NO temperature rise traceable to anthropogenic global warming. The "imposed" claim is bunk.
And, rather hilariously, note the proud boast that Arctic temperatures are "interpolated" in their dataset -- "guessed", in other words. Their entire data body and claims derived from it are rubbish
2016 was the warmest year since humans began keeping records, by a wide margin. Global average temperatures were extremely hot in the first few months of the year, pushed up by a large El Nino event. Global surface temperatures dropped in the second half of 2016, yet still show a continuation of global warming. The global warming “pause”, which Berkeley Earth had always stressed was not statistically significant, now appears clearly to have been a temporary fluctuation.
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist with Berkeley Earth, said “The record temperature in 2016 appears to come from a strong El Nino imposed on top of a long-term global warming trend that continues unabated.”
In addition, 2016 witnessed extraordinary warming in the Arctic. The way that temperatures are interpolated over the Arctic is now having a significant impact on global temperature measurements. Zeke Hausfather, Scientist at Berkeley Earth said, “The difference between 2015 and 2016 global temperatures is much larger in the Berkeley record than in records from NOAA or the UK’s Hadley Centre, since they do not include the Arctic Ocean and we do. The arctic has seen record warmth in the past few months, and excluding it leads to a notable underestimate of recent warming globally.”
Headlines that claim storms, droughts, floods, and temperature variability are increasing, are not based on normal scientific standards. We are likely to know better in the upcoming decades, but for now, the results that are most solidly established are that the temperature is increasing and that the increase is caused by human greenhouse emissions. It is certainly true that the impacts of global warming are still too subtle for most people to notice in their everyday lives.”
MIT climate scientist on `hottest year'
Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences ridiculed the media hyped claims that 2016 was the "hottest year" on record. Lindzen was on The Howie Carr Show on January 18 to discuss "global warming" and the latest science and the political motivations behind the movement.
"What happens if your body temp goes up a tenth of a degree, how much do you worry about that? To imply that a rise of temperature of a tenth of a degree is proof that the world is coming to an end has to take one back to the dark ages."
"They are talking about temperature data that is rather uncertain. How do you average? You have to make adjustments. That gives them an opening, you can always adjust it up to a quarter of a degree and you will notice that all of the adjustments that are frequently made, always make the temperature seem steeper. They lower the low, they increase the high. In this case (hottest year) they had to depress the high in 1998 to make this one (2016) look a little larger.
But when you are finished you are talking about 2/10ths of degree. No one can feel it.
"As long as you can get people excited as to whether it's a tenth of a degree warmer or cooler, then you don't have to think, you can assume everyone who is listening to you is an idiot," he added, noting that "the temperature of the last 20 years is way below what any of the models predicted."
As to to 2/10ths of degree or a tenth of a degree, nobody can really feel it, not even the New York Times with their immense sensitivity," Lindzen joked. He also noted that "sea level rise has been going on for 10,000 years, what's the big deal?"
Adjusting data: "The whole point is so crazy because the temperature is always going up or down a little. What is astonishing is that in the last 20 years it hasn't done much of anything. What they don't mention is there has been a big El Nino in 2016 and in recent months the temperature has been dropping back into a zero trend level."
"There is a really simple test. If your data is uncertain, there will be corrections and roughly speaking it will be 50/50, one way the other way. When they are all in one direction, you know something is fishy.
"The hysteria over this issue is truly bizarre. It depends on who you are. If you are interested in big government, this is, they hope this is the easy way to nationalize energy. If you are less attuned to these policy issues, I guess it gives you something to believe in. It's a religion.
How long will "global warming" movement last?
"It's got to come to an end. It's doing so much damage. I mean we are really getting to the point where it's trillions of dollars of wasted money."
"I am surprised it lasted this long. I thought in 1988, when I saw this, I thought `this can't last.' I was mistaken. Between 1988 and 1993, the budget for broadly speaking climate science, went from $300 million to about $3 billion.
Greenland Glaciers putting on weight
Or so the latest data from the Danish meteorological organization show. The Danes take a close interest in Greenland because Greenland is under the Danish crown. Check the purple line below. Warmists usually love Greenland because you can at times see various changes there. So how awkward that Greenland, like Australia, is not co-operating with their claims of global warming
Obama admin injects another $500M into global climate fund
The Obama administration has made a second $500 million payment into an international climate change adaptation fund, the State Department announced Tuesday.
With the announcement, the Obama administration has now spent $1 billion on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) despite broad GOP opposition to U.S. financing for the fund.
The fund is the driving force behind a United Nations' goal to raise $100 billion to help poor countries adapt to the changing climate and cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
Obama in 2014 pledged $3 billion for the program by 2020, but he couldn't get congressional Republicans to agree to the plan.
Congress never appropriated money for the GCF, but lawmakers didn't explicitly block the State Department from finding funding for the program elsewhere in its budget, which is what the Obama administration did to pay for the two $500 million payments.
"The GCF is the world's largest multilateral finance institution dedicated to advancing low-emission, climate-resilient development," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement Tuesday.
"The GCF was created to help protect vulnerable populations and drive clean energy deployment, all with a special focus on engaging the private sector and mobilizing private capital."
President-elect Donald Trump opposes President Obama's climate work and has said he would "stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs." Senior Republicans on Capitol Hill also oppose the funding, raising doubts about future U.S. payments to the GCF.
Democrats on Tuesday, though, praised the State Department's payment to the GCF.
"These funds will help countries mitigate their climate change impacts and adapt to the devastating droughts, floods, and other weather extremes we are already experiencing," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement. "In helping to advance this global effort, it will serve our own national security interests."
"The Green Climate Fund is exactly the kind of international partnership we need to tackle this major challenge," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said.
"I thank President Obama for establishing America as a world leader on the frontlines of climate action and taking another major stride toward fulfilling America's $3 billion commitment to the fund."
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
Posted by JR at 1:29 AM