Weather Channel Torpedoes Neo Nazi Breitbart’s Climate Lies

December 6, 2016

Weather Channel:

CLAIM: “Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.”

TRUTH: This number comes from one satellite-based estimate of temperatures above land areas in the lower atmosphere. Data from the other two groups that regularly publish satellite-based temperature estimates show smaller drops, more typical of the decline one would expect after a strong El Niño event.

Temperatures over land give an incomplete picture of global-scale temperature. Most of the planet – about 70 percent – is covered by water, and the land surface warms and cools more quickly than the ocean. Land-plus-ocean data from the other two satellite groups, released after the Breitbart article, show that Earth’s lower atmosphere actually set a record high in November 2016.

CLAIM: “It can be argued that without the El Niño (and the so-called “Pacific Blob”) 2014-2016 would not have been record warm years.” (David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Foundation, quoted by Breitbart)

TRUTH: NOAA data show that the 2014-16 El Niño did not even begin until October 2014. It was a borderline event until mid-2015, barely above the El Niño threshold. El Niño clearly added to the strength of the record global warmth observed since late 2015. However, if the El Niño spike is removed, 2016 is still the warmest year on record and 2015 the second warmest, according to climate scientist Zeke Hausfather (Berkeley Earth).

Global surface temperature trends for the period 1966-2015 analyzed for El Niño years (red boxes), La Niña years (blue boxes), and neutral years (black boxes), along with volcanic years (gold triangles). The three trend lines show that global temperature has been rising at a fairly consistent rate of about 0.15 – 0.17°C (0.27 – 0.31°F) once La Niña and El Niño departures are factored out. (Berkeley Earth)

CLAIM: “Many think that 2017 will be cooler than previous years. Myles Allen of Oxford University says that by the time of the next big United Nations climate conference, global temperatures are likely to be no warmer than the Paris COP in 2015. This would be a strange thing to happen if, as some climate scientists have claimed, recent years would have been a record even without the El Niño.” (David Rose, U.K. Daily Mail, quoted by Breitbart)

TRUTH: There is nothing unusual about a drop in global surface temperatures when going from El Niño to La Nina. These ups and downs occur on top of the long-term warming trend that remains when the El Niño and La Niña signals are removed. If there were no long-term trend, then we would see global record lows occurring during the strongest La Niña events. However, the last year to see global temperatures hit a record low was 1911, and the most recent year that fell below the 20th-century average was 1976.

For an even deeper dive on the science, we recommend the blog by our experts.

Finally, to our friends at Breitbart: The next time you write a climate change article and need fact checking help, please call. We’re here for you. I’m sure we both agree this topic is too important to get wrong.

Advertisements

14 Responses to “Weather Channel Torpedoes Neo Nazi Breitbart’s Climate Lies”

  1. Tom Bates Says:

    If you want to lie just claim you are fact checking. The drop is real in one satellite data source so that was true. No falsehood there, the most you can claim is the other data sources show a smaller drop.

    the claim from the AGW crowd is the temperature always goes up. When it goes down the liar writing this rebuttal says that is normal weather, Who is lying here?

    Just more distortions and lies from the left. Actual measurement of CO2 warming, is 0.034F. Per NASA modeling of changes in earths tilt and orbit it is going to be warmer for the next 25000 years with or without CO2. Nevermind we are still colder than in 1000 AD unless trees under a glacier in Alaska that old grew under the ice which is unlikely.


    • Tommy Poo,

      So when are you going to apologize for your lies about NASA/GISS, lies that I called you out on *months* ago?

      Note to management:

      May I suggest that you consider banning Tommy Poo until he retracts (and apologizes for) the many lies he has told here?

      I know that he has, in the past, served as a good “punching bag” thanks to the ease in which his false claims can be refuted. But he has long outlived his usefulness in that respect.

      IMO, it’s high time to dump him into the Bozo bin and seal the lid shut.

  2. 1happywoman Says:

    I second the request that Tom Bates be banned.

    I mostly don’t sign up for notifications on comments because I don’t like a cluttered inbox. But I do like to look back at recent posts and see what conversations have ensued.

    When I see a post with a high number of comments, I don’t bother to look, because 20+ comments generally means Bates has commented, and everybody else has felt obliged to jump in to refute his half-truths and fanciful “facts” so less-well-informed visitors won’t be misled. As a result, the quality of the discourse is crap.


  3. Question is, do consumers of Breitbart watch the weather channel? And if they did, would they consider it leftist propaganda?

