Widespread rainfall in December has soaked much of the soil in the Midwest, meaning virtually all drainage tiles from Iowa to Ohio are running off excess moisture. That raises concerns that additional moisture in the spring could slow planting by keeping farmers out of their fields. Source: Iowa State University. Search for:. Science Health Culture Environment. Share this Article. You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.
Opioid overdoses spike after cold snaps. Map: Heat-related deaths climate action could prevent. Stay Connected. There is nothing in t his world or the next they will not attribute to human fossil fuel use. Surely you know how this stuff works by now? This type of reporting is very common, and also ignores prior, similar historic events that obviously had nothing to do with humans. They rely on the limited ability of Greenies to actually address the science or review the history.
Just emotion and constant alarm bells ringing. News for juveniles. The cold outbreaks are breaking records because of all the energy behind cold core lows. At first fluctuations were believed to be to accommodate shipping- dredging St. Clair river. Then harbours needed deeper water. From high to low to high is a 40 year cycle.
- La communion de foi, Vol. 1. Croire et célébrer (French Edition);
- President Trump Trolling Climate Change Activists Again | Watts Up With That?;
- Profile of the International Filtration and Separation Industry: Market Prospects to 2009!
I live in the Detroit suburbs, and did notice one article, I think in the Detroit Free Press, on a weekend, that revealed the Great Lakes water level was back to normal. Probably buried in the article — that certainly was not part of the headline. Great Lakes water levels near record levels is of no interest to most people … unless there is a flooding story attached. For the national news, instead of telling us what happened in the world that day, there is far too much speculation on what is going to happen in the future — five minutes of wild guess predictions is better than five minutes of actual news?
I would strongly encourage folks to NOT read the article because the headline is biased, and the author apparently does not understand climate science. Brown could have shown that the cooling after an EL Nino could also be used as propaganda. Brown could have said that skeptics would never stoop to using an EL Nino to claim unprecedented cooling … … but of course that is exactly what he did with his headline, and opening sentences. And Brown provided no explanation of what an EL Nino was, at least in the version of the article I read days ago — I can no longer access the current version of the article.
Many people will read only the headline of an article. I probably read 10 headlines for every full article I read. If the article headline does not summarize the article, then the author is dishonest, or playing games. Aaron Brown is one of the two. So, marginally warmer than and leveling off?
Not only was the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. So we are now 2 years after this was written by NASA. Where is the updated temperature information with acknowledgement of the cooling? It was the warmest year on record, following two previous record years.
The current drop has only put temperatures back to where you would expect them to be given this global warming. Get with it, man. Thank you for doubling down on the hypocrisy Bellman. IMHO, not really. One is a record break temperature, the other is just a drop back to more normal temperatures. Neither are as important as the long term trend. Now you triple down on the hypocrisy. Since we have little idea what the actual temperature of the earth was prior to the satellite era, any claim of current temperatures vs year old temperatures is an excercise in hypocrisy. Once again, you are trying to pretend that the recent warming was something unusual.
Just another El Nino. Lion, I see that you know nothing about sampling theory. While it is true that we have had thermometers for hundreds of years, we would need well over 1 million of them scattered evenly across the globe including the oceans before we could even hope to start claiming that we know what the temperature of the earth was. Instead we have a few thousand, mostly in Europe and the eastern coast of N. We can however estimate global temperature to within a degree C, with a large margin error, based upon proxy data.
The latter was at least two degrees C warmer than now on a global average and perhaps nine degrees hotter in the Arctic. There are fascinating scientific issues concerning what is the physical explanation for the recent abrupt change to the mid-ocean seismic activity and the geomagnetic field. It is also fascinating that when there are in your face observational paradoxes that there is no news flashes that fields of science are in crisis. The geomagnetic field specialists have recently found that the geomagnetic field changes cyclically and abruptly correlating with past and now recent planetary temperature changes.
The changes in the field strength and the rate of change of the field are orders of magnitude larger than is possible for the assumed self-generating magnetic field model. There has been a sudden drop in mid-ocean seismic activity. Based on analysis of the record, there is a two-year lag in time from when the change in mid-ocean seismic activity occurred and when there was a change in planetary temperatures.
As detailed in those studies, increasing seismic activity in these submarine volcanic complexes is a proxy indicator of heightened underwater geothermal flux, a forcing mechanism that destabilizes the overlying water column.
