The LA Times pulls a Hillary Clinton
IT WAS THE RUSSIANS AND COMEY I SWEAR
For years, the global warming 'hiatus' from 1998 to 2012 puzzled scientists and fueled skeptics looking to cast doubt on…www.latimes.com
The LA Times published a long winded explanation of the climate Haitus I discussed yesterday in an article:
I graduated from MIT. This doesn’t make me a climate scientist or anything but I beg you to consider I am probably not an idiot at least as…medium.com
The LA Times addresses the same points I did remarkably but essentially they blame the Russians and Comey for the Haitus. They assure us that they did fine with their computer models. They look good. Just a hiccup.
The article says the hiatus is nothing but a blip in the long trend of global warming. They don’t actually show the “fine” results they claim. Here they are:
Yeah that left graph looks fine. Their predictions are absolutely looking good. Just like Newton or Einstein. NOT.
On the right you see a red and blue line. The blue line is the temperatures measured at a place called Alice Springs in Australia. The red line is how the Michael Mann LA Times scientists have “adjusted the apparently errant Alice Springs thermostat.” That is in centigrade on the left so the adjustment they make is 3C or 6F.
Alice Springs isn’t the only thermostat they adjust. Virtually every thermostat according to them has to be radically adjusted down in the past because they just all were made wrong I guess. They don’t explain it but with those complicated (they call them homogenization adjustments) they can double the amount of climate change over the last 100 years and they can make their models on the left look better.
The problem with the hiatus is that even with the adjustments they can’t get the models and the data to look like they match.
“A combination of changes in forcing, uptake of heat by the oceans, natural variability and incomplete observational coverage reconciles models and data,” the researchers from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland wrote. “Combined with stronger recent warming trends in newer datasets, we are now more confident than ever that human influence is dominant in long-term warming.”
What they mean by “stronger recent warming trends” is the El Niño of 2015/2016.
As you can see in the above chart the “stronger recent trends” is basically the same as the 1998 El Niño which did NOTHING to change the hiatus. The problem with using El Niño’s to time your alarmist screeds is that they go away really fast.
You have to move rapidly to scare people because the El Niño is followed by a La Niña which reverses the gain and if you don’t get people freaked and put out enough “The world is heating faster than ever” “It’s worse than ever we thought” articles to scare people then they will see the above graph and realize that actually that was the blip and things aren’t changing at all.
As you can see in the above graph temperatures have changed all of 0.4C in 40 years. However, even that choice of timeframes lends more credence to the global warming hysteria than is warranted. What is not shown is that the period after 1945 to 1979 was DOWN 0.1C. What’s surprising about that is that after 1945 CO2 output accelerated rapidly tripling immediately and going up like a rocket after WWII. Yet temperatures fell for 30 years. They don’t like to talk about that.
What that means is that over the 70 years from 1945–2015 the total temperature change from all the co2 is 0.35C or about 0.05C/decade.
They predict 3C more by 2100. Unfortunately at the rate we have been going for the last 70 years it will take 60 decades or 600 years to get 3C, not 60 years.
The rate of temperature change they predict has to be so great that we get the same 70 years of temperature change you see above every 10 years for the next 8 decades in a row without any hiatus anymore.
First, it’s not clear the hiatus has ended. The temperatures dropped massively this last month bringing as you can see the temperature much closer to the hiatus line. So, calling the end of the hiatus is a little premature.
Why do I say that? Several reasons. One is something they talk about a little in the LA Times article. The phenomenon of PDO/AMO which is related to El Niño and La Niña.
It seems that El Niño’s and La Ninas get more frequent every 30 years the climate goes through a phase change of some sort and we get more El Niño’s than La Ninas. Then for 30 years we get the reverse. The result is that the temperature of the Earth tends to get depressed for 30 years by 0.23C and for 30 years the temperature climbs 0.23C. This has been seen for over 300 years in the records.
The current down phase of this trend started in 2000 when the hiatus started and it will continue to 2030. In other words if history continues as it has which has beaten the computer models that didn’t predict a hiatus we will be in hiatus for at least 13 more years.
In fact it’s pretty clear that a good part or all of the reason that temperatures were flat / dropped between 1945–1975 was because of this phenomenon. That was the last down phase of this cycle.
What is remarkable too is that in 1960 about halfway into that down phase there was a large El Niño. It turns out that 60 years earlier in 1900 there was also a large El Niño. In other words the large El Niño in 2015 was predictable from the PDO/AMO theory but NOT from Michael Mann/LA Times computer model predictions.
The fact they even talk about this hiatus proves they don’t know what they are talking about. Yet as usual any article involving Dr Mann from Pennsylvania has to have the obligatory 97% of my fellow climate scientists agree with me that in order to keep getting funded to make these ridiculous predictions of ours that we are right and the Earth is wrong. There is no hiatus and if there is one the Russians and Comey did it.
I am so sick of the stupid claim that 97% of anybody believes this hokum I showed in the article below what all the surveys of scientists are about:
Awesome. I have never seen this study. Let’s look at what it says.medium.com
Essentially the 97% is something I would agree with too. They never ask the right question. What they ask is: Does the sky get dark at night? Guess what 97% agree. (There’s always 2–3% that will answer the other way on a survey because they’re nuts or maybe they checked the wrong box) Therefore, they conclude everyone agrees with us that we will never see the sun again and the world is ending. Hold your hats.
They say that 97% agree that the world is going to heat 3C in the next 80 years at a rate 4–10 times the rate of the last 80 years and that truly awesomely bad things will happen for sure.
You see we are right because science is done by polls. Copernicus asked others and they all agreed he was right … Oh wait, no, they jailed him. But I digress.
The point is that NOBODY agreed that the temperatures will go up like they predicted or that hugely bad things will happen as a result. They didn’t ask that question. They asked does CO2 have any effect on temperature? The answer: Yes. I agree too. It does. Is it going to raise temperatures 3C in 80 years? Hell, no. Will it raise temperatures by 0.4C again? Maybe. Will that be the end of the world? No.
Even the IPCC admits if temps don’t go up a lot the result is probably beneficial for the world. The little secret they don’t want to talk about is that it will be hugely beneficial to the world as the last 70 years of small heating has been for the world. The co2 in the atmosphere we have put has increased all life enormously. 2 studies from NASA document a 30% greening of the earth and our agriculture from the CO2 we put into the atmosphere.
The next 80 years is likely to be humanities best 80 years contrary to the alarmist projections which continue to fail to happen.