    • Karl Wirth Says:

      Which would be ironic, as in the deniers have often enjoyed trotting out and propping up John Coleman -, “Founder of the Weather Channel’ – as an esteemed debunker of global warming!

  4. Ron Voisin Says:

    Do you guys even imagine to think about the ramifications of your recommendations?

    Not one has commented on the substance of his comments other than your disagreement. And on the sole basis of your disagreement…you request that he be banned.

    Are you really sure that you think people should be banned on the sole basis of your disagreement with their opinion?


    • Voisin,

      Bates is a pathological liar — I called him out on one of his whoppers *months* ago, and even proved he was lying with my own analysis of global temperature data — see https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/26/exxonknew-and-chose-to-lie/#comment-84594 for details.

      In particular, take the time to look at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pXYsr8qYS6Y3hyQ1ZnamxVMWM/view

      Compare that plot, which was generated with data from just 30 randomly-chosen rural stations, with the Tommy Poo’s claims that I responded to (first link above).

      Bates has never responded to my challenges, even after *two dozen* requests that he do so.

      So read all the material above, and then come back and tell me that I haven’t addressed the substance of his lies.

    • mboli Says:

      First of all, half of each of his posts is the same copy-pasted total nonsense. When you see the ‘per NASA’ part, you know he has stopped talking at all about the current topic, and just repeating easily disprovable nutty stuff. Over and over again.
      Second of all, the first half of each of his posts is usually dumb beyond belief. Today’s post is premised — he is explicit about it — that global warming implies temperatures should be monotone increasing. Of course nobody claims that. His claim that this bit of temperature data showed a decrease, therefore global warming isn’t happening, is so badly constructed that he should be embarrassed.
      Bates isn’t *trying* to engage with the topic. He isn’t engaging with anyone here. It is a pro-forma insult to the readers.
      *That* is why people want him banned. Unfortunately people respond, feeding the troll. If he showed the slightest inclination to actually engage on the topic, there would possibly be spirited debate. He doesn’t, and there isn’t.


    • Mr. Voisin,

      I responded with exactly the kind of substance you claim you want to see. Do you have any questions about the material I posted? Any response at all?


    • Paging Mr. Voisin, paging Mr. Voisin….

      You wanted substance and I brought you substance — even served up on a silver platter for you.

      Are you going to respond?

  5. andrewfez Says:

    I had a little time the other day so I trolled the Milo Yianopolous YT channel.

    Milo is a Breitbart editor that specializes in freedom of speech issues and authoritarian left issues (pro-censorship, pro-safe-space-segregation, anti-evolutionary-psychology crowd; the folks that come up with stuff like ‘the scientific method is sexist’, ‘global warming is sexist’, and other weak hypotheses that don’t see the light of any rigid falsification process). Incidentally this authoritarian left is driving a credible amount of young liberals rightward and Milo is catalyzing this process.

    Milo pushed Trump the entire election as did Breitbart in general; he often called Trump ‘daddy’. Then good ‘ol Trump tweets out ‘flag burning should be a jailable offense or result in loss of citizenship’. That’s an easy checkmate against Milo – the supposed proponent of free speech. Good times and awkward silences were had over on the Milo channel with that one.

    I don’t really have anything against him when he is criticizing authoritarians, but every once in a while he mixes in environmental denial and anti-democratic socialist rhetoric, minimizing Scandinavian type governance, so he’s a fair target.

  6. ubrew12 Says:

    I would point out that restricting yourself to LAND temperatures, and only since last summer, is a pretty amazing level of cherry picking to insist on any kind of conclusion at all. Most land is in the Northern Hemisphere, so most of what DailyMail has observed is the approach of the Northern winter. Gee, thanks for that! Also, the unglued Arctic vortex parked itself over Siberia throughout October and November, making for record cold temperatures over Siberia (land = counted by DailyMail), and also making for record WARM temperatures over the Arctic ocean (water = not counted by DailyMail). Can we all just go back to bringing snowballs into the Senate? I long for simpler times and cherry picks.


  7. Ms Parker says “let’s make the facts speak louder than the opinions”. I like it. At least she is doing her part, unlike most climate scientists. We have an undeniable climate catastrophe unfolding in front of us, with an incoming administration in total denial of it. Forget Ivanka; what can she do against the likes of Ebell, Pence, L. Smith, O’Connell, etc. It is time for climate science to pull out the stops and shake some sense into our incoming leadership. How can they (climate scientists) stand by and watch these ignorant people publicly deny or ignore the most dire issue of our time, without vigorously and publicly fighting back? Climatecrocks is great, but it preaches to the choir.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: