Pacific And Atlantic Ocean Are Causing Global Warming Slowdown

Pacific And Atlantic Ocean Are Causing Global Warming Slowdown

1696
223
SHARE

According to a new study, the slowdown in global warming over the last decade may be linked to a natural variation in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean’s surface temperatures. However, the scientists have warned that the phenomenon is set to end soon so global warming will continue its course.

Researchers from the Penn State University have come up with a new study that states that the latest slowdown in manmade global warming over the past decade is a ‘false pause’ and is a direct result of the offsetting by cooling from natural cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – an effect that will reverse in coming decades and see increase in global temperatures.

The researchers have attributed the slowdown in climate warming to natural oscillations in the climate, which are internal to the climate system and which necessarily do not signal any slowdown in human-caused global warming.

Michael Mann, climatologist, geophysicist and a professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, and the lead author of the study, said, “Internal multidecadal variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures likely offset anthropogenic warming over the past decade.”

In their study, the researchers distinguished between human-caused and natural climate variability in a bid to assess the impact of human-caused climate change on a variety of phenomena including drought and weather extremes. They also studied Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which are the two key factors that play a significant role in global temperatures. The researchers stripped out ‘external forces’ on those oscillations including volcanoes and the burning of fossil fuels, which are known to have significant impact, in a bid to work out how much they varied naturally, or internally.

They found that the internal or natural variability plays a significant role and has a huge influence over the span of several decades on temperatures in the northern hemisphere. They estimated that the variability could have a 0.15 C warming or cooling effect and in recent years, it is having a cooling effect.

“Our findings do support the notion that the pause is likely to end. And perhaps 2014 does herald that at some level,” added Mann.

SHARE
Previous articleScopes Linked To Superbug Infection Deaths In UCLA
Next articleFlorida Health Officials Reported Three New Cases of Leprosy
James Hailey a worshipper of life as it comes to him. He enjoys soft music while working on his latest manuscripts spread over his desk and his tablet on hand. His curiosity to observe everything around him and love for writing has propelled him to take up the job of a news journalist. Soon he realised, he enjoyed being at the back seat and editing all those news collected by others. He has been working as a lead news editor for both the digital and print media since the past 8 years. On his spare time he indulges in yoga to calm his hectic life style. He writes on Geology and Earth. Wmail : james@dailysciencejournal.com
  • Just Trying To Have Fun

    Hahahahahahaha!!!! ROTFL

    These guys are a joke!

    “Well … the past decade we’ve seen a reverse of global warming see … because the earth can cool itself, know what I mean, … its because of our big oceans … but that’s all gonna change again, see … and temps are going to go back … promise!”

    That’s called cycles dumb as s. They’ve been happening since the beginning of time. And lets see you … you have deducted your therory of global warming having about 200 years of history data at best … out of what …. thousands of millions of years? Smh!

    The writer James Hailey is “a worshipper of life as it comes to him” so his bio says. I say BS … he’s a worshipper of the new age, world socialist, religion called … you guessed it … global warming! dork!

  • SmarterThan aFifth Garder

    Prof. Mann and his cronies disgraced themselves and the Scientific Method by backing into prior study “results desired” like sixth grade science students who “dry lab” the results of an elementary school chemistry experiment. And their methodology of using ancient tree ring data to try to get fractional degree accuracy over 1000 years before there were any real or accurate thermometers is actually so stupid it is comical. Tree ring widths vary primarily by moisture and it can rain over a HUGE temperature range. No way is that accurate to even single temperature digits. Mann shouldn’t even qualify for a job as an elementary school janitor. Now he’s “found” the reason his coveted models didn’t work for the past ten years..LOL….What a clown! Yep, observant people know the REAL reason: More University R&D money needed from Uncle Sugar.

  • Chauffeur

    What!?!?!? You mean that God is in charge after all? – And that man isn’t in control of everything?

  • ArtStoneUS

    Global warming slowdown deniers!

  • The “pause” is actually an optical illusion that results from the human brain’s efforts to form patterns out of short term random data when no pattern exists. The “Man in the Moon” is a similar optical illusion. Ancient astrologers demonstrated this same phenomenon when they assigned stars to constellations – as do present-day stock market pseudo-analysts and their stock chart patterns. (In regard to the last example, if these “patterns” were useful, why aren’t these pseudo-analysts making a fortune using their own money instead of trying to get you to pay them for their “service”?)

    Despite the fantasies of Global Warming Deniers, the earth continues to warm at the rate of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second – running 24/7 – including the years from 1998 to present.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
    This measured/observed warming rate is via the Argo buoy system. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html

    2005 was warmer than any previous year. Then 2010 broke the 2005 record. And 2014 just set another new record high.
    “2014 Earth’s warmest year on record”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2014/12
    Data at:
    NOAA/National Climate Data Center
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

    2012 was the warmest year on record for the United States.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-announces-warmest-year-record-contiguous-us

    Sea level continues to rise due to thermal expansion and glacial melting. The rate of sea level rise has quadrupled since the 1870 to 1924 period.
    Columbia University
    http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/

    Glaciers continue to melt, and the rate of melting has accelerated since 1998.
    World Glacier Monitoring Service
    http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum13.html

    “Global Sea Ice Is Shrinking”
    NASA Earth Observatory
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_grid

    Ocean heating has accelerated sharply since 1998. (Note: Over 90% of Global Warming ends up heating the oceans.)
    Graph at:
    http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdOceanHeat.jpg
    Full peer reviewed paper at:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
    Up to date info at:
    NOAA/National Oceanographic Data Center
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ (click on “2”)

    Finally, temperature anomalies at all 4 primary temperature databases and the UAH satellite observations are currently setting new record highs. (Updated thru Jan. 2015) 2014 was the warmest year on record as measured by GISS, NOAA/NCDC, HadCRUT4, and the Japan Meteorological Agency.

    Graph at: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/NOAAanomalies.png
    Data at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

    Graph at: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/GISSanomalies.png
    Data at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    Graph at: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/HadCrut4anomalies.png
    Data at: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat

    Graph at: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
    (Graph shows annual data)

    Graph at: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/UAHanomalies.png
    Data at: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

    Summary

    The actual observations show that global warming didn’t stop in 1998. What is happening is that a few Global Warming Deniers fabricated a story, and the other members of the Global Warming Denier cult continue to demonstrate their willful ignorance by repeating the same false story.

    More at:
    http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdGlobalWarmingStoppedIn1998.html

  • dale ruff

    God is polluting the earth in order to warm things up and kill us off.

  • dale ruff

    Where did you get your PH.D in climate science? What peer-reviewed research of yours can we read?

  • dale ruff

    If a car slows down, it is not going in reverse. Your laughter is fake, your theories are absurd. The damage to your brain is tragic.

  • Just Trying To Have Fun

    You’re working from the wrong premise guy.

    If a car doesn’t exist it’s going neither forward nor backwards.

    Don’t feel negative feelings about my supposed tragic brain damage.

    My brain hasn’t been brainwashed!

    … Oh, btw … my laughter was sincere. The entire article is a joke.

    My theory as you call it represents the realization man has only so much control over this planet. The sun is the main culprit to any fluctuations in weather.

    If global warming was the absolute truth why all the lies. Why all the proven fabrications.

    Why punish America with taxes and not the more major polluters such as China and India.

    Using your logic if America were to stop or pay the taxes to the UN, China and India’s pollution still continues to damage the environment.

    This is another marxist attempt at global income redistribution. Flat out. Nothing else.

    As part of the human race, we can’t fix what you say is broken. It is more than our man-made capabilities.

    How arrogant to say we can … if you really believe what you are saying.

  • dale ruff

    Let me guess: you have never taken one class in climate science and yet you believe that you are right (and all your ideas come from the fossil fuel propagandists) and the world’s climate scientists from 180 nations are all wrong.

    You have convinced me!

  • Just Trying To Have Fun

    You speak in generalities, have nothing concrete to say except the sky is falling. The data your theories rely upon have been repeatedly proven fictitious at best and even nefarious on the surface … yeah, sure, I believe your bs.

    Not to mention literally hundreds of past predictions failing to come to pass:

    • Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow in the UK. The UK since has had the heaviest snowfall than in the past 70 years or more
    • It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland. FAIL!
    • The Arctic should have been “ice-free” by now. FAIL!
    • Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” – the entire movie was a disaster

    • Antarctica was to see a big decrease in ice. Sea ice in Antarctica is off the charts, consistently smashing previous record highs on a near-daily basis. Sea-ice area in the south is now at the highest point since records began.

    • The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from certain regions of the globe. FAIL! These areas are actually growing in population.

    • In the 70’s it was predicted we were to be in the middle of a mini-ice age by now! Now that may be more of the truth.

    Not to mention all the pure, unadulterated, propaganda that has come out for this purpose.

    Not to mention the place this specific cause has found itself to be located in priority within the overall liberal agenda. Very high!

    Liberals rarely tell you the truth about what they are really up to – past examples are “its for the children”, or “the cost will decrease for everyone and the uninsured will have insurance”, or “you can keep your doctor” and on and on and one …

    The next big and current lie is Hillary professing to be a champion of equal pay for women when the top eight salaried people in her foundation are men not to mention her claim is a strawman argument not based in truth.

    She’s setting up the strategy saying “I’m a women and I’ll fight for this social injustice.” Lie!

    The past few years its been the year of the black man, and the gay guy. Now its going to be the year of the women! Liberals suk. They really do.

    Another big reason I don’t believe you about Global Warming is because the Kyoto Protocol and/or treaty points the finger at America and has us to pay the largest amount in fees and taxes to the liberal UN while the biggest polluters China and India continue business as usual and pay nothing.

    Here’s a good analogy: Obamacare isn’t really about the warm fuzzy feel good story where everyone gets insurance! That’s not what its about!

    Obamacare is meant to be a permanent mechanism for wealth redistribution in America, and a way to immediately nationalize 10 million illegal immigrants, give them benefits, and sign them up as democrat voters when filling out the paperwork to receive these same taxpayer funded benefits. Signing them up is in the current paperwork.

    Just like Obamacare is meant to redistribute wealth (and to sign up voters); Global Warming is about redistribution as well but on a global scale.

    … and you guys (liberals) are not going to stop … this country was founded by people willing to fight this kind of tyranny and for their freedoms against people like you who think nothing of taking people’s freedoms away because you think you know best. You need to think about that. It is not a threat … it’s history.

    So my question to you – based on your last comment – is are you part of the lie or are you just naive?

  • dale ruff

    I quote the evidence of actual climate scientists. You have admitted you have never taken even one class in climate science and all your evidence is from non-scientific anti-climate science websites (which are funded by the fossil fuel industry).

    Whom should I believe, a person with zero background in climate science of the world’s 10,000 climates scientists from 140 nations? It’s a hard choice, since people with no experience almost always know more than those who spend their lifetimes studying a subject.

    The Koch brothers, who have spent tens of millions funding climate denial websites and sources, funded the Berkeley Project, headed by a climate skeptic, to expose the fraudulent data of the NOAA and other govt sources. What they found is that the govt data was correct and that, in fact, the evidence of global warming is even more compelling than originally thought.

    The climate skeptic who led the investigation was so overwhelmed by the evidence that he wrote a NY Times op ed in which he announced his total conversion, based on the indisputable evidence not only of global warming but of the fact that human activity (ie pollution by fossil fuel oligarchs like the Koch brothers) is responsible. I suggest you look up the Berkeley Project to learn how the data has been found, by skeptics, to be compelling.

    Here is the headline fro the same NOAA whose data was found to be absolutely sound: “The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880. The December combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was also the highest on record.”

    According to records confirmed by the Berkeley Project, which sought to expose fraudulent data and failed, globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, In addition, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, a product of fossil fuel emissions, is higher than in the last 800,000 years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat and the more there is, the more heat is trapped.

    Please tell us your education in climate science and why you reject the research of the world’s climate scientists and accept the propaganda of those who have a financial interest in confusing the public to defeat efforts to limit greenhouse gases and pollution? By what logic do you, with zero education in climate science, reject the findings of the world’s experts?

  • Just Trying To Have Fun

    Typical global warming nut – over using the academia card to prove your superiority (not buying it at all), making the Koch brothers out to be everywhere and all powerful just because they promote conservative causes (and Soros and Buffet are just two sweet old men), plus professing a consensus of climates scientists from over a hundred nations blah blah blah (its all bs).

    Your hero Michael Mann – advanced studies in physic, mathematics, geology and a PhD geology & geophysics … went to school at University of California, Berkeley, Yale University – and now employed at Pennsylvania State University … is still a FRAUD – that is FACT! So take your academia charades and stick it up your a$$.

    BTW, I never admitted to never taking a climate science class as you erroneously put it. 

Your rambling diatribe maybe written with convinction but it don’t mean sh•t to me … or anyone else with any common sense.

    Too much to get into here but google both “scientist against global warming” and “science against global warming.” There’s plenty of peer review stuff to look at – including a stat that says over 30,000 scientist say global warming is bunk.

    

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/



    Weather Channel co-founder and meteorologist John Coleman has repeatedly stated that “man-made global climate change is a hoax.” He has said before it is one of the greatest hoaxes of modern times.

    The fact is there is no hard evidence confirming man-made changes in the weather. And people like you try to railroad everyone else into believing otherwise. When people disagree you want to call them stupid and dismiss them as though THEY’RE the ones on the wrong side of factual science.

    Like I mentioned. You’re full of sh•t
! Now just return to your make believe world of academia and keep trying to make up ways to feel important.

  • dale ruff

    You can descend to the gutter with vulgar personal insults, which are an implicit admission of intellectual defeat; I will stick with the facts.

    1. ” The paper( a new survey in the journal Environmental Research Letters of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers) found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers. Finding an overwhelming consensus was nothing new. Studies in 2009 and 2010 also found 97% agreement among climate scientists on human-caused global warming.” theguardian.com

    2. The Koch brothers, who own refineries, oil pipelines, fertilizer facilities, coal and cement transportation systems, and other industrial operations. worth 100 billion, are the leading funders of climate denial and lobbying to thwart legislation to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Koch spent $12.3 million on lobbyists in 2009, 5th among energy producers like Exxon, etc.