The Curse of El Nino
This forcing accelerates the thermohaline circulation while enhancing thermobaric convection . This, in turn, results in increased heat transport into the Arctic i. It demonstrates completely how the thermageddonists are screeching about sod-all. Not even perceptible to human skin. My personal story is that climate change turned me into a newt. The observational that the periodicity of the cycle remains the same is one of the dozen observations that supports the assertion that solar changes caused the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet rather than earth based changes which are expected to be chaotic not cyclical.
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period. Thanks David. Wake me up when the oceans are boiling away.
Mr Middleton has no context. He seems to be confusing the statistical sampling of the global mean temperature, with a reading on a thermometer. Apples vs oranges Middleton. The average American family in consisted of 3. I can plot 3. I apologize to you Mr Middleton for going way over your head. PS Mr. Hence apples v oranges. An anomaly plotted solely against the anomaly range is about as misleading as it possibly could be.
Your second graphic is total garbage because,. This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. The range is suitably represented by the thermometer. A comment to everyone — please, when providing graphical or tabular data, provide the source of the graph or data — preferably a working link. Sorry about the lack of souces. Is that the reason? Brown stated in the article that you missed, which in itself is an indictment of the vast science illiteracy of people. This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.
He claims that the last two years have seen the fastest cooling event in the last years, and uses GISTEMP as the standard data set, but tellingly he does not show what this looks like on a graph. I, to be helpful, show what it look like on a graph. I pick on as YOU, who should know better about GISS being a bad database, as it is a well known pile of crap but YOU run on it over and over, making it seems that you really like that garbage database. Have you bothered to notice that I have NOT posted a comment about the articles claims as written by Brown, at all?
Careful now, this is my FIRST comment over what Brown writes, which you dishonestly ignored since people like you as he points out, drool exclusively over the warming events, trends and similar events that gets a lot of press, while cooling events and trends get nearly zero mentions. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years.
Does that make NASA a global warming denier?
YOU drone and on and on about warmest year on record babbles, while ignoring the main point of the article. His argument is that media is biased. But Brown does his argument no favors by basing it on a spurious claim of record breaking global cooling. GISS is hoist by its own petard.
The Curse of El Nino By Alain Normand
But your using trends now, and the claim that last two years have been a record breaking cooling event goes out the window if you do that. The strongest current two year cooling was 1. It also requires ignoring any context for the cooling. Please dont put up fake graphs on this site. The chart has no source or name to it, for all I can see and think that it could be a fake chart.
Why is it so hard for people to understand WHY source links needs to be posted with charts and tabular data? People like you were claiming that the recent ramp up in temperature was more evidence that CO2 was going to kill us all. Just as everyone predicted. I said people like you, not just you. Regardless, I see Bellman is now trying to claim that the previous hiatus was only due to the El Nino. The entire fable was based on the hockey stick and all the mainstream scientists, media, politicians all of the people supporting this hoax ran with the runaway greenhouse effect.
Stop pretending and moving the goalposts. BTW, tell me about how you heat your home, water, clean your clothes, get your food, travel, commute to work, etc. How much of that is supplied by oil and gas? Because, if it is more than zero which it definitely is, then you need to shut up until you show up. You people need to be the example of austerity to prove your faith to your religion, otherwise, you are just another feeble sheep parroting the high priests anti-human rhetoric.
You people are such a difficult breed to tolerate, and your unwillingness to question your faith is pathetic. Oh, by the way, before I actually started researching and reading about this whole crock, I actually was one of those believers. What is your excuse? Where did I say that? For example people pointed to 7 years of cooling starting in It only requires a cherry-picking mind set to find some cooling over a short period. By moving the goalposts, you mean criticizing the arguments used in the head posting? It was a genuine mistake and not intended as a sarcastic joke. I wish there was a way to edit posts here.
I admire your patience and courtesy in the face of comments such as you have received. You speak with reason, addressing the issue at hand, and differentiate between political and scientific. Did the laws of physics, as the climate cult understands them, decide to take some time off? Waiting to strike! Then, after a little shot of warming, it went quiet again, to lull us to sleep.
A devious little devil, CO2! Garbage science gushing forth from Eco-Socialist, government paid hacks. They should be on welfare. It would be better for society to keep them away from any work. What gives? Just trying to make sense of all this. Lies, damned lies etc. Try this thought experiment or actually do it. That graph demonstrates the CAGW lie that has been perpetrated on the unwitting people of the world. The raw data is the real temperatue profile, and then it was adjusted to make the temperatue profile look like it is just getting hoter, and hotter and hotter, in order to match the CO2 graphs climbing profile.
The people who fabricated this lie should be severely punished for defrauding the world. Do you honestly believe we know the global temperature in to one tenth of one degree? The Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever. Lon L. The author ignores the fact that the second chill was preceded by an equal warming, and that February is actually warmer than the end of the first chill. Whew, that was close! Headline had me nervous there for a minute. If you want UAH the argument that we have seen a record breaking 2 year drop fails as there have been bigger drops in and Almost all the warming since have been from Ocean events, which warmists ignore completely in their silly push to worship a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window.
Might as well party……. It goes without saying that this record breaking Big Chill is only the result of an even bigger two year big warming. From Feb to Feb there is a rise of 0. Yes Bellman, that warming was indeed fragile with no staying power despite CO2 ratcheting up. Good good catch!. If a third year of record cooling occurs, the much dreaded Pause, even though dispatched by a brutal adjustment by T Karl on the eve of his retirement, will have returned and extended and we will have the much admired Monckton charting it all out for us again.
Funny how you just got finished telling us how the heat from the El Nino was such a big deal. Now you are down playing it. He will say they come when CO2 and CH4 goes on vacation, which is why El-Nino fade and get a big cooling drop afterwards, then they get back on the job filling the pockets of dishonest alarmist researchers. I thought CO2 was supposed to prevent heat from escaping. How does the temperature fall so rapidly? Even the IPCC says so. CO2 will continue to rise.
Warming may continue for a bit as it has been taking place since at least with no assistance from us. People living in the upper Midwest probably noticed the cooling, in the form of feet of snow well into April of this year. What would the warming alarmists say then? What van I say. I knew it. Yeh but you are making the mistake of looking at all the data. The new way of measuring change is to only look at selected months. As it did the two decades of flat line. There is a warming trend, and there are short term fluctuations around that trend. Using a moving average to filter out the noise shows quite clearly that the warming trend has continued over the past two decades.
I notice you had to filter in the big El Nino in order to make it look like warming has continued. Nice trick. Also a jump from. The flat line from 06 to 14 on the chart, while the numbers bounce around from a low of. I may be innumerate, but I can detect a shell game. A 60 month running average can only be run up to — you need 5 years of data… This is the problem with most climatologists, they do not bother to understand how statistical procedures work.
It also is convenient to pick a time frame that artificially proves a point. This is not a moving average. How often will a moving average be a straight line?
Robert, a 60 month running average can be run up to 30 months ago. You also lose 30 months at the beginning of the graph. Your chart is illegal on two counts: it has a running average to the end, and we are discussing annual anomalies, which a 60 month running average cannot show. Even averaged like that, there is a long pause no statistically significant change in temperature. He has marked the endpoint of the period on the x-axis.
Here is my version, centered. Hmm, I see about 0. Is all the worry over 1 deg C over the next century? That table shows that there has been a 0. We all felt it right? They say is warmest. They say is top three. They say they expect to be top five. There were huge famines in the Sahel at the time, and serious concerns that the climate could be sliding towards a glacial state. Cold winters have higher mortality and increased energy expense that not everybody can pay. You can play mathematical games to further your agenda.
The planet is simply not warming much in the 21st century, and certainly a lot less than expected. Of course not. Temperature datasets are very much like religious books. People get all worked up that theirs is the only one telling the truth and all the others are lying. Yes, it is mathematical games because we know the reason of the temperature spike. If such a spike is in the second half of the period considered, you get a rising trend. If it is in the first half you get a decreasing trend. But in no case that will tell you anything about what the temperature of the planet is doing.
Getting a mathematically correct answer does not mean getting a scientifically relevant answer. Your conclusions are irrelevant. There is no or very little climatic warming in the 21st century. More data will show that. They are not very related. They just happen to be growing at the same time. Notice that another leg down of the year oscillation will clearly separate CO2 and temperature. Javier, on one side we have people who will be hurt by colder temperatures. On the other side we have all the people who are being hurt by policies allegedly put in place to fight global warming.
There is no such convention. It is ridiculous to think that climate change cannot be studied over periods shorter than 30 years. In fact there are a lot of papers about the climatic shift that took place on the Pacific in That was climate change on a single year. Because the Pacific climate actually changed that year. If you want to study differences in the rate of warming, you have to look at differences in the rate of warming. They do see a decrease in the 9-year warming rate in the first decade of the 21st century, that they identify as a Pause in global warming.
There are known to be climate cycles longer than 30 years. Using 30 years may or may not be the consensus, it is however meaningless. Would anyone care to provide me a synopsis so I can refresh my memory? I have difficulty navigating the pre-determined googlewebs to find an honest appraisal.
Actually that is the end of an El-Nino put in a funny way. Note that this chart also exhibits and overall upward trend, showing that over time, the rate at which warming has occurred has been increasing.
El Niños to strengthen because of global warming, will cause 'more extreme weather', study says
And yes, thirty years is a standard convention used as a rule of thumb for delineating climate from weather. This is something you can easily verify by doing a quick google search. The reason for using a longer period moving average is because it is better suited for identifying long term trends like a warming climate.
Err, not really. First you have to trust temperature records from the 19th century, which nobody really does. What the graph shows for the 20thst centuries is a 60 year oscillation, and the oscillations are not significantly different. The difference is too small to be sure that there is a rising trend in warming rates. Of course climatic phenomena can be observed on shorter time scales, and climate is more meaningful at much longer time scales, ie centuries, millennia, tens, hundreds, thousands and millions of millennia.
Note that the climate taken over different periods of time 30 years, years may be different. The old saying is climate is what we expect and weather is what we get. That is the recommended period by the WMO to average variables for comparison purposes. When in the new normal becomes , a lot more blue will suddenly show up on the historical reconstruction, satellite and balloon charts. We knew the temperature of the earth to within 0. No one else does or ever has done. Except that nobody cares about the year convention. Things like for example:. So the IPCC definition is recognizing what researchers are doing.
They pick any period that suits them. So what? These two unprecedented drops in our short record of weather after the large spike at the beginning of demonstrate a powerful effect contrary to the inexorable rise hypotheses of CAGW. And even the temperature numbers shown in your chart are to the hundredth of a degree?
We have article after article claiming the global temps are going up or going down based on data that is not to be believed in the first place. It was the nail in the coffin for my religious ferver. It is pure sophism. I understand that as skeptics we need to argue based on the best data we can, even in the adjustocene, but it really strikes me as arguing from ignorance. The proxies are just that, and even those are riddled with inconsistency and questions. It is all one big ridiculous waste of time, but unfortunately, the misanthropic savages want us all dead, as long as it is not them.
Not very scary at all. Also remember that most of that warming is a in the polar regions where they could use some warming; and b overnight lows, which only help to extend growing seasons. A tiny drop in temperature in the surface waters of the Arctic ocean could result in extensive new ice in that region.
This could easily come about due to greater heat loss from more open water. A drop in Arctic temperatures would be sufficient to wipe out virtually all of the warming we have seen in the last 30 years. As Arctic ice extent has stopped shrinking and the key, multi-year ice is increasing, this is what I expect is about to happen.
This is unfortunate as warming is much, much better for people and the planet. They have a chronic mental health issue that seems to affect Greenies and Socialists, aggravated by their eagerness to use the bluntest instruments possible to achieve compliance and any means at their disposal, especially including lies, to bludgeon any who dare question.
So cooling because it is warming? Marmocet, Well, to put things in context, from through we were being told that every year was warmer than the preceding one, and through were the warmest years in recorded history. The momentum has been lost and nothing is being said about it. WOW and this is with the massaging of figures to show a warming so I am guessing the drop is bigger than illustrated. The point being made is that whilst anything catastrophic, or apparently catastrophic according to the catastrophe obsessed MSM is sensationalised, they entirely ignore what they claim they want to see, evidence of cooling.
Meaningless, but that would be the equivalent of a rise of 6. Evidence would mean a long term trend, looking at all the data that showed a significant negative trend. The trend over the last two years is irrelevant, and in any case not a record. The term hiatus was coined by, I believe, an alarmist scientist, so there is at least some acknowledgement there. The conclusion being, that you want it both ways.
On the one hand you condemn short term fluctuations, on the other hand, you use them to make catastrophic predictions. Make up your mind. The point I was trying to make is that the 0. If anyone based a prediction for a years on a few months, they are an idiot.
- The United States and Argentina: Changing Relations in a Changing World (Contemporary Inter-American Relations).
- Trump trolls the warmists | Watts Up With That?.
- El Niño can be a blessing or curse for Midwest crops - Futurity.
- Bilingual Book in Japanese and English: Pig Learn Japanese for Kids (Japanese Edition).
Adjustments actually reduce the amount of historical global warming. Large portions of Africa and South America also do not have any accurate temperature records. Way quicker and greater than this one. I would like to know why. Due to the low solar activity and meridional jet stream. A single temperature for an event like an el Nino seems pretty silly to me. It says nothing about the area of water involved, the depth of the anomaly, the shape of it.
It says nothing about the rate at which winds are removing heat from the surface and it says nothing about the humidity. It is just a single, pretty irrelevant number. The Warmistas love it! Difference of half a degree, but in less time. The drop in was interrupted by a nascent second weak El Nino. By contrast, in , a La Nina followed the strong El Nino. Just WX, not climate. Alan Tomalty May 17, at pm When we start seeing some blue again in the UAH chart then maybe some warmists will wake up. Praying for blue? Actually see blue?? Look through the wrong end of the telescope much?
Reminds me of a great Split Enz song…. For example, the anomaly in the GISS dataset cited above went from -. Also, limiting this to the last years conveniently the bigger 24 month drop of years ago. From February to February , a drop of 0. The idea that we know what the temperature of the earth was to a degree C years ago is utter nonsense. Only those with an agenda would push such nonsense. Please go on.
Press only discusses those subjects that are deemed politically acceptable. We all know. The audience will be familiar with the Framingham study, which actually is a study of cardiovascular health, which has been going on now for 40 to 50 years. The bad news story is that overall the number of people with dementia around the world is increasing and is likely to increase. Because there is probably a levelling off or even a slight decline in these people.
Unfortunately in the low and middle income countries, this decline is not likely to happen very soon, in fact at this point, there is some suggestion that the rates may be increasing to some extent because of certain risk factors. Not mine….. SO FAR they have prevailed. Space based lenses, mirrors, and shades will give humanity the ability to cool or heat the planet as warranted. This article is nonsensical.
I think you miss the point. In other words it is intentionally as nonsensical as all that nonsense which you seem to have had no problem with. The warmunists and their parrots in the media will use a temporary El Nino peak for warming headlines. We skeptics should not use a temporary EL Nino peak for cooling headlines, as this article does … or else we are just as dishonest as the warmunists. It dropped. He is a bit shrill, but is fairly good at documenting the problems with infill and adjustments.
Well, Aaron Brown apparently has trouble with basic subtraction. In those utterly meaningless terms, it looks like the warming far exceeded the cooling. Maybe the T-diff was 0. The figures always have minor changes a few months after the initial publication as more data comes in. Maybe the article was more about the MSM utterly ignoring something worthy of at least curiosity. Brown is referring to. Do you recall having to get out your long johns in June after putting them away in February. Feb was the warmest February ever recorded, June was the 2nd warmest June ever recorded 2nd only to June by 0.
And of course we all know that was the warmest year ever recorded, with the 2nd warmest. Its hard to believe that even WUWT could publish this nonsense. But I can find examples of this not being exceptional. For example, greater drops over exactly one year, such as by. And drops well over. I found a drop over exactly 2 years greater than. So, per Willis E, Minister of Statistical Reality, posted on daily, monthly, annual, and decadal Pacific regulation of temperature, the El Nino caused some heat energy to go poleward and radiate out.
This followed by relax to previous ,5 levels. But Bob Weber has data showing ocean cooling since , so the temp may just keep falling, into a 30 yr Micro IceAge. This slide into cold is showing up in German weather station records where the last 30 yrs of winter DJF are trending dgC per yrs, much faster than the slow decline to normal glacials. Place your bets early, heh. It is always telling they use the most adjusted pile of crap not realizing the junk it has become.
Meanwhile that big temperature drop after El-Nino slinked away, seem to say that the magic molecule failed to keep it hot, HOT! How can it cool down so fast with all those heat swallowing CO2 and CH4 milling around ready to gobble it up? If you take each individual day of the year for average maximum daily temperature. Since CO2 is supposed to be a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, you cant have global warming in the rest of the world and NOT have global warming in a land mass as large as the US.
But it is useless to argue with people like Bellman because global warming is a religion to them and we will all fry in hell or drown in the seas because of global warming. Maybe we should build an air conditioned ARK. That would only be true if there were no natural cycles capable of moving heat from one part of the globe to another.
US and with infilling you can have any temperature you want, with no way to verify or falsify the wild guesses made by government bureaucrats! Yes recently in the US that was a warming period but if you look back at the s the US had temperatures so hot we havent seen since. Hansen shows as being 0. That makes sense and the historical record shows that other parts of the world closely track the temperatures in the United States. Unaltered charts from all over the world show the same temperature profile as the U.