"We have reanalyzed the Mariel episode using the largest and most representative annual sample of high-school dropouts from the May/ORG Current Population Survey. It includes 44 cities among which a recently developed statistical methodology allows the researcher to identify those whose labor markets behaved as closely as possible to Miami’s between 1972 and 1979. We then compared the average wages and employment rates of low-skill workers in Miami with such a control group after 1979.
Our results—released as National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 21801 on Dec. 15—confirm Mr. Card’s original study. There is no evidence that Miami’s low-skill workers experienced wage or employment decline relative to those in our control group of cities in 1980, 1981 or 1982. We also analyzed different subgroups—males, females, Hispanics and non-Hispanics—and did not find any significant wage effect in Miami after 1979.
This result suggests that the common belief that more immigrant workers depress native workers’ wages or employment is not a good representation of what happens. Earlier research by one of us has shown that native workers do not suffer the negative impact of arriving immigrants because they take different jobs. Moreover, their arrival stimulates productivity and growth in the economy.
Miami’s experience after the Mariel boatlift suggests that an influx of refugees from Syria to the U.S. would have no significant economic impact on American workers."
Let’s put NOAA’s claim in perspective. According to Samenow, 2015 just didn’t break the previous 2014 record, it “smashed” (by 0.16°C). But 2015 is the height of a very large El Niño, a quasi-periodic warming of tropical Pacific waters that is known to kite global average surface temperature for a year or so. The last big one was in 1998. It, too set the then-record for warmest surface temperature, and it was (0.12°C) above the previous year, which, like 2014, was the standing record at the time.
So what happened in 2015 is what is supposed to happen when an El Niño is superimposed upon a warm period or at the end year of a modest warming trend. If it wasn’t a record-smasher, there would have to be some extraneous reason why, such as a big volcano (which is why 1983 wasn’t more of a record-setter).
El Niño warms up surface temperatures, but the excess heat takes 3 to 6 months or so to diffuse into the middle troposphere, around 16,000 feet up. Consequently it won’t fully appear in the satellite or weather balloon data, which record temperatures in that layer, until this year. So a peek at the satellite (and weather balloon data from the same layer) will show 1) just how much of 2015’s warmth is because of El Niño, and 2) just how bad the match is between what we’re observing and the temperatures predicted by the current (failing) family of global climate models.
On December 8, University of Alabama’s John Christy showed just that comparison to the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness. It included data through November, so it was a pretty valid record for 2015 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Comparison of the temperatures in the middle troposphere as projected by the average of a collection of climate models (red) and several different observed datasets (blue and green). Note that these are not the surface temperatures, but five-year moving average of the temperatures in the lower atmopshere.
El Niño’s warmth occurs because it suppresses the massive upwelling of cold water that usually occurs along South America’s equatorial coast. When it goes away, there’s a surfeit of cold water that comes to the surface, and global average temperatures drop. 1999’s surface temperature readings were 0.19°C below 1998’s. In other words, the cooling, called La Niña, was larger than the El Niño warming the year before. This is often the case.
So 2016’s surface temperatures are likely to be down quite a bit from 2015 if La Niña conditions occur for much of this year. Current forecasts is that this may begin this summer, which would spread the La Niña cooling between 2016 and 2017.
The bottom line is this: No El Niño, and the big spike of 2015 doesn’t happen.
Now on to Samenow. He’s a terrific weather forecaster, and he runs the Post’s very popular Capital Weather Gang web site. He used to work for the EPA, where he was an author of the “Technical Support Document” for their infamous finding of “endangerment” from carbon dioxide, which is the only legal excuse President Obama has for his onslaught of expensive and climatically inconsequential restrictions of fossil fuel-based energy. I’m sure he’s aware of a simple real-world test of the “weather more extreme” meme. University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, Jr. tweeted it out on January 20 (Figure 2), with the text “Unreported. Unspeakable. Uncomfortable. Unacceptable. But there it is.”
Figure 2. Global weather-related disaster losses as a proportion of global GDP, 1990-2015.
It’s been a busy day on the incomplete-reporting-of-climate front, even as some computer models are painting an all-time record snowfall for Washington DC tomorrow. Jason Samenow and the Capital Weather Gang aren’t forecasting nearly that amount because they believe the model predictions are too extreme. The same logic ought to apply to the obviously “too-extreme” climate models as well, shouldn’t it?"