    In 2012, they spent over 400 million supporting candidates who endorse their climate denial. (Soros spent 1 million). In the past 3 elecions, Koch industries have been the top oil and gas donor to political campaigns, with the emphasis on “deregulation” including preventing regulation of pollution.

    They fund ALEC and sit on its board, pushing the agenda of deregulation of dirty energy and dismantling or rolling back renewable energy in 34 states. For instance, they are pushing a new tax on solar energy to make it less competitive (big oil gets big tax breaks).

    3.Michael Mann is an acclaimed author whose book 1491 is based on a thorough investigation of research on the population, culture, and impact on environment of native Americans. Calling him “your hero” is a cheap shot at dismissing his years of work.

    4. Your claim that there is “no hard evidence confirming man-made changes in the weather” not only reveals your total ignorance of climate science (weather is not climate, which deals with long term trends) but it is refuted by over 12, 000 research papers from scientists in over 140 nations.

    5. You can believe the propaganda of the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel advocates over the consensus of climate scientists if you wish, but that means that you are full of shit. Calling decades of research (confirmed by the Koch funded Berkeley Project) “academia” and implying that makes it suspect is not only anti-science, it is also anti-knowledge.

    6. Your personal insults are the tactic used when people have no evidence but cannot deal with the truth…..it is an admission of intellectual defeat.

    Why you would believe a TV weatherman over the huge consensus of actual climate scientists (which is not) is the final nail in your coffin.

  • Just Trying To Have Fun

    you’re a real piece of work … I’d love to see things from your perspective, but I can’t shove my head THAT FAR up my own a$$. Do you do yoga?

    You obviously didn’t look at any of the listings I gave you – with peer review results – that directly and completely destroyed your 97% assertion before you even gave it to me.

    Just by your dependence on that false claim – even in part – and of course the Guardian source on top of it showed me exactly the liberal mush that makes up the cranial matter on top of your shoulders.

    You revert to splitting hairs and making a play on words to boost your argument – weather, climate – by definition is different but in the slang or macro sense what difference does it make. You’re not grading a paper moron so get overself.

    Oh, btw, no matter what you say Michael Mann is still a FRAUD! Many people over the years build a reputable foundation and reputation only to tear it down with silly little incidences like being the front man for the most outrageous hoax in the history of mankind.

    I can be an a$$ about this or I can talk to you like I was the queen of England but the truth remains global warming does not exist – not in the context you’re professing or wish to believe – not even remotely.

    Your method of combining ignorance with arrogance is very impressive and points directly to your inability or unwillingness to investigate all sides of this equation. You’re stuck on “go” and that’s it.

    That is a sad place to be. You’re so wrapped up in yourself and supposed knowledge – and my guess too your ideology – that you’re missing out on half of what is going on around you and half of what is going on in the world.

    I shake my head in disgust and ask “How can someone claim to know so much when they only know half their sh*t?”

    Your claims are only regurgitated vomit your liberal media sources have gave you. Didn’t you check any other sources? You’ve been lied to!

  • dale ruff

    I documented the study of 12,000 studies on global warming which found 97% affirmed it was caused by human activity. You can dismiss it if you wish, but you facts don’t change because you dismiss them.

    As for your vulgar insults, that is an admission of intellectual defeat. You provide no evidence for your claims and reject the documented studies. Where did you get your PH.D in climate science.? In fact, you have never taken one class in climate science and yet you claim the ability to refute the world’s climate scientists. You are a useful idiot for the polluters.

  • Just Trying To Have Fun

    You’re laughable

    The following article dispels your “97% theory” very quickly. It describes how this claim came about and all that is wrong with the assertion. If you want the facts please read.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

    Here is a Forbes article referring to a peer review survey outlining the exact opposite of what you’re saying. I’ve already gave you this earlier but apparently you didn’t ready it:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

    I could do this all day long. The information is easy to find and research. Your attempt to pit me against “the world’s climate scientists” is a typical liberal tactic used in an attempt to corerce and intimidate those who disagree … and used when there’s no legitimate rebuttal.

    Like I said I’m not buying it! Not any of it! I’ve done my own research – plenty of it – and there is more than enough to say with certainty you’re full of sh•t.

    Plus the facts you depend on come from these far left leaning sources and the appearance of avoiding investigating anything else tells me you’re likely an ideolouge as well … and that is the end of the road for me and probably why you see repugnance and contempt in my responses.

    I have very little patience with liberal ideologues. They are arrogant, god-less, hopeless, creatures and have played big part in screwing up this world as much as it is.

  • dale ruff

    I can’t access he wsj article so I will address the forbes article:
    1. The survey is not of climate scientists but of engineers and earth scientists. Surveys of climate scientists find 97% accept AGW as a fact.
    2. The study found 36% of these non-climate scientists accept human activity as the cause, with 17% accepting both human and natural causes. Another 10%, according to the study, accept global warming as either natural or human caused. Another 5% find global warming as caused by both human and natural causes.

    Let’s add that up: 68%. Of these 68%, some feel that global warming does not cause the risks found by the mainstream consensus of climate scientists but accept that it is at least partially human caused or (10%) may be so.

    3. This study, of non climate scientists, finds a strong majority accept human activity as the cause or part of the cause, and in no way refutes the study of 12,000 peer reviewed studies by climate scientists that “97% of climate scientists accept human activity as a cause of global warming.”

    4. Nice try, no banana. Why would anyone accept the views of engineers on climate science over the views of climate scientists? Because they have been brainwashed by the polluters who fund climate denial?

  • Voodude

    “The “pause” is actually an optical illusion that results from the human brain’s efforts to form patterns out of short term random data when no pattern exists.”

    Arithmetic Linear Regression Analysis shows that it is cooling out there. You’re the ill-usion.

  • Voodude

    “… the earth continues to warm at the rate of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second – running 24/7 – including the years from 1998 to present.”

    about a quarter of the claimed global warming since 1900 is actually an artifact of adjustments.”

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/how-much-have-adjustments-contributed-to-global-warming/

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/

  • Voodude

    “This measured/observed warming rate is via the Argo buoy system.”

    This NASA web page, from a paper by Roemmich, Dean, shows that ocean heat goes up, and it goes down…

  • Voodude

    The fallacious argument of attacking the messenger. An unemployed housewife can poke holes in the warmist-theories. it does not require a degree.

  • Voodude

    “a worshipper of life as it comes to him”

  • Voodude

    “marxist attempt at global income redistribution”

  • Voodude

    “some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing “ Shishmaref, Alaska … supposedly, “Climate Change” is ruining their village. Well, 30-40 km up the road, is a GISS temperature station: The temperature has been COOLING, rather than warming…

  • Voodude

    The residents made a poor choice, building their houses upon shifting sand, when the old adage is to build your house upon the rock. Climate Change is not to blame… these are not Climate Change Refugees. A small amount of research will tell you that the sea level around them has not changed for 21+ years.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-time-series-wizard

  • Voodude

    “NOAA … data was found to be absolutely sound: “The globally averaged temperature … highest … since record keeping began in 1880.” The thermometer record is short. Proxies for temperature tell us, that – before Mann began making concrete and burning fossil fuels – temperatures occasionally where higher than 2014, and for a lot longer.

  • Voodude

    “The Little Ice Age cooling, especially during the seventeenth century, appears to be more severe than the cooling during the Dark Age Cold Period. Our reconstruction is the first large-scale multi-proxy synthesis that shows that mean temperatures of the Roman Warm Period were higher than, or as high as, mean twentieth-century temperatures.”

    Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier. “A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra‐tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia.” Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 92.3 (2010): 339-351.

    http://climates.com/cc/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

  • Voodude

    “… the warmest conditions, occurred in the twelfth, fourteenth, and twentieth centuries, and throughout the middle portion of the record, approximately 1,000 to 4,200 varve years ago.”
    Lower Murray Lake is 81.315254,-69.532800

    “Five thousand years of sediment transfer in a high arctic watershed recorded in annually laminated sediments from Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada”

    Journal of Paleolimnology – Cook, Timothy L. et al.

    http://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/gradstud/cook/Cook_et_al_2008.pdf (Whole PDF)

  • Voodude

    …during the Little Ice Age of about 300 years ago sea surface temperatures were at least a full degree lower than today, and there was an earlier cool event centered on 1,700 years ago. Events warmer than today occurred about 500 and 1,000 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, and it was even warmer than that, prior to about 2,500 years ago.”

    “These results are exciting for a few reasons. First, events as young and as brief as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period have never before been resolved in deep sea sediments from the open ocean…. The Sargasso Sea data indicate that the Medieval Warm Period may have actually been two events, separated by 500 years, perhaps explaining why its timing and extent have been so controversial. Second, it is evident that the climate system has been warming for a few hundred years, and that it warmed even more, from 1,700 years ago to 1,000 years ago.”

    Keigwin, Lloyd D. “The little ice age and medieval warm period in the Sargasso Sea.” Science 274.5292 (1996): 1503-1508.

    http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/sedimentary-record-yields-several-centuries-of-data

  • Voodude

    “Ocean heating has accelerated … (Note: Over 90% of Global Warming ends up heating the oceans.)” It sounds like the whole world’s oceans are warming… but they aren’t. It is worth looking at the spatial pattern of warming… it is lumpy and inconsistent. What parameter of CO2 causes lumpy, uneven warming?

  • Voodude

    ” (weather is not climate, which deals with long term trends)”

  • Voodude

    “Michael Mann is still a FRAUD!”

  • dale ruff

    It is not attacking the messenger to ask someone who disputes the findings of the world’s climate scientists what their credentials. It is laughable to claim a housewife can refute the research of the world’s ten thousand climate scientists! Do make qualified statements about science DOES require a degree and research in the field.

    It is the same as saying an uneducated teenager could refute the diagnosis of a diesel mechanic on a diesel motor, or like saying anyone who has ever used a bandaid can show the fallacies in the diagnosis of a brain surgeon.

    You indeed have made the most absurd attack the messenger (in this case climate scientists) fallacy I have ever heard! Climate science is a complex field and to make credible statements, you must either be a climate scientist or be quoting one.

    Indeed, put up or shut up, my friend. How would a housewife poke holes in the evidence or conclusions of qualified climate scientists. Making a claim does not refute evidence; without support, it is just hot air, in this case laugaby absurd hot air.

    What is your refutation of the findings of the world’s climate scientists? Have you read th op ed of the head scientist, a skeptic, hired to lead the Berkeley Project, partly funded by climate deniers the Koch brothers, with the goal of exposing the fraudulent nature of government data and conclusions.
    He found, after a careful investigation, that the data is all very reliable and he converted to the consensus of 97% of climate scientists that human activity (ie fossil fuel emissions) are the only logical cause. He deals with all the major objections to global warming and dismisses them as having no merit. How do you refute his conversion? Unless you can do this, you are just spouting industry propaganda, a useful idiot of the fossil fuel oligarchs who do not want to pay to clean up their lethal act.

  • Voodude

    “… either be a climate scientist, or be quoting one. …”
    Now, you’re beginning to understand.

  • Voodude

    “What is your refutation of the findings of the world’s climate scientists?”
    Scientists, of course.

  • Voodude

    “an uneducated teenager could refute the diagnosis of a diesel mechanic on a diesel motor” … and if the refutation is correct? Do you dismiss it, when the kid is right? Anything that does not recognize “the truth” is but an appeal to authority.

    “… If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.” Richard Feynman. He said it best:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

  • dale ruff

    If you are not an expert in a field, your best chance of getting expert knowledge is to consult an expert. The most honest way to represent the views of an expert in the field is to quote them.

    Please give sources of climate scientists who refute global warming.

    Did you look up the Berkeley Project?

    I don’t think you can find climate scientists who refute global warming, since the evidence is overwhelming. Put up or shut up. Who are the climate scientists who refute global warming, Voodude?

    You are allowed to quote them.

  • Voodude

    “… conclusions of qualified climate scientists.”
    … Oh … that makes me suspect that you are a science denier. “Qualified” … and whom is the judge, of qualification? You are. You eagerly dismiss science, and scientists, when they disagree with your brainwashed, confirmation-biased, foregone conclusions. You rabidly dismiss the findings because they were paid for by oil interests. You are hopelessly bent on your foregone conclusions, and wouldn’t acknowledge the truth it if bit you in the ass.

  • dale ruff

    A qualified climate scientists is one who has peer-reviewed research relating to global warming. Which climate scientists am I denying. You are unable to present any climate scientists who refute global warming so you are quibbing over words. Put up or shut up. You have not put up so unless you can provide sources who refute global warming, it’s time to shut up.

    My conclusions are relying on climate scientists who have done research in the field. I have no personal investment in global warming….but I rely on the experts in the field, and as far as I know, they all accept global warming based on the evidence.

    Instead of making accusations about me, which is a dodge, supply the names of climate scientists and their research which refutes global warming. You said a housewife could do it…but apparently you can’t. It’s time to present your sources and evidence or admit you are just full of shit. Put up or shut up.

  • Voodude

    If there was an ought-right “refutation” – this would be done by now, and we’d be moving on. There is no phrase, nor paragraph, that will snap the spell that you’re under. You’ve swallowed the cool-aid that Jim Jones proffered… The effort, the presentation of evidence, is a large labor, and it would be “casting pearls unto …” You wouldn’t acknowledge the truth, even if it bit you in the ass… You would argue, and put up URLs to warmist, alarmist, web sites, and say, See? That’s already been debunked…

  • dale ruff

    Your analogy fails: climate exists, just as cars do; if climate temperature is increasing, and the rate of increase slows down, it does mean it the climate is getting colder, any more than that a car which slows down is going in reverse.

    Global warming is indisputable based on evidence. There are no proven fabrications. Those who pollute should not be taxed but fined and thrown in jail for killing people (fossil fuels kill 8 million a year worldwide) for the sake of profits. Why punish human beings so that billionaires can get richer. The main supporters of climate denial are the Koch Brothers who have 100 billion. They funded the Berkeley Project to prove govt data was fake; instead it proved it was solid. Look it up, fool.

  • Voodude

    “You are unable to present any climate scientists who refute global warming” … a foregone conclusion … said like a true scientist … You say that with the conviction, the vehemence, the arrogance, of a true climate scientist. Closed-minded from the start. A religious believer.

  • dale ruff

    Put up or shut up, dude. Who are the climate scientists whose research refutes global warming? Where are they. Stop dodging the demand for sources.

    Claims made without evidence can be dismissed as pure bullshit. We await your list of climate scientists whose research shows that global warming is a hoax by the world’s ten thousand climate scientists. Who has debunked global warming. We need names, sources, evidence. Otherwise, you are just full of shit. Prove me wrong.

  • dale ruff

    Since you can find no climate scientists who have refuted global warming, now you are attacking them. You have lost all credibility and are too cowardly to admit you have no support for your beliefs. You cannot put up but you continue to prate on without a shred of evidence. How pathetic………….you are a useful idiot of the fossil fuel oligarchs who prefer profits over human health and the environment.

  • Voodude

    “Those who pollute should not be taxed but fined and thrown in jail for killing people (fossil fuels kill 8 million a year worldwide) for the sake of profits” … Ah, the truth about you is coming to the surface. Already, you have been the judge and jury, and now you’re handing out convictions, sentences. There is none so blind, as those who will not see.

  • Voodude

    You have no idea what I am, yet your arrogantly conclude, “You have lost all credibility and are too cowardly”
    Why should I invest the time to show you anything?

  • Voodude

    ” without a shred of evidence” as if, I could have shown you the “magic bullet” in these few minutes, that would cure your bias and map-content…
    … and it is a good thing that I didn’t waste my time, presenting to you.

  • Voodude

    No single statement, paragraph, or even a whole scientific paper can “refute” this “Global Warming” crap. A theorem can either be rejected, or fail to be rejected. “Global Warming” has been rejected, many, many times. The proponents keep moving the goal posts.

    “Global Warming” is a theoretical, delicate balance between incoming insolation, and the planet’s consumption and rejection of that energy. Hansen’s 0.58 watts per square meter of “imbalance” is the supposed factor that warms the planet. Of all the energy that slams into the planet, Hansen says, 240 watts per square meter are absorbed, and his 0.58 out of 240 is about ¼ of one percent – a tiny fraction. That is assuming the previous calculations are correct – Over a thousand watts per square meter, at the top of the atmosphere, peak, slam into the planet… about 340, averaged out. Hansen’s 0.58 out of that portion, is an even smaller percentage.

    The only thing backing up this “warming” of about one percent or less, is computer simulations – the results of mathematical models. The current versions are called CMIP5 GCMs. That is how Hansen came up with the 0.58 figure – it is his interpretation of the GCMs. It is not that one GCM flashed up on the screen, 0.58 (or, “42” for those of you who know the meaning of life). Hansen chose to accept some models’ output, and reject other models’ output, and applied his own bias, and published.

    So, any error that is found, subsequent to Hansen’s publication date, that shows that the computer models were wrong about something, anything… that is more than one quarter of one percent … is enough to cast doubt onto the conclusion. 0.00241 is all Hansen has.

  • Voodude

    That’s Mr. Dude, to you. (Or, you can call me Voo).

  • Voodude

    “Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow in the UK.”

  • dale ruff

    I asked you to find one climate scientists with peer-reviewed research on global warming….and you cannot.

    Facts: the earth is warming; the Berkeley Projects, which was intended to disprove this, proved it.
    there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, a result of fossil fuel emission, than in thelast 800,000 yr.

    the sea is rising, glaciers are melting, extreme weather is increasing.

    Clincher: “The only thing backing up this “warming” of about one percent or less,
    is computer simulations – the results of mathematical models” False: this warming is backed up by evidence, which the Berkeley Project proved to be correct.

    If you would read Muller’s op ed in the NYTimes in which he, a climate skeptic who headed the Koch funded Berkeley Project, announced that the overwhelming evidence had convinced him not only of global warming but that the only logical reason had to be emissions, you would see him, a climate scientist who doubted the claims, demolish the “it’s only a computer model” defense of climate denial. It’s the data, and the data is solid. It’s getting warmer, dude. You can produce one climate scientist (there are over 10,000 from 140 nations) to dispute that….so back to smearing climate scientists as fakes or religious zealots………or adjust your thinking to reality.

    Take a look at the Berkeley Project if you are not afraid to discover that you have been lied to by billionaires who want to make even more by blocking climate legislation.

    It’s the data, dude. It’s rock solid. The Koch brothers were so embarrassed by the result of the Berkeley Project that they no longer are willing to openly fund propaganda and projects to disprove global warming; it is all now done with dark money. You are a useful idiot but you can redeem yourself by adjusting to reality.

  • Voodude

    “… The rate of sea level rise has quadrupled since the 1870 to 1924 period.”

    Even the IPCC has stated, in 1996, “There has been no detectable acceleration of sea-level rise during this [20th] century.”
    And again in 2007:

    Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

    10.6.4.2 Dynamics

    … paragraph 2:

    “The TAR concluded that accelerated sea level rise caused by rapid dynamic response of the ice sheets to climate change is very unlikely during the 21st century (Church et al., 2001). However, …” (insert scary scenario here).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-4-2.html

  • Voodude

    Typical Alarmist. Quadruple nothing, and you get nothing. Quadruple a tiny amount, and you get a little… The alarmist author you picked, chose the least amount of sea level rise possible, and used this period as a reference level…

  • Voodude

    The “Global Warming” theory requires an accelerating sea level rise. Globally, and consistently. The theory says, “add a bit of extra CO2, it upsets the balance, and the earth warms” … and because of the warmth, the sea level rises. However, adding CO2 constantly and consistently, would (theoretically) produce a constantly increasing warmth. This would produce an accelerating sea level. A few researchers have “detected” acceleration, but it didn’t stay (what they really “saw” is sea levels sloshing around, because of cyclic variations of wind and current).

  • Voodude

    Sea level “acceleration” has been followed by [yawn] deceleration.

  • Voodude

    Do you remember all the claims of sea level rise, when the giant piece of Antarctica’s Larson “B” ice shelf broke off? [yawn] Chicken Little’s sky hasn’t fallen…

  • Voodude

    GIStemp adjustments

  • Voodude

    What is the rational behind this set of “adjustments”??

  • Voodude

    There are good reasons to “fix” temperature records. This is one example. For a while, somebody recorded temperatures in Kelvins. The readings were “adjusted” by some other idiot, who thought the initial measurements lacked a decimal point so they were “adjusted” by dividing by ten… rather than actually converting from Kelvins to Degrees-Celsius.

  • Voodude

    US Hysterical Historical Climate Network:
    These aren’t the temperatures … these are the adjustments to the old temperatures…

  • Voodude

    The change-over from HO63 measurement devices, to HO83 devices, introduced some errors… but a constant small shift is all that is needed, not an accelerating one!

  • Voodude

    Or these of Amberly, Australia:

  • Voodude

    Arithmetic Linear Regression Analysis shows that it is cooling out there.

  • Voodude

    Root-Mean-Square Linear Regression Analysis shows that it is cooling out there.

  • Voodude

    The proponents keep moving the goal posts

  • Voodude

    “Facts: the earth is warming;” There is no sense denying that the earth had warmed up, just as there is no sense denying that it is cooling. What is significantly different about my point is that it is currently cooling and that your point is old news.

  • Voodude
  • Voodude

    “Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean, near-surface temperature, paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period.”

    Guemas, Virginie, et al. “Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade.” Nature Climate Change 3.7 (2013): 649-653.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/abs/nclimate1863.html

  • Voodude

    ••• ”Yet the observed global warming is still overestimated, not only over the recent 1998–2012 hiatus period, but also over former decades, thereby suggesting that the model might be too sensitive to the prescribed radiative forcings.”

    Douville, H., A. Voldoire, and O. Geoffroy. “The recent global‐warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?.” Geophysical Research Letters (2015).

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062775/abstract

  • Voodude

    NOAA- “State of the Climate” – 2008
    “Near-zero, and even negative trends, are common, for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

  • Voodude

    Storch: “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

    SPIEGEL: “What could be wrong with the models?”

    Storch: “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. ••• The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

    SPIEGEL: “That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…”

    Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

  • Voodude

    “…satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) with model simulations of forced and unforced [temperature of the lower troposphere] changes… a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational [temperature of the lower troposphere] data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

    Santer, B. D., et al. “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 116.D22 (2011).

    Apples to apples: Here’s the current lower troposphere temperature from RSS: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.84/plot/rss/from:1996.84/trend
    More than 18 years OF COOLING!

  • Voodude

    University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) processing of satellite data (differently that RSS, they even use some different satellites) shows GLOBAL COOLING since 2008.

  • Voodude

    NCDC NOAA data shows Alaska’s Arctic north slope to be COOLING since 1997!
    How’s all that “Arctic warming twice as fast as the rest of the world” grab ya?

  • Voodude

    RSS shows it: TLT North Polar 60° to 82° Arctic cooling since early 2009

    http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Polar_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.txt

    Sample size: 72, 2009.25 – 2015.25

    Mean y (ȳ): 0.7939; Intercept (a): 16.20

    Slope (b): -0.00766 (negative means COOLING)

  • Voodude

    Alaskan Arctic, Kotzebue has been COOLING since 2000.

  • Voodude

    Russian Arctic Ostrov Dikson GISS NASA data shows a Ten Year COOLING since 2004.

  • Voodude

    Alaskan Arctic, North-East (climate district 4) has been COOLING since 1993. Data and graph from NCDC – NOAA.

  • Voodude

    North Iceland, Arctic Akureyri: NASA GISS data shows it has been COOLING since 2002.

  • Voodude

    Eureka, a station in Canada’s NorthWest Territory, has been COOLING since 2001.

  • Voodude

    Russian Arctic, Olenek: GISS NASA data shows a COOLING trend since 2007.

  • Voodude

    Gmo Im.E.K. F (77.7, -104.4) Baffin, above Canada, according to GISS NASA data, has been COOLING since 2004.

  • Voodude

    Cambridge Bay, Canada, according to GISS NASA data, has been COOLING since 2006.

  • Voodude

    GISS data showes this station in Arctic Alaska, Bettles, has been COOLING since 1976. More than thirty years! Hows that for “Arctic Warming” … and this is after homogeneity adjustments!

  • Voodude

    Soulé, Peter T., and Paul A. Knapp 2015 shows that Montana (Divison 4) has been COOLING since 1905. … after adjustments, NCDC data from NOAA shows it has only been COOLING since 1997!

  • Voodude

    Guam has been cooling since 2005 (reported on in 2013, data probably cut off in 2012)

  • Voodude

    In the South Pacific, Fiji’s island of Rotuma, according to (after adjustment) GISS data, is shown to have been COOLING since 1970!!

  • Voodude

    RSS shows Antarctica has been COOLING the entire time that the satellites have been recording temperature!

  • Voodude

    Saskatchewan has been COOLING but no numeric data, so the arrow is “arm waving” …

  • Voodude

    CET, the longest running meteorological record in the world, shows COOLING since before 1995

  • Voodude

    Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, has been COOLING since 1975!

  • dale ruff

    The earth continues to warm but at a slower rate. It is not cooling. It is NOT currently cooling. Scepticalscience sums up the “debate”:

    What the science says…Select a level… Basic IntermediateEmpirical measurements of the Earth’s heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

    Climate Myth…

    It’s cooling
    “In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that theprojections of future climate are unreliable.” (source: Henrik Svensmark)”

    The science is based on “empirical measurements” not models. If you would look at the Berkeley Project, you would see that the govt data was confirmed: it is an indisputable fact that globally, the earth is warming up. Warming up at a slower rate is still warming up.

    Satellite “estimates” are famous for having many problems and do not trum actual empirical measurements. Now you are using a questionable model to refute empirical evidence.

    I will be blunt: you are either very stupid or very brainwashed or you are paid to argue against global warming. You are unable to present even ONE climate scientist who claims the earth is cooling. It is not.

    “The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880. The December combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was also the highest on record.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2014/12

    The Berkeley Project, led by (former) climate skeptic and partly funded by the Koch brothers, found that the noaa data was totally accurate and was not distorted by either anomalies or scientific fraud. The hottest year on record is hardly evidence of cooling.

    Here is your own source, Storch: “”Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”

    von Storch, Hans. “Statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006 Hearing “Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments”

    Warming has slowed, not reversed. You are immune to evidence and even our own sources cannot convince you.

    You are hopeless.

    The climate scientist you finally came up with my point that there are no climate scientists who dispute global warming.

    Consequences:

    1. Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

    Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826

    2.All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.
    I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

    3.Warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat (you can view this by googling), extreme weather events, ocean acidification, decreased snow cover and earlier melting, as reported at
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    nasa data was among that confirmed by the Berkeley Project.

    I will sum it up: the earth is warming, and with CO2 at a much higher level than in the past 400,000 years, the only logical cause is fossil fuel emissions. Your attempts to refute the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists throughout the world is, with all due respect, pure bullshit, indicated by the fact that your own source refutes you and you have resorted to crude cartoons. None of the citations you have provided refute global warming. It’s time for you to adjust your thinking to the science and the empirical evidence. Let’s drop it at this point, as you refuse to accept the unequivocal evidence, which I can only attribute to irrationality.

  • Voodude

    USA’s “lower 48” COOLING since 1997, as a whole… which includes California…

  • Voodude

    Look!

  • Voodude

    Arizona COOLING since 1999

  • Voodude

    The “Corn Belt” of the USA

  • Voodude

    Las Vegas – one of the towns that … there is no need to mention the State or the Country…

  • Voodude

    Tennessee has never warmed up because it is COOLING since 1896.

  • Voodude

    The region of the USA called “Northern Rockies and Plains” has been COOLING since 1966…

  • Voodude

    Kentucky COOLING since 1905

  • Voodude

    Africa?

  • Voodude

    If CO2 was such a “blanket”…

  • Voodude

    Not Kansas, but Texas… COOLING since 1925!

  • Voodude

    East Africa?

  • Voodude

    Yep, East Africa…

  • Voodude

    Whadda name, “King” …

  • Voodude

    “The science is based on “empirical measurements” not models.”

    Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”

    Quoted from a meeting, held in Asheville, North Carolina, 13 August 1991

    Book: Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming p. 82, 83. By Patrick J. Michaels

    books.google.ca/books?id=of7lmKM9XxwC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=%22basing+them+upon+the+climate+models%22+folland+%22data+don%27t+matter%22&source=bl&ots=jynOaerd6m&sig=9E3LTOx3dCIdeBARQM6yxibvijs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LBYHVdHUCJGoogScjYDoDg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22basing%20them%20upon%20the%20climate%20models%22%20folland%20%22data%20don’t%20matter%22&f=false

  • Voodude

    “…and with CO2 at a much higher level than in the past 400,000 years, …”.
    Not so fast. I told you you’d be a science denier … and here you go.

    This study indicates a peak of CO2, 400-425 ppmv at a time of 12,760 years ago, about the age of the Younger Dryas interval of the Holocene. That is higher than it is, now! Not 400k a ago, but 12k a ago.

    Leaf stomata are used as a proxy for atmospheric concentrations of CO2. While bubbles of CO2 locked in ice cores seems to indicate a slow and steady change in CO2, leaf stomata indicate a much more dynamic record of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    stomatal proxy records reflect atmospheric [CO2] more accurately than ice core data

    [CO2] values derived from air bubbles in ice cores underestimate the true palaeo-[CO2]

    ►[Stomatal proxy records reflect] global [CO2], rather than any local environmental influences

    stomatal densities changed as a direct response to [CO2] (which is well-mixed and globally distributed)

    an ideal proxy for … [CO2].

    ✔Stomatal pores of fossil leaves have been ”specifically identified by the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as showing the most promise” as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 concentrations. (Beerling, David J., and Dana L. Royer 2011)

    ”… variation in stomatal frequency responses cannot be a result of local environmental changes or methodological insufficiencies, but do have their origin in a common, at least hemispherically acting forcing factor, namely atmospheric CO2 dynamics throughout the Holocene.” (Wagner, Friederike, et al. 2004.)

    “…at the boundary are preceded by peak [CO2] during the latest part of GI-1 (12,760 cal yr BP, 95% range 12,875 – 12,637 at 3.43 m depth) of ca 400-425 ppm.”

    “In summary, [CO2] as reconstructed using the stomatal proxy method were highly dynamic during the Last Termination, in particular across the climate change boundaries GI-1/GS-1 (Allerød/Younger Dryas), and GS-1/early Holocene. These results are in contrast to the ice core derived [CO2] records, which depict a much less dynamic [CO2] evolution, with the main trend being gradually increasing [CO2]…”

    “The most significant aspects of the new [CO2] record presented here, is i) the dynamic behaviour of [CO2] throughout the interval, but particularly at climate change boundaries, and ii) the considerably higher concentrations, compared to [CO2] records based on ice core data (see Fig. 8). It has been suggested that stomatal proxy records reflect atmospheric [CO2] more accurately than ice core data, for instance by comparing modern air flask measurements of [CO2] to both types of datasets (Kouwenberg et al., 2003; Finsinger and Wagner-Cremer, 2009). It has furthermore been suggested that [CO2] values derived from air bubbles in ice cores underestimate the true palaeo-[CO2] (e.g. Berner and Kothavala, 2001; Kouwenberg et al., 2005; Van Hoof et al., 2005). The general agreement of the several stomatal proxy studies that have previously been published covering the interval studied here also support the finding that [CO2] was higher during the last termination that previously believed (see Fig. 9 and Section 5.2). The absolute ppm values for [CO2] during the last Termination may be very difficult to determine with certainty, but increasingly evidence is pointing towards higher concentration and more dynamic behaviour of atmospheric CO2 during this important interval.”

    “At the GI-1/GS-1 (Allerød/Younger Dryas) transition (12,630 cal yr BP, 95% range 12,691e12,521 at 3.40 m depth), which marks a shift from a warmer to a colder climate state, [CO2] increases markedly before the boundary and peaks at ca 400-425 ppm before it decreases again…”

    “…through the positive feedback of increased upwelling in the Southern Ocean, releasing “old” CO2 from deepwater reservoirs (Skinner et al., 2010; Burke and Robinson, 2012; Schmitt et al., 2012).”

    “This interpretation of the stomatal proxy [CO2] record presented here thus establishes CO2, released from the Southern Ocean, as the primary driver for…”

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/C_1.png

    “The fact that the two completely independent records of (i) [CO2] concentrations, based on stomatal frequency of leaves, and (ii) LOI as temperature proxy, based on analysis of organic matter (Fig. 7), show a parallel response throughout the studied interval, suggests that the [CO2] record presented here is accurately illustrating trends in [CO2] during the Last Termination. The general trends of the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record are furthermore supported by other, previously published stomatal proxy based [CO2] records (see Fig. 9 and Section 5.2). The [CO2] record presented here is based on a well-dated, high- resolution, high-density single-species database of [(Betula nana)] leaves and is thus of very high quality.”

    “The similarity of the two records is especially important, since they are derived from two separate sites on different continents, and thus appear to reflect global [CO2], rather than any local environmental influences on stomatal density.”

    “Plant stomatal densities changed as a direct response to [CO2] (which is well-mixed and globally distributed) and are thus an ideal proxy for Last Termination [CO2].”

    Steinthorsdottir, Margret, et al. “Stomatal proxy record of CO2 concentrations from the last termination suggests an important role for CO2 at climate change transitions.” Quaternary Science Reviews 68 (2013): 43-58.

    http://people.su.se/~Wohlf/pdf/Steinthorsdottir%20et%20al%202013%20QSR.pdf

  • Voodude

    Stomatal pores of fossil leaves have been ”specifically identified by the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as showing the most promise” as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    Beerling, David J., and Dana L. Royer 2011 . “Convergent cenozoic CO2 history.” Nature Geoscience 4.7 (2011): 418-420.

    http://www.grandkidzfuture.com/earths-climate/ewExternalFiles/Cenozoic%20CO2%202011.pdf

  • Voodude

    Commonly, y’all alarmists state that CO2 was in ♪ harmony ♪ with ♪ the ♪ universe ♪ until Mann came along and screwed things up. Well, you science denier, read this study:

    ”A stomatal-based method of palaeo-CO2 estimation has been applied to a temporally detailed sequence of leaves from a high-latitude lake (68°N) in northern Sweden spanning the last 9000 years. The resulting atmospheric CO2 reconstruction documents the onset of a gradual increase c. 5000 years before present indicating that the carbon cycle has not been in steady state over this time. Stable carbon isotope (δ13C) measurements of the subfossil leaves constrain the interpretation of the inferred changes in the operation of the global carbon cycle. The δ13C data reveal no marked or systematic shifts towards more negative values indicating that the CO2 addition to the atmosphere 5000–1000 yr BP may have been predominantly of oceanic origin.”

    Rundgren, Mats, and David Beerling. “A Holocene CO2 record from the stomatal index of subfossil Salix herbacea L. leaves from northern Sweden.” The Holocene 9.5 (1999): 509-513.

    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/9/5/509.short

  • Voodude

    Josh-

  • Voodude

    ”The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.”

    Wagner, Friederike, et al. “Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO 2 records based on stomatal frequency.” Quaternary Science Reviews 23.18 (2004): 1947-1954.

    http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henk_Visscher3/publication/46654153_Reproducibility_of_Holocene_atmospheric_CO2_records_based_on_stomatal_frequency_analysis/links/00463535eb98804be0000000.pdf

  • Voodude

    “It’s time for you to adjust your thinking …”

  • Voodude

    “you refuse to accept the unequivocal evidence, which I can only attribute to irrationality.”

  • Voodude

    “the only logical cause is fossil fuel emissions.”

  • Voodude

    “decreased snow cover”

  • Voodude

    You claim, “decreased snow cover”

  • Voodude

    Snowpack has its ups and downs … but they are unaffected by the CO2 concentration…

  • Voodude

    “glacial retreat”
    So, why was the rate of retreat high before CO2 amounted to much, about 1930, and then, as CO2 got way higher, the rate of retreat went down?

  • Voodude

    T L Cook et al. 2009 demonstrates that CO2 has no relationship with glacial retreat rate.

  • Voodude

    Josh:

  • Voodude

    “extreme weather events” … like, maybe, hurricanes? Here is AlGore, preparing for a lecture:

  • Voodude

    US Landfalls have decreased:

  • Voodude

    …and their power is weaker…

  • dale ruff

    The evidence for global warming is based on empirical data, which has been confirmed by the Berkeley Project.

    Recommendations are based on climate models, which are constructed with empirical data and extrapolation. You cannot claim data from the future, only the past. You have taken this statement out of context. Since 1991, when it was made, the models have been confirmed by the data.

    Here is proof that the models were correct (they predicted more global warming):

    “…. the 10 warmest years on record have all happened since 1998.All of this makes it pretty clear that global warming hasn’t stopped. Even though the rate of warming may have slowed since the 1980s and 1990s, the planet continues to heat up.

    NASA also released their global numbers — putting 2013 in a tie with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year on record. Their records also go back to 1880. Although they use a slightly different method for analyzing the temperature data, the difference in calculations are very small. .”

    ” This is reported at climatecentral.org, based on empirical data, which confirms the projections of the models constructed in the 90’s.

    You are quoting from a book written 23 years ago, which affirms global warming.

    Once again, your own source refutes your claim that the earth is not warming.

    “Michaels’ viewpoint, as argued in a 2002 article in the journal Climate Research, is that the planet will see “a warming range of 1.3–3.0°C, with a central value of 1.9°C” for the 1990 to 2100 period” Wikipedia

    So you still can’t find a climate scientist who denies global warming. Both Storch and Michaels affirm the earth is warming. Michaels is also making predictions built not on empirical data but on models which extrapolate or predict the level of warming. Can’t you find a source which does not contradict your laughable claims?

    “Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades.”

    “By Patrick J. Michaels (2/2007)
    It’s hardly news that human beings have had a hand in the planetary warming that began more than 30 years ago. For nearly a century, scientists have known that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually result in warming……The stark reality is that if we really want to alter the warming trajectory of the planet significantly, we have to cut emissions by an extremely large amount, ”

    Don’t you get it:? the evidence is indisputable; there are no climate scientists who can deny global warming and over 97% attribute it to fossil fuel emissions, according to a study of 12,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming.

    You are wrong and won’t admit it; your own sources mock your claims. You are a fool.

  • dale ruff

    This is one glacier in Montana, a tiny tiny fraction of the word’s glaciers which are melting at record rates. Cherry picking like this is looking at the very cold weather on one day and claiming it refute global warming. It is akin to confusing weather with climate. Climate is based on a long term global scale, not one glacier or one cold winter. This is the logical fallacy of cherry picking whille ignoring the overwhelming evidence of global glacier melting. You can take a cruise to Alaska and observe it.

    “Studied by glaciologists, the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat with the measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is often cited as an evidentiary underpinning of global warming. Mid-latitude mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Cascade Range, and the southern Andes, as well as isolated tropical summits such as Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, are showing some of the largest proportionate glacial losses.” Wikipedia with primary sources

    “In 2008, the Swiss Glacier survey of 85 glaciers found 78 retreating, 2 stationary and 5 advancing.” Why not only look at the 5 advancing and claim that refutes the claim of glacial retreat?

    “As is true with other glaciers worldwide, the glaciers of Asia are experiencing a rapid decline in mass. The loss of these glaciers would have a tremendous impact on the ecosystem of the region.” This includes massive flooding and eventually critical water shortages as melted glaciers end up in the sea.

    In California, the snowfall (and rain) is the least in history, leading to massive drought and water shortages.

    “In the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan 28 of 30 glaciers examined retreated significantly during the 1976–2003 period,”

    “The Tibetan Plateau contains the world’s third-largest store of ice. Qin Dahe, the former head of the China Meteorological Administration, said that the recent fast pace of melting and warmer temperatures will be good for agriculture and tourism in the short term; but issued a strong warning:

    Temperatures are rising four times faster than elsewhere in China, and the Tibetan glaciers are retreating at a higher speed than in any other part of the world … In the short term, this will cause lakes to expand and bring floods and mudflows … In the long run, the glaciers are vital lifelines for Asian rivers, including the Indus and the Ganges. Once they vanish, water supplies in those regions will be in peril.”

    “. Between 1984 and 2005, the North Cascade glaciers lost an average of more than 12.5 metres (41 ft) in thickness and 20–40 percent of their volume.[9]

    Glaciologists researching the North Cascades glaciers have found that all 47 monitored glaciers are receding and that four glaciers—Spider Glacier, Lewis Glacier, Milk Lake Glacier, and David Glacier—have disappeared completely since 1985.”

    Here is the overall story of the Montana glaciers:

    “On the sheltered slopes of the highest peaks of Glacier National Park in Montana, its eponymous glaciers are diminishing rapidly.”

    Here is Alaska: “The Columbia Glaciernear Valdez in Prince William Sound has retreated 15 km (9.3 mi) in the last 25 years.” Alaska has thousands of glaciers, almost all retreating: “.Of 2,000 glaciers observed, 99% are retreating.”

    A large region of population surrounding the central and southern Andes of Argentina and Chile reside in arid areas that are dependent on water supplies from melting glaciers. The water from the glaciers also supplies rivers that have in some cases been dammed for hydroelectric power. Some researchers believe that by 2030, many of the large ice caps on the highest Andes will be gone if current climate trends continue. In Patagonia on the southern tip of the continent, the large ice caps have retreated a 1 km (0.62 mi) since the early 1990s and 10 km (6.2 mi) since the late 19th century. It has also been observed that Patagonian glaciers are receding at a faster rate than in any other world region.[64] The Northern Patagonian Ice Field lost 93 km2 (36 sq mi) of glacier area during the years between 1945 and 1975, and 174 km2 (67 sq mi) from 1975 to 1996, which indicates that the rate of retreat is increasing. This represents a loss of 8% of the ice field, with all glaciers experiencing significant retreat.”

    The above and more is from Wikipedia, all with primary sources.

    Etc etc. There are a small fraction of advancing glaciers in the world, but the vast majority are melting at a rapid rate. Do you have any more cartoons? The melting of glaciers will have catastrophic consequences in terms of flooding, sea level rise, and water shortages. This is not alarmism: it is the plain truth.

    You are a total fool to think you can outargue the 10,000 climate scientists of the world. Even your own sources refute yours claims that the earth is cooling. But thanks for the chuckles.

  • Voodude

    See? I told you, You are a science denier. As Richard Feynman simply said, about theories, “…compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

  • Voodude

    “This is one glacier … Cherry picking …” You’re making a bad argument again; a logical fallacy, an Appeal to Ignorance … as if, by citing the study on one glacier, you’re assuming that there were not other glaciers that fit the category of melting before the effects of CO2. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/

  • dale ruff

    You are a. hopeless idiot. Good bye. I do not see your point I see that you are a victim of a propaganda campaign by the world’s polluters. Global warming is not a theory but an indisputable fact. If you dispute it, it is you that is wrong, not the evidence. You are full of shit.

  • Voodude

    Sperry Glacier retreated way ahead of “Global Warming” … between 1913 and 1945, the rate of retreat of Sperry Glacier was ten times faster than the rate of retreat since 1979. Between 1700 and 1950, 74% of the glacier was gone. By 2000, it has only reduced by 10% of the size measured in 1900.
    Pederson, Gregory T., et al. “Long-duration drought variability and impacts on ecosystem services: a case study from Glacier National Park, Montana.” Earth Interactions 10.4 (2006): 1-28.

    http://esanalysis.colmex.mx/Sorted%20Papers/2006/2006%20USA%20-CS%20USA%20MT,%20Hyd%20Phys.pdf

  • Voodude

    Glaciers got unusually big, during the little ice age, relative to their sizes in the earlier part of the Holocene. As the earth’s environmental conditions naturally return to “normal” Holocene conditions, the anomalously large glaciers are simply returning to their “normal” Holocene sizes.
    “…glacier advances in the Northern Hemisphere during the past millennium [Little Ice Age] were the most extensive of the Holocene…”
    “Glaciers in the park were smaller than at present in the early Holocene.”
    Koch, Johannes, Gerald D. Osborn, and John J. Clague. “Pre-Little Ice Age’glacier fluctuations in Garibaldi Provincial Park, Coast Mountains, British Columbia, Canada.” The Holocene 17.8 (2007): 1069-1078.

    http://kochj.brandonu.ca/ho_2007.pdf

  • Voodude

    May 2011: “…the Rhone Glacier, Switzerland. Results show that during the Holocene, the glacier was smaller than today for 6500 ± 2000 yr, and larger than today for 4500 ± 2000 yr. This pattern is consistent with limited data from other techniques for glaciers in the Alps and Scandinavia, but in contrast to glaciers from the Southern Alps of New Zealand…”
    The anomalously large glaciers are simply returning to their “normal” Holocene sizes.

    “The Rhone Glacier was smaller than today for most of the Holocene”
    Geological Society of America – Goehring et al. 2011
    doi: 10.1130/G32145.1

    http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/7/679.abstract

  • Voodude

    “… Because many glacial margins began retreat (A.D. ≈1850–1900) before the introduction of significant amounts of human-induced greenhouse gases, at least the initial part of the warming is a natural swing in the climate system. The continued warming and subsequent glacial retreat have uncovered buried forests in the Canadian Rockies [Luckman BH (1995) The Holocene 5:149–159] and elsewhere that are several thousand years old, which would require that these glaciers were once smaller than their present size. Such observations help define the range of natural climate variability.”

    “As climate changes, so do glaciers”

    PNAS– TV Lowell

    Doi: 10.1073/pnas.97.4.1351

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1351.full#ref-4

  • Voodude

    Feb 2000: The Alps were mostly free of glaciation, over much of the last 10,000 years. In particular, Pasterze Glacier, the longest glacier in Austria, used to be a lot shorter… for most of the Holocene. Wood “…washed out by the stream from under the present ice. The wood originates from trees which reached ages of up to 400 years or more. Radiocarbon dating shows them to come from the early Holocene. They indicate that between cal. BC 8100 and cal. BC 6900, the Pasterze Glacier was smaller, than at present. The Pasterze Glacier advanced around cal. BC 6900. A lump of peat shows that around cal. Bc 6300, at the latest, the Pasterze Glacier was again, smaller than today. The radiocarbon age of the fulvic acid fraction of the peat suggests that growth could have continued until cal. BC 5430-5080. Further wood samples, dated to around cal. Bc 4800, and cal. Bc 3800, show that, at these times, the Pasterze Glacier was smaller than at present.

    “The Pasterze Glacier had a relatively limited extent over long periods in the early Holocene. Thus, mostly favourable climatic conditions can be inferred for these time periods.”

    “Discovery of early Holocene wood and peat on the forefield of the Pasterze Glacier, Eastern Alps, Austria”

    The Holocene– Nicolussi & Patzelt 2000

    doi: 10.1191/095968300666855842

    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/10/2/191.short

  • Voodude

    Feb 2000: Many varieties of trees grew, for hundreds of years, in high alpine mountain passes, in a warmer time, before being overtaken by glaciers… Only recently have temperatures climbed back to the point where the glaciers have retreated, revealing the entombed, rooted, tree-stumps that the glaciers swallowed -in this case, 2.5 to 3.1 thousand years ago.

    “In late-August 1999, … stumps, rooted within a well-preserved paleosol, were exposed. Radiocarbon dating established the stumps represented trees killed between 2910 +/60 and 2830 ± 60 14C years BP. These radiocarbon dates substantiate previous circumstantial evidence of a Neoglacial advance at Saskatchewan Glacier and are illustrative of the approximate position of the icefront at 3000 14C years BP.”
    “During the preceding Little Ice Age (LIA, 1200 to 1900 A.D.), glaciers throughout the Canadian Rockies experienced episodes of synchronous glacier advance (Luckman 2000).”

    “samples were identified as being either subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanni) or whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis)”
    “7 whitebark pine specimens were identified and 11 individual radii were used to develop a floating chronology spanning a 396 year interval”
    “6 engelmann spruce trees were identified and 9 individual radii were used to develop a floating chronology that spans a 237 year interval

    Previous radiocarbon dating of glacially-entombed tree material, at Saskatchewan Glacier (Luckman et al. (1993) and Robinson (1988)) showed that trees grew here, 2.5 to 3.1 thousand years ago.

    The oldest, 3180 ± 80; the youngest 2540 ± 60 (“Dates are reported as RCYBP (radiocarbon years before present, “present” = 1950 A.D.).”)

    “DENDROGLACIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT SASKATCHEWAN GLACIER, BANFF NATIONAL PARK”

    Prepared for Parks Canada, Western Region

    Dr. Dan Smith, U of Victoria, Dept. of Geography

    http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept/uvtrl/2000-02.pdf

  • Voodude

    Eight times in the last 10,000 years, glacial retreat has surpassed that of today’s warming. Tree growth, and peat moss thrived in areas now choked with glacial ice. ”…eight phases of glacier recession: 9910-9550, 9010-7980, 7250-6500, 6170-5950, 5290-3870, 3640-3360, 2740-2620 and 1530-1170 calibrated years BP.“

    9910-9550, 360

    9010-7980, 1030

    7250-6500, 750

    6170-5950, 220

    5290-3870, 1420

    3640-3360, 280

    2740-2620 120

    1530-1170 360

    “Allowing for the time-lag between climatic fluctuations, glacier response and vegetation colonization, these recession phases may lag behind climatic changes by 100-200 years.”

    “…pieces of wood, organic lake sediments and clasts of reworked peat have been collected in front of Alpine glaciers since AD 1990. The palaeoglaciological interpretation of these organic materials is related to earlier phases of glacier recession, surpassing that of today’s shrunken glaciers, and to tree growth, and peat accumulation, in the valleys now occupied by the glaciers.”

    “The Alps with little ice: evidence for eight Holocene phases of reduced glacier extent in the Central Swiss Alps”

    The Holocene – A Hormes et al.

    doi: 10.1191/095968301675275728

    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/11/3/255.short

  • dale ruff

    Cherry picking.

  • Voodude

    In science, all that is required to reject a hypothesis, is one case where the hypothesis doesn’t fit. Just one. It doesn’t matter how many cases where the hypothesis fits as snugly as a glove. As Richard Feynman simply said, “…compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

  • Voodude

    Glaciers in Garibaldi Park were smaller in the early Holocene than they are now. Some evidence suggests that the glaciers exhibited minor, and short-lived advances, but none like the growth of glaciers seen in the ‘Little Ice Age‘. The anomalously large glaciers are simply returning to their “normal” Holocene sizes.

    Koch, Johannes, Gerald D. Osborn, and John J. Clague. “Pre-Little Ice Age’glacier fluctuations in Garibaldi Provincial Park, Coast Mountains, British Columbia, Canada.” The Holocene 17.8 (2007): 1069-1078.

    http://kochj.brandonu.ca/ho_2007.pdf

    “Based on our field data and an evaluation of the published literature, we find no evidence that glaciers were more extensive during the early Holocene than during the Little Ice Age.”

  • dale ruff

    There is no hypothesis that all glaciers are melting. You ignored the daunting evidence that the overwhelming majority of glaciers are retreating. That is not a theory but a fact. You are an idiot.

  • Voodude

    The hypothesis, Dale, is that the cause of the melting is Mann. We reject the hypothesis, based on many cases where the observations go against it.

  • Voodude

    The frequency of Eastern Pacific Cyclones is down.

  • Voodude

    In the Philippine area, the Philippine government’s meteorological organization, PAGASA, reports a decline in frequency of typhoons…

  • Voodude

    The Australian government reports a decline in cyclone frequency:

  • Voodude

    PAGASA reports a steep decline since 2004

  • Voodude

    The USA reports that “Extremes in Landfalling Tropical Systems” has been declining over the entire record:

  • Voodude

    Hurricanes, in the Northern Atlantic, have lost their strength, since about 2004:

  • Voodude

    North Atlantic frequency has also gone down:

  • Voodude

    GLOBAL hurricanes have gone down since 2004

  • Voodude

    GLOBAL hurricanes have lost their strength:

  • Voodude

    GLOBAL hurricanes have gone down in frequency

  • Voodude

    While CO2 didn’t amount to a gnat’s mass, 1900-1920, extreme snowstorms went up. CO2 went up a little, 1920-1950, and extreme snowstorms went down.

    While CO2 began its upward climb, especially in 1950, extreme snowstorms went up. But as CO2 continued to set records, in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000, extreme snowstorms went down. Recently, extreme snowstorms are probably going up. There is no relationship between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and extreme snowstorms.

  • Voodude

    Extreme hailstorms show no relationship to increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

  • Voodude

    “extreme weather events” … as chronicled by the USA?

  • Voodude

    “extreme weather events” … as chronicled by the USA, in “extreme precipitation”?

  • dale ruff

    It is a fact that warmer temperatures melt ice. The trend is that the vast majority of glaciers are melting: that too is a fact. Exceptions do not refute the trend anymore than a cold day refutes global warming of the climate. The “many cases” are a small minority.

    Who is “we”? (certainly no climate scientists)and your first sentence is incoherent. You are losing it. Do you still argue the global climate is cooling?

    Observations that the vast majority of glaciers are melting are not contradicted by the exceptions. Glacial melting is not a theory any more than global warming is: it is an indisputable fact which even your own sources confirm. Stop making an ass of yourself and adjust your thinking to the facts.

    You have switched from the earth is cooling to Mann (sic) is not the cause. 97% of climate scientists disagree with you. The other 3% are not sure. Where did you get your education, Voodude?

  • Voodude

    “extreme weather events” … as chronicled by the USA, in State records of high, and low, temperatures?

    Christy http://2.bp.blogspot{dot}com/-2Vcx6Tr9N8k/UcpK1TADoDI/AAAAAAAA6VY/0Fmb0cw4-O4/s1600/christy-number-state-high-low-temperatures-aug-20121.jpg

  • dale ruff

    Global warming, extreme weather, more droughts AND more rain and snow…on a global scale. Do you understand what global means? You are very ignorant tho quite stubborn.

    Global warming, on a global level, brings more precipitation, rain and snow, due to the fact that warmer air holds more moisture. US snowfall is at record levels in the East. In the West, it is at record lows: overall, there is more snow. That is the trend. No local exceptions refute the overall trend. You are truly clueless.

  • Voodude

    sigh
    There is no sense denying that the earth had warmed up, just as there is no sense denying that it is cooling. What is significantly different about my point is that it is currently cooling and that your point is old news. I know this is a lot of information that I posted, but do try to keep up.

  • dale ruff

    The trend is global; regional exceptions do not refute the overall global trend. With all due respect, just fuck off. I am tried of wasting time trying to help you understand the science.

  • Voodude

    You’ve already said “bye” – Log off. I will keep posting, such that other people who read these blogs, understand how much of a science denier you are. It is for those people, that I post. Not you.

  • Voodude

    So, any error that is found, subsequent to Hansen’s publication date, that shows that the computer models were wrong about something, anything… that is more than one quarter of one percent … is enough to cast doubt onto the conclusion. 0.00241 is all Hansen has.

  • Voodude

    Zhou et al. 2015: ”Annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere (TOA) should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m^2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We show that this feature is caused by temporal sampling errors in the calculation of the solar zenith angle. The sampling error can cause zonal oscillations of surface clear-sky net shortwave radiation of about 3 W/m^2 when an hourly radiation time step is used, and 24 W/m^2 when a 3-hour radiation time step is used.”

    Zhou, Linjiong, et al. “On the Incident Solar Radiation in CMIP5 Models.” Geophysical Research Letters (2015).

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063239/abstract

  • Voodude

    Wait, what? This “qualified” group of actual scientists discover a flaw in how incoming insolation is calculated, in the BEST MODELS WE HAVE, that are bigger than Hansen’s ½ watt … like 3 watts?
    … Do you believe Hansen, now?

  • Voodude

    You don’t need to know much, to “take in” this mistake, which is half, or double, depending on how you look at it:
    ”The net effect is that, the change in radiative forcing, due to changes in tropospheric ozone from 2000 to 2100, in Prather et al. (2001) may be an overestimate by about a factor of two.”

    Johns et al. 2003: Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model Climate Dynamics

  • Voodude

    The ENSO cycle is a really big-impact oceanic cycle that severely affects California. ENSO means “El Niño Southern Oscillation”. It affects sea-level heights on pacific islands, and rainfall all around the Pacific Ocean. The La Niña phase of ENSO played a big part in California’s recent drought. No simulation of world climate can come close to reality without ENSO.. Read what this group of “qualified” scientists has to say about how well the computer models do, at simulating ENSO…

    If you’re busy, this is the net: New models show an improvement, being about twice as accurate in simulating ENSO; a little more than half of the new models are within 25%. The old models were within 50%

    ✔The SST mean state in the tropical Pacific ocean exhibits errors of about 1.5°C on the average

    ✔most models [are] underestimating the amplitude of [Bjerknes]feedback by 20 to 50%.

    Only 20% of CMIP3 and CMIP5 models fall within 25% of the observed value [of Bjerknes feedback]

    only 10% of CMIP3 and CMIP5 models fall within 25% of the observed value [for heat flux feedback]

    only half of CMIP5 models fall within 25% of the observed value [for latent heat flux feedback]

    ✔CMIP3 and CMIP5 ensembles both poorly reproduce the observed shortwave feedback value of -7 Wm-2K-1, with ensemble average values close to zero.

    Only 3 of CMIP5 models display a αSW value within 25% of the observed one

    ✔CMIP5 models still struggle to represent convection and cloud processes (e.g. 332 Jiang et al 2012). Yet, these processes are critical for the simulation of the shortwave feedback as showed by Lloyd et al (2011, 2012).

    ✔This indicates that fundamental air-sea interactions responsible for ENSO amplitude are still poorly represented in CMIP5.

    25% (8) of CMIP5 models, however, have a Feedback score inferior to 1

    ✔65% of CMIP5 models ENSO amplitude falls within 25% of the 510 observed value against 50% for CMIP3.”

    Here is the paper, edited and condensed by me, of course…

    ”We analyze the ability of CMIP3 and CMIP5 coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models (CGCMs) to simulate the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the tropical Pacific mean state. The large spread in ENSO amplitude is reduced by a factor of 2 in CMIP5 and the ENSO life cycle … are slightly improved. Other fundamental ENSO characteristics …remain poorly represented. … CMIP5 displays an encouraging 30% reduction of the cold bias in the west Pacific. The Bjerknes and shortwave-surface temperature feedbacks, previously identified as major sources of model errors, do not improve in CMIP5. The slightly improved ENSO amplitude , therefore, might results from error compensations. CMIP3 and CMIP5 can thus be considered as one ensemble (CMIP3+CMIP5). The ability of CMIP models to simulate the observed nonlinearity of the shortwave feedback … Only one third of CMIP3+CMIP5 models reproduce this regime shift, with the remaining models always locked in one of the two regimes. …”

    A ratio of 6/10 of the new models have calculated values for an ENSO parameter that stay within 25% of the actual, observed value. The old models, used for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, were only within 50% of the observed value.

    “65% of CMIP5 Niño-3 and Niño-4 ENSO amplitudes fall within 25% of the observed value …[Compare that] against 50% for CMIP3.”

    “Most models tend to underestimate ENSO-related interannual anomalies of the convective activity in the central Pacific.There is no clear improvement of the average value of the metric in CMIP5 compared to CMIP3 (~40% of ENSO-related convective activity falls within 25% of the observed value for both CMIP3 and CMIP5)…

    This spectral metric (Fig. 1d) hardly shows any change from CMIP3 to CMIP5.

    Note that Wittenberg (2009) and Stevenson et al. (2010) show that a minimum of 300 to 500 years is necessary to accurately evaluate the ENSO spectrum. As reliable observational records are still quite short, even the real ENSO spectrum remains uncertain.

    Some models simulate only 10% of El Niño events … while others reach values close to 100%.

    There is a deterioration of the simulation of the east Pacific average net surface flux (Fig. 5e) with an average error exceeding 40 Wm^-2for Niño-3 region.

    The SST mean state in the tropical Pacific ocean exhibits errors of about 1.5°C on the average

    most models [are] underestimating the amplitude of [Bjerknes]feedback by 20 to 50%.

    Only 20% of CMIP3 and CMIP5 models fall within 25% of the observed value [of Bjerknes feedback]

    only 10% of CMIP3 and CMIP5 models fall within 25% of the observed value [for heat flux feedback]

    only half of CMIP5 models fall within 25% of the observed value [for latent heat flux feedback]

    CMIP3 and CMIP5 ensembles both poorly reproduce the observed shortwave feedback value of -7 Wm^-2 K^-1, with ensemble average values close to zero.

    Only 3 of CMIP5 models display a αSW value within 25% of the observed one

    CMIP5 models still struggle to represent convection and cloud processes (e.g. 332 Jiang et al 2012). Yet, these processes are critical for the simulation of the shortwave feedback as showed by Lloyd et al (2011, 2012).

    This indicates that fundamental air-sea interactions responsible for ENSO amplitude are still poorly represented in CMIP5.

    25% (8) of CMIP5 models, however, have a Feedback score inferior to 1

    65% of CMIP5 models ENSO amplitude falls within 25% of the 510 observed value against 50% for CMIP3.”

    That is an improvement of about twice as accurate; a little more than half of the new models are within 25%. The old models were within 50%

    Bellenger, Hugo, et al. “ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5.” Climate Dynamics 42.7-8 (2014): 1999-2018.

    http://ncas-climate.nerc.ac.uk/~ericg/publications/Bellenger_al_CD12s.pdf

  • Voodude

    ENSO is really important to “get right”, in model simulations of global climate. This paper does not “quantify” things, meaning that they don’t assign some percentage to the error… but if you read this, you’ll get the idea that the “qualified” scientists aren’t very pleased:

    Overestimations of summer rainfall occur over Southern Africa in all CMIP5 models. Abnormal westward extensions of ENSO patterns are a common feature of all CMIP5 models, while the warming of the Indian Ocean that happens during El Niño is not correctly reproduced.”

    Dieppois, Bastien, Mathieu Rouault, and Mark New. “The impact of ENSO on Southern African rainfall in CMIP5 ocean atmosphere coupled climate models.” Climate Dynamics (2015): 1-18.

    If you want to read the un-edited version:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2480-x#page-1

  • Voodude

    The same author, Dieppois, wrote this:

    ”In studying the adequacy of 24 atmosphere-ocean global coupled models from CMIP5, overestimations of summer rainfall occur in Southern Africa. Abnormal extensions of ENSO patterns are a common feature of all CMIP5 models. … which can lead to the wrong sign in rainfall anomalies in the northwest part of South Africa.”

    Underestimation of SST anomalies east of California and Baja peninsula is also detected.”

    ”Although, the CMIP5 experiments show a realistic seasonal rainfall cycle, summer rainfall is always overestimated. … This is partly due to CMIP5 model shortcomings

    Dieppois, Bastien, Mathieu Rouault, and Mark New. “Austral summer relationship between ENSO and Southern African rainfall in CMIP5 coupled models.”

    http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bastien_Dieppois/publication/264737227_Austral_summer_relationship_between_ENSO_and_Southern_African_rainfall_in_CMIP5_coupled_models/links/54072af00cf2bba34c1e911a.pdf

  • Voodude

    Still on the topic of ENSO:

    “Note that Wittenberg (2009) and Stevenson et al. (2010) show that a minimum of 300 to 500 years [of accurate, historical meteorological records] is necessary to accurately evaluate the ENSO spectrum. As reliable observational records are still quite short, even the real ENSO spectrum remains uncertain.”

    Bellenger, Hugo, et al. “ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5.” Climate Dynamics 42.7-8 (2014): 1999-2018.

    http://ncas-climate.nerc.ac.uk/~ericg/publications/Bellenger_al_CD12s.pdf

  • Voodude

    No longer on ENSO, but models, in general:

    ” We found that no model can simultaneously exhibits good performance in simulating historical climate, and in projecting a future climate, that is close to the [multi-model ensemble] mean.“

    Gu, Huanghe, et al. “Assessing CMIP5 general circulation model simulations of precipitation and temperature over China.” International Journal of Climatology (2014).

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4152/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

  • Voodude

    Feb 1998: “In this paper we explore the dominant position of a particular style of scientific modelling in the provision of policy-relevant scientific knowledge on future climate change. We describe how the apical position of General Circulation Models (GCMs) appears to follow ‘logically’ both from conventional understandings of scientific representation and the use of knowledge, so acquired, in decision-making. We argue, however, that both of these particular understandings are contestable. In addition to questioning their current policy-usefulness, we draw upon existing analyses of GCMs which discuss model trade-offs, errors, and the effects of parameterizations, to raise questions about the validity of the conception of complexity in conventional accounts. An alternative approach to modelling, incorporating concepts of uncertainty, is discussed, and an illustrative example given for the case of the global carbon cycle. In then addressing the question of how GCMs have come to occupy their dominant position, we argue that the development of global climate change science and global environmental ‘management’ frameworks occurs concurrently and in a mutually supportive fashion, so uniting GCMs and environmental policy developments in certain industrialised nations and international organisations. The more basic questions about what kinds of commitments to theories of knowledge underpin different models of ‘complexity’ as a normative principle of ‘good science’ are concealed in this mutual reinforcement. Additionally, a rather technocratic policy orientation to climate change may be supported by such science, even though it involves political choices which deserve to be more widely debated.”

    Shackley, Simon, et al. “Uncertainty, complexity and concepts of good science in climate change modelling: Are GCMs the best tools?.” Climatic Change 38.2 (1998): 159-205.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005310109968

  • Voodude

    Forbes: “…the modeling procedures that the IPCC relies upon to produce their scary climate change scenarios ignore most principles of scientific forecasting.” “…the modeling procedures the IPCC uses to create their … climate change projections violated 72 of 89 relevant forecasting principles.”
    Dr Kesten Green: “…there really is no excuse for the negligence IPCC has shown in overlooking the findings of nearly a century of research on forecasting methods…”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/22/the-un-ipccs-climate-modeling-procedures-need-serious-remodeling/

  • Voodude

    Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog, admitted:

    …none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

    In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

    Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate, owing to model errors.

    However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate.

    (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html)

  • Voodude

    Daniel B Botkin, PhD: “The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done, with available computers and programming methods. They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists. Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods. But I hear no such statements today. Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts … are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality.”

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119258265537661384

  • Voodude

    Compared to the “known” period (recent history), the 32 General Circulation Models produced errors related to the extent (area) of the surface of the earth, as classified by average climate temperature:

    Torrid -really, really hot: 15% error

    Hot 15.9% error compared to the “known” period

    Warm 14.1% error

    Cool 17.7% error

    Cold 25.9% error

    Frigid 11.4% error

    Elguindi, N., et al. “Assessment of CMIP5 global model simulations and climate change projections for the 21 st century using a modified Thornthwaite climate classification.” Climatic Change (2014): 1-16.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1020-0

  • Voodude

    In some models, ” … the total surface of the Arctic Ocean and peripheral seas north of 60°N in CNRM-CM3 (15.12 x 10^6 km2) is nearly 2 x 10^6 km^2 smaller than the same surface estimated from ETOPO5 (Table 5) because the Baltic Sea was not included in CNRM-CM3 and the Canadian Archipelago was considered as land.”

    “The total Arctic sea ice extent is underestimated from August to November in CNRM-CM5.1 due to a significant underestimation of sea ice off Alaska and over the eastern part of the Siberian basin…”

    “Comparing Proxy Versus Simulated Data Records of Past Climate Using an Energy Balance Model”
    Suzanne Demars Canevari July 25, 2014
    Canevari, Suzanne Demars. “Comparing Proxy Versus Simulated Data Records of Past Climate Using an Energy Balance Model.” (2014).

    http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/306/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00382-011-1259-y.pdf?auth66=1418330748_d6a2db4810c543ca831cd897d4e31f59&ext=.pdf

  • Voodude

    The Canadian Archipelago was simulated as one, solid block of land, and, they left out the Baltic Sea…. That’s Climate Science for ya…

  • Voodude

    Dr Richard Betts, climate modeller, Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, United Kingdom:
    “Everyone** agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know.”

    Aug 22, 2014 at 5:38 PM,

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/8/24/gcms-and-public-policy.html

  • Voodude

    Peter Wadhams, ScD, is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. He is best known for his work on sea ice.
    Wadhams admits, ”methane’s impact on global warming, which hasn’t been taken into account by the IPCC [models]”
    … Governments spent all this money on the IPCC and its computer models, and in all their wisdom, they didn’t foresee this methane problem?
    (therealnews.com/t2/latest-news/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11899)

    Wadhams, what else hasn’t been taken into account by the IPCC’s computer models?

  • Voodude

    “… each of the 17 models is not satisfactory.”

    ”Seventeen models, participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) activity, are compared on their historical simulation of the South China Sea … ocean heat content … in the upper 300 m. [reference] temperature data, based on the World Ocean Database 2005 … and World Ocean Atlas 2005… is used to assess the model performance, by comparing the spatial patterns of [the] seasonal [ocean heat content] anomaly … The correlation between the interannual time series of [the reference] and that from each of the 17 models is not satisfactory. ”

    Wang, Gang, and Min Lin. “A comparison of the CMIP5 models on the historical simulation of the upper ocean heat content in the South China Sea.” Acta Oceanologica Sinica 33.11 (2014): 75-84.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13131-014-0557-8

  • Voodude

    Georgia Institute of Technology 2014: ”Scientists see a large amount of variability in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) when looking back at climate records from thousands of years ago. Without a clear understanding of what caused past changes in ENSO variability, predicting the climate phenomenon’s future is a difficult task.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141205114015.htm

  • Voodude

    ”The El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is Earth’s dominant interannual climate fluctuation, affecting agriculture, ecosystems, and weather around the globe.”

    ”…there is no guarantee that the 150 yr historical SST record is a fully representative target for model development. …”
    “In any case, it is sobering to think that even absent any anthropogenic changes, the future of ENSO could look very different from what we have seen so far.”

    Wittenberg, Andrew T. “Are historical records sufficient to constrain ENSO simulations?.” Geophysical Research Letters 36.12 (2009).

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~atw/yr/2009/wittenberg_grl_2009_revised.pdf

  • Voodude

    Are you familiar with the CMIP project? Coupled Model Intercomparison Project is where “Climate Scientists” and their critics, and supporters, get together to figure out what is wrong, and what is right, with the computer simulations that they call “models” … “standard experimental protocol for studying the output of coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs). CMIP provides a community-based infrastructure in support of climate model diagnosis, validation, intercomparison, documentation and data access”.

    http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov

    These are the models that the IPCC uses. The previous version are called CMIP3, the current version, CMIP5.

    Way back in 1938, Callendar, a premier, pioneering “Climate Scientist” observed that clouds compensate for warmth, keeping the earth in a reasonable balance… “On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar “constant” and the properties of water and air. Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.”

    Callendar, Guy Stewart. “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64.275 (1938): 223-240. PDF copy is here.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/qj.49706427503/asset/49706427503_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=i2hp7mkq&s=5ca4636029afeea93cc59249acfa87a4df86d8f6

    “Plass (1961, among others) computed the surface temperature response of doubling CO2 with a surface-energy balance calculation. His relier estimates were sharply contested by Kaplan (1961 0), who maintained that inclusion of cloudiness wold reduce Plass’ estimate considerably.”

    Schneider, Stephen H. “On the carbon dioxide-climate confusion.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 32.11 (1975): 2060-2066.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281975%29032%3C2060%3AOTCDC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Clouds have a strong impact on the radiation budget of the earth. They increase the global reflection 15–30% (e.g., Wild et al., 2013), causing the albedo of the entire earth to be about twice of what it would be in the absence of clouds (Cess, 1976). Clouds also absorb the long-wave radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and emit energy into space at the temperature at the cloud tops (e.g., Ramanathan et al., 1989). Cloud radiative interactions also represent a large source of uncertainty, in the understanding of past and future climate changes, because of potential variations in the cloud characteristics of the earth.”

    Me, interjecting here… note the above ”…15-30%…” and note that Hansen’s figure, 0.58 out of about 240, is about 0.24%. Hansen’s “forcing” appears dwarfed by Wild et al 2013.

    ”Cloud forcing, thus, is negative, for the shortwave component, where clouds generally have a cooling effect, and positive, for the long-wave component, where clouds generally have a warming effect.”

    Calisto, M., et al. “Cloud radiative forcing intercomparison between fully coupled CMIP5 models and CERES satellite data.” Annales Geophysicae. Vol. 32. No. 7. Copernicus GmbH, 2014.

    ”There is no consensus among the climate models on the sign of the longwave cloud feedback, after accounting for both issues.”

    Me again: snide comment: They cannot agree on whether it is positive, or negative, let alone the magnitude!

    Huang, Yi. “On the longwave climate feedbacks.” Journal of Climate 26.19 (2013): 7603-7610.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00025.1

    In 1988, Dr. Steven Schneider said “Clouds are an important factor about which little is known. When I first started looking at this in 1972, we didn’t know much about the feedback from clouds. We don’t know any more now, than we did, then.”

    Global Warming Unchecked: Signs to Watch for By Harold W. Bernard, page 80.

    Now this piece is the really big one…

    Apr 2014, Lin, Jia-Lin, Taotao Qian, and Toshiaki Shinoda: “… a 5% increase of [Stratocumulus clouds’] coverage would be sufficient to offset the global warming induced by doubling CO2” Other scientists: Randall et al. (1984), Slingo (1990), Bretherton et al. (2004) and Wood (2012) say essentially the same thing.

    “This study examines the stratocumulus clouds and associated cloud feedback in the southeast Pacific simulated by eight global climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) and Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) using long-term observations of clouds, radiative fluxes, cloud radiative forcing, sea surface temperature, and large-scale atmosphere environment. The results show that the state-of-the-art global climate models still have significant difficulty in simulating the southeast Pacific stratocumulus clouds and associated cloud feedback. Comparing with observations, the models tend to simulate significantly less cloud cover, higher cloud top, and a variety of unrealistic cloud albedo. The insufficient cloud cover leads to overly weak shortwave cloud radiative forcing and net cloud radiative forcing. Only two of the eight models capture the observed positive cloud feedback at subannual to decadal time scales. The cloud and radiation biases in the models are associated with 1) model biases in large-scale temperature structure including the lack of temperature inversion, insufficient lower troposphere stability, and insufficient reduction of lower troposphere stability with local sea surface temperature warming, and 2) improper model physics, especially insufficient increase of low cloud cover associated with larger lower troposphere stability. The two models that arguably do best at simulating the stratocumulus clouds and associated cloud feedback are the only ones using cloud-top radiative cooling to drive boundary layer turbulence.”

    Lin, Jia-Lin, Taotao Qian, and Toshiaki Shinoda. “Stratocumulus Clouds in Southeastern Pacific Simulated by Eight CMIP5–CFMIP Global Climate Models.” Journal of Climate 27.8 (2014): 3000-3022.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00376.1

    Now that paper, alone, seems to me to be justification for skepticism… Nothing I made up, nothing from some skeptic’s web page, nothing from the Koch brothers…

    ”Clouds have a variety of effects on both the radiation budget and water balance, so it is highly important that models reproduces them accurately. According to Schwarz (2008: 439), ‘a 10% error in treatment of clouds in the climate model would result in an error of some 4.8 W/m2’.

    ” …the scale on which convective clouds form can be less than a kilometre. To model the processes occurring at this scale using the equations of fluid motion would require much finer grid resolution than is currently feasible [2010]. So a scheme is created which simulates the collective effects of convective clouds in each model grid cell. However, as noted by Randall et al. (2003), some of the assumptions the parameterization scheme makes to calculate these effects are difficult to verify, and additionally may not be valid in a warmer world. ”

    Foley, A. M. 2010 Uncertainty in regional climate modelling: A review Progress in Physical Geography

    http://www.wou.edu/~vanstem/490.S14/Uncertainty%20in%20Climate%20Modelling.pdf

    Sep 2014, Stephen E Koonin: “My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don’t know, about climate. …”

    “For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box’s average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted [‘tuned,’ in the jargon of modellers] to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.”

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

    Okay, that one is not from a science paper, it is from the Wall Street Journal… but it is just an introduction to the idea that clouds happen on a smaller, finer scale than most computer models can “see”…

    Models can’t do clouds. What this researcher is saying, is that models chop-up the earth, in a grid, that is too large…

    Nov 2014: “The global mean [Altocumulus] along-track horizontal scale is 40.2 km, with a standard deviation of 52.3 km. Approximately 93.6% of [Altocumulus] cannot be resolved by climate models with a grid resolution of 1°. The global mean mixed-phase [Altocumulus] vertical depth is 1.96 km, with a standard deviation of 1.10 km.”

    “Spatial scales of altocumulus clouds observed with collocated CALIPSO and CloudSat measurements” Atmospheric Research-Zhang et al.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.05.023

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809514002324

    But, you must know… “Only two of 44 models produced since 2006 have a grid resolution better than 1°”

    Models can’t do clouds. 93% of clouds can’t be resolved with 1° or larger grids, but only 2/44 models resolve finer than 1°… and that is what the IPCC has as their best.

    “Evaluations of atmospheric downward longwave radiation from 44 coupled general circulation models of CMIP5 Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres – Qian Ma et al. April 2014 DOI: 10.1002/2013JD021427

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021427/full#jgrd51318-tbl-0001

    2014: “Many aspects of the climate system cannot be explicitly calculated, frequently because specific phenomena develop and act on a scale smaller than used for the model domain (i.e., over distances that are much smaller than represented by a model grid cell). Clouds provide such an example. Cloud motions vary over a horizontal scale of tens to hundreds of meters. Yet, the horizontal resolution of a [General Circulation Model] is typically tens to hundreds of kilometres. In order to represent clouds in [General Circulation Models], cloud processes are approximated or parameterized.”

    Clouds are fudged, faked. I’m not kidding!

    Canevari, Suzanne Demars. “Comparing Proxy Versus Simulated Data Records of Past Climate Using an Energy Balance Model.” (2014).

    http://www.math.hawaii.edu/home/theses/MA_2014_Canevari%20(8:7:14%201:19%20PM).pdf

    Even using today’s fastest supercomputers, a single run of a high-resolution model takes three months.

    “Further down the line, Wehner says scientists will be running climate models with 1 km resolution. To do that, they will have to have a better understanding of how clouds behave.” But they don’t have that understanding, now.

    “Using version 5.1 of the Community Atmospheric Model, developed by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) for use by the scientific community, Wehner and his co-authors conducted an analysis for the period 1979 to 2005 at three spatial resolutions: 25 km, 100 km, and 200 km.”

    “A cloud system-resolved model can reduce one of the greatest uncertainties in climate models, by improving the way we treat clouds,” Michael Wehner (a lead author of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report) said. “That will be a paradigm shift in climate modelling. We’re at a shift now, but that is the next one coming.” But they don’t have that, now.

    “In the low-resolution models, hurricanes were far too infrequent,” Wehner said.

    “Latest supercomputers enable high-resolution climate models, truer simulation of extreme weather”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141112144825.htm

    “…version 5.1 of the Community Atmospheric Model (CAM5.1) at a high horizontal resolution. Intercomparison of this global model at approximately 0.25°, 1°, and 2°”

    “… a comparison to observations reveals both realistic and unrealistic model behaviour.”

    In the absence of extensive model tuning, at high resolution, simulation … in this study is degraded, compared to the tuned, lower-resolution, public-released version of the model.”

    Wehner, Michael F., et al. “The effect of horizontal resolution on simulation quality in the Community Atmospheric Model, CAM5. 1.” Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems (2014).

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013MS000276/full

    Aug 2014: This author compares the latest climate models used by the IPCC, twenty-eight of the 5th generation of the “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project” (CMIP5) models, “and compared [them] with multiple satellite observations”

    The author states, “A large degree of uncertainty in global climate models [General Circulation Models] can be attributed to the representation of clouds, and how they interact with incoming solar [short-wave radiation], and outgoing longwave radiation.”

  • Voodude

    Models can’t do clouds. I’m going to cite the “big one” again…

    Apr 2014: “… a 5% increase of [Stratocumulus clouds’] coverage would be sufficient to offset the global warming induced by doubling CO2” Other scientists: Randall et al. (1984), Slingo (1990), Bretherton et al. (2004) and Wood (2012) say essentially the same thing.

    Lin, Jia-Lin, Taotao Qian, and Toshiaki Shinoda. “Stratocumulus Clouds in Southeastern Pacific Simulated by Eight CMIP5–CFMIP Global Climate Models.” Journal of Climate 27.8 (2014): 3000-3022.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00376.1

    “…but not a single model has a statistically significant agreement with the observational datasets on yearly averaged values of [Cloud Fraction] and on the amplitude of the seasonal cycle, over all analysed areas.”

    What is Pamela Probst, an Atmospheric Physicist, telling you?

    Probst, P., et al. “Total cloud cover from satellite observations and climate models.”

    Atmospheric Research 107 (2012): 161-170.

    http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/files/forschung/theomet/docs/pdf_2012/2012_Probstetal_cloud_cover_AtmosRes.pdf

    “In this study, the simulated total cloud fraction (CF), cloud water path (CWP), top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budgets, and cloud radiative forcings (CRFs) from 28 CMIP5 AMIP models are evaluated, and compared with multiple satellite observations from [Clouds and the Earth’s Energy System, Energy Balance and Filled (CERES-EBAF)] CERES, MODIS, ISCCP, CloudSat, and CALIPSO.

    “The multi-model ensemble mean [total cloud fraction] (57.6 %) is, on average, underestimated by nearly 8%(between 65°N/S) when compared to CERES–MODIS (CM) and ISCCP results…”

    “…while an even larger negative bias (17.1 %) exists compared to the CloudSat/CALIPSO results.”

    Probst is telling you that the errors of the models are 8% and 17.1%, and the other guy, Lin, said that 5% is enough to counter-act all of the IPCC’s dreaded “Global Warming”.

    Isn’t that enough to make you skeptical? These are qualified scientists, not some blogger on a web site.

    “[Cloud water path] bias is similar, in comparison, to the [total cloud fraction] results, with a negative bias of 16.1 gm−2 compared to [CERES and MODIS satellite data].”

    “The model-simulated, and CERES [Energy Balanced and Filled] observed [Top of the atmosphere] reflected [short-wave radiation] and [outgoing long-wave radiation] fluxes, on average, differ by 1.8 and −0.9 Wm−2, respectively.”

    Now the authors are citing watts per meter squared, like Hansen’s 0.58 figure. They differ by a magnitude that is larger than Hansen’s 0.58 number. “…differ by 1.8 and -0.9…”

    “The averaged [short wave radiation], [long wave radiation], and net [cloud radiative forcings] from CERES [Energy Balanced and Filled] are −50.1, 27.6, and −22.5 Wm−2, respectively, indicating a net cooling effect of clouds on the [Top of the atmosphere] radiation budget.”

    Holy forcings, BatMan, did he just say 50, 27, and -22 watts per meter? Compared to Hansen’s 0.58 figure?

    “The differences in [short-wave radiation] and [long-wave radiation] [cloud radiative forcings] between observations, and the multimodel ensemble means, are only −1.3 and −1.6 Wm−2, respectively, resulting in a larger net cooling effect of 2.9 Wm−2 in the model simulations.”

    “A further investigation of cloud properties and [cloud radiative forcings] reveals that the General Circulation Models biases in atmospheric upwelling (15°S–15°N) regimes are much less than in their downwelling (15°–45°N/S) counterparts over the oceans. Sensitivity studies have shown that the magnitude of [short-wave radiation] cloud radiative cooling increases significantly with increasing [total cloud fraction] at similar rates (~−1.25 Wm−2 %−1) in both regimes. The [long wave radiation] cloud radiative warming increases with increasing [total cloud fraction] but is regime dependent, suggested by the different slopes over the upwelling and downwelling regimes (0.81 and 0.22 Wm−2 %−1, respectively). Through a comprehensive error analysis, we found that [total cloud fraction] is a primary modulator of warming (or cooling) in the atmosphere…”

    “Evaluation of CMIP5 simulated clouds and TOA radiation budgets using NASA satellite observations”

    Climate Dynamics– Springer Berlin Heidelberg DOI: 10.1007/s00382-014-2158-9

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2158-9

    Aug 2014: “Significant systematic biases in the moisture fields within the tropical Pacific trade wind regions are found in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3/CMIP5) against profile and and total column water vapour estimates from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) and total column water vapour from the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I). Positive moisture biases occur in conjunction with significant biases of eastward low-level moisture convergence north of the South Pacific convergence zone (SPCZ) and south of the Inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) – the V-shaped regions. The excessive moisture there, is associated with overestimates of reflected upward shortwave (RSUT), underestimates of outgoing long-wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere, and underestimates of downward shortwave flux at the surface, compared to [the satellite data gathered by] Clouds and the Earth’s Energy System, Energy Balance and Filled (CERES-EBAF) data. We characterize the impacts of falling snow and its radiation interaction, which are not included in most CMIP5 models, on the moisture fields using the National Centre for Atmospheric Research-coupled global climate model. A number of differences in the model simulation without snow-radiation interactions are consistent with biases in the CMIP5 simulations. These include effective low-level eastward/southeastward wind and surface wind stress anomalies, and an increase in total column water vapour, vertical profile of moisture, and cloud amounts in the V-shaped region. The anomalous water vapour and cloud amount might be associated with the model increase of [reflected upward shortwave] and decrease of [outgoing long-wave radiation] at [the top of the atmosphere] and [decreased downward short-wave flux at the surface] in clear and all sky in these regions. These findings hint at the importance of water vapour-radiation interactions in the CMIPS/CMIP5 model simulations that exclude the radiative effect of snow.”

    “Characterizing Tropical Pacific Water Vapor and Radiative Biases in CMIP5 GCMs: Observation-Based Analyses and a Snow and Radiation Interaction Sensitivity Experiment” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres – J.-L. F. Li et al. DOI: 10.1002/2014JD021924

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021924

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD021924/abstract

    ”The representation of the marine boundary layer (BL) clouds remains a formidable challenge for state-of-the-art simulations. A recent study by Bodas-Salcedo et al., using the Met Office Unified Model, highlights that the under prediction of the low/midlevel postfrontal clouds, contributes to the largest bias of the surface downwelling shortwave radiation, over the Southern Ocean (SO). A-Train observations, and limited, in situ measurements, have been used to evaluate the Weather Research and Forecasting Model, version 3.3.1 (WRFV3.3.1), in simulating the postfrontal clouds over Tasmania and the [southern ocean]. The simulated cloud macro/microphysical properties are compared against the observations. … The simulations, however, have great difficulties in portraying the widespread marine [boundary layer] clouds, that are not immediately associated with fronts. This shortcoming is persistent to the changes of model configuration, and physical parameterization. … More comprehensive observations are necessary to fully investigate the deficiency of the simulations.

    Huang, Yi, et al. “An Evaluation of WRF Simulations of Clouds over the Southern Ocean with A-Train Observations.” Monthly Weather Review 142.2 (2014): 647-667.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00128.1

    May 2014: “Uncertainties in the knowledge of atmospheric radiative processes are among the main limiting factors for the accuracy of current climate models. Being the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, water vapor is of crucial importance in atmospheric radiative transfer. However, water vapor absorption processes, especially the contribution attributed to the water vapor continuum, are currently not sufficiently well quantified.”

    Like I said, models can’t do clouds. If this is what this group of scientists have to say about the computer-model process, in May of 2014… in their journal-published, peer-reviewed research, then why should you believe the IPCC?

    Reichert, Andreas, Ralf Sussmann, and Markus Rettinger. “Quantification of the water vapor greenhouse effect: setup and first results of the Zugspitze radiative closure experiment.” EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. Vol. 16. 2014.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EGUGA..16.5349R

    Apr 2014: Marc Chiacchio (et al.) evaluated the RegCM4 regional climate model, studying the incoming solar radiation, and the outgoing long-wave infrared radiation. They compared the model predictions to observations at the earth’s surface, and space-satellite products, “Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment Surface Radiation Budget, ERA-Interim, Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES), and Baseline Surface Radiation Network”.

    The authors suffer from run-on-sentence syndrome, and an inability to punctuate.

    “At the [earth’s] surface, the model overestimated the amount of solar radiation absorbed”

    …meaning, the model has a higher “solar forcing” which leads it to assume a larger amount of warming… but that error seemed to be cancelled out by other errors: “but was compensated by a greater loss of thermal energy,”

    The model also screwed up, at the top-of-the-atmosphere, underestimating both the incoming short-wave radiation (solar) and outgoing long-wave (infrared) radiation totals, “representing too little solar energy absorbed, and too little outgoing [infrared] thermal energy.”

    So, the model underestimated the incoming solar, but another error -calculating too much absorption of incoming solar energy- cancelled out the incoming-solar part of the error, but left in the error of outgoing long-wave infrared radiation, leaving, what I expect is, a calculation of excess warming. That’s the goal, isn’t it?

    “These biases were dependent on errors in cloud fraction, …”

    Models can’t do clouds.

    The whole sentence reads, “These biases were dependent on errors in cloud fraction, surface and planetary albedo, and less dependent on surface temperature associated with the surface longwave parameters, …”

    “Clear-sky fluxes showed better results, when cloud cover errors had no influence.”

    If ever there was an admission, that the models can’t do clouds, that was it. If this is what this group of scientists have to say about the computer-model process, in April of 2014… in their journal-published, peer-reviewed research, then why should you believe the IPCC?

    “We also found a clear distinction between land versus water, with smaller biases over land at the surface, and over water at the [Top of the atmosphere], due to errors in cloud fraction and albedo.”

    “…errors in cloud fraction…”

    “From this result, it was discovered that planetary albedo (including cloud albedo) played a larger role than cloud fraction on errors in all-sky SW absorption at the [top-of-the-atmosphere].”

    This one gets me: “Despite these biases, we found the model able to properly simulate the radiative energy budget and suitable for climate related applications.” -Go figure. If this is what this group of scientists have to say about the computer-model process, in 2014… in their journal-published, peer-reviewed research, then why should you believe the IPCC?

    Chiacchio, Marc, et al. “Evaluation of the radiation budget with a regional climate model over Europe and inspection of dimming and brightening.” EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. Vol. 16. 2014.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EGUGA..1611063C

    Here, a comparison of the previous generation of models is run against the current computer models. Some SMALL improvements, applicable to SOME regions… admissions that the new models have addressed a problem of a “remarkable degree of variation among the models” … somewhat…

    Jun 2013: “… intermodel differences are still large in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations, and reveals some small improvements of particular cloud properties in some regions in the CMIP5 ensemble over CMIP3.”

    “Clouds are a key component of the climate system affecting radiative balances and the hydrological cycle. Previous studies from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) showed quite large biases in the simulated cloud climatology affecting all General Circulation Models as well as a remarkable degree of variation among the models that represented the state of the art circa 2005.”

    “Simulating Clouds with Global Climate Models: A Comparison of CMIP5 Results with CMIP3 and Satellite Data” Axel Lauer, Kevin Hamilton J. Climate, 26, 3823–3845.

    doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00451.1

    Sep 2012: “The cumulus convection schemes currently in use in General Circulation Models bypass the microphysical processes by making arbitrary moistening assumptions. We suggest that they are inadequate for climate change studies.“ If this is what this group of scientists have to say about the computer-model process, in their journal-published, peer-reviewed research, then why should you believe the IPCC?

    “Radiative‐convective model with an explicit hydrologic cycle: 1. Formulation and sensitivity to model parameters” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres -Renno, Emanuel, Stone DOI: 10.1029/94JD00020

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JD00020/abstract

    1990: “Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (14) for April 1985 show that the net effect of clouds at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is a cooling of 13W [per meter squared]. Because the change in the [Top of the atmosphere] net radiation that is due to an instantaneous doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration is only [about] 2.5W [per meter squared] (see later), changes in cloudiness could contribute significantly to climate change.”

    Slingo, A. “Sensitivity of the Earth’s radiation budget to changes in low clouds.” Nature 343.6253 (1990): 49-51.

    http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/Slingo%201990.pdf

  • Voodude

    ruff said, “Consequences:

    1. …
    2. … Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline, resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.”

    Perhaps you should name the temperature series that continued to rise during the deep solar minimum of 2007-2009, because I haven’t found any…

  • Voodude

    ruff said, “Why not only look at the 5 advancing [glaciers] and claim that refutes the claim of glacial retreat?”
    That is the first time I’ve hear a warmist admit of glacial advancing.

    But, back to answering the question: Carbon Dioxide, the accused culprit of “Global Warming”, is readily mixed and evenly distributed throughout the globe. “Natural Causes” for the “Global Warming” are dismissed as trivial, by warmistas … so any, and every, occurrence of neutral, or reverse “Global Warming” is a direct violation of the warmista’s postulate. … else, the warmista must admit that “Natural Causes” overwhelm CO2, leading everyone to the conclusion that CO2 must not be the “Dominant Driver of Climate” -which is a central theme to the warmista’s postulate.

  • Voodude

    “The above and more is from Wikipedia, all with primary sources.” … Can you tell me about William Connolly, specifically, what he did, regarding Wikipedia?

  • Voodude

    dale ruff said: “…just fuck off. I am tried of wasting time trying to help you understand…”

  • Voodude

    dale ruff said, “… dismissed as pure bullshit … you are just full of shit.”

  • Voodude

    dale ruff said, ““You have lost all credibility and are too cowardly to admit you have no support for your beliefs. You cannot put up but you continue to prate on without a shred of evidence. How pathetic …you are a useful idiot … “

  • Voodude

    ruff said, ” … Storch … [thinks] the earth is warming [and it is Mann’s fault].”

    I’m sorry… did I quote Storch incorrectly? Did Storch say, “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models“?? 20Jun2013 is the date on the Spiegel interview web page.

  • Voodude

    ruff said, “… your own sources mock your claims.”

    Obviously, Obama agrees with “Obamacare” …

    And, Obama said, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”

    So, because I disagree with “Obamacare”, then I can never quote Obama?

    Just because I cite a paper, for some fact or observation, doesn’t mean that I agree, or must agree, to the papers conclusions. Just because I quote some scientist, for what he said, does not mean that I should, or must agree with the scientist’s viewpoints. I quote from Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius all the time, and I use his equations. I make a living, using his equations. Does that mean I agree with Eugenics???

    ”Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene [Eugenics] founded in 1909.”

    http://eugenicsarchive.ca/database/documents/531f7ac0132156674b000204

  • Voodude

    “your own sources mock your claims.”
    “Can’t you find a source which does not contradict your laughable claims?”

    Let’s say that Larry Flynt was among the audience that day, in Asheville, North Carolina, 13Aug1991. Let’s say that Larry Flynt wrote down, what Folland said:

    Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” Quoted from a meeting, held in Asheville, North Carolina, 13 August 1991.

    Let’s say that Larry handed me his notes. So when I quote Folland, and I give credit to Flynt (who wrote it down) … Then, according to your illogic, I must believe in pornography? Or a subscriber to Penthouse?

  • Voodude

    ruff said, “Can’t you find a source which does not contradict your laughable claims?” and “… your own sources mock your claims.”

    I quote from Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius all the time, and I use his equations. I make a living, using his equations. Does that mean I agree with Eugenics???

    ”Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene [Eugenics] founded in 1909.”

    http://eugenicsarchive.ca/database/documents/531f7ac0132156674b000204

    Just because I cite a paper, for some fact or observation, doesn’t mean that I agree, or must agree, to the papers conclusions. Just because I quote some scientist, for what he said, does not mean that I should, or must agree with the scientist’s viewpoints.

  • Voodude

    Real data has a spread of less than 1° in a year. Models disagree with each other, by 2° in six months (over SST, Sea Surface Temperature).
    Foley, A. M. 2010 Uncertainty in regional climate modelling: A review Progress in Physical Geography

    http://www.wou.edu/~vanstem/490.S14/Uncertainty%20in%20Climate%20Modelling.pdf

  • Voodude

    You remember Hansen’s ½ of one percent? This shows how models diverge, about 28% (at the smallest point!). The subject is “Total Cloudiness”

    McAvaney, B. J., et al. “Model evaluation.” Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of WG1 to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC (TAR). Cambridge University Press, 2001. 471-523.

    http://cedadocs.badc.rl.ac.uk/981/9/Chapter_8.pdf

  • Voodude

    Pamela Probst (an Atmospheric Physicist) is graphically showing us how the models did. The correct answer for total cloud cover is 66.5. The models guessed between 47 and 74.

  • Voodude

    Foley, A. M. 2010 Uncertainty in regional climate modelling: A review Progress in Physical Geography

    http://www.wou.edu/~vanstem/490.S14/Uncertainty%20in%20Climate%20Modelling.pdf

  • Voodude

    Foley, as above. Hansen is betting on one half of one percent, yet these regional models have a 50% spread…

  • Voodude

    Models break up “reality” into chunks. Right now, the CMIP5 models’ chunks are about 50-60 kilometres. In order to simulate clouds, the chunks need to be about 1 meter, or 1 millimetre…

  • Voodude

    Hansen, by Josh:

  • Voodude

    15% to 35% on the oh-so-important ENSO simulation… and Hansen is betting the farm on one-half of one percent?

  • Voodude

    A 50% error on predicted vs. actual precipitation, when running models over a recent-past scenario, where we already know what the precipitation actually was…

  • Voodude

    ”Models from the CMIP5/PMIP3 generation are capable of simulating megadroughts in the [North American Southwest] that are similar in duration and magnitude to those observed in the paleoclimate record. The droughts are not, however, temporally synchronous with those in the proxy record. Furthermore, there is very little overlap [between the different computer models,] between the drought features in the [last millennium] runs, despite the use of similar forcing series to drive these simulations.”
    ”Given that these same models are used to produce future projections, it is critical to better understand this model behavior in the context of the actual climate system.”

    Coats, Sloan, et al. “Are Simulated Megadroughts in the North American Southwest Forced?*.” Journal of Climate 28.1 (2015): 124-142.

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/WestCLIM/PDFS/Coats_etal_2015.pdf

  • Voodude

    Modelled cloud fraction … Pamela Probst

  • Voodude

    Models, “chunks”, and spatial resolution

  • Voodude

    Can you “pull out” 0.58 W/m^2 from this?

  • Voodude

    Just the answer we wanted…

  • Voodude

    “My conclusions are relying on climate scientists …”

  • Voodude

    something went wrong

  • Voodude

    The models are faking it

  • Voodude

    LARGE percentage error, when figuring drought… Coats 2015

  • Voodude

    but there are so many, many “cherries”

  • Voodude

    λ is used as the symbol for equilibrium climate sensitivity.

  • Voodude

    Your fault (Josh)

  • Voodude

    Models just can’t do clouds

  • Voodude

    Hans von Storch: “The damage for the scientists is enormous. Nobody believes them any longer.”

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2009/12/guest-post-by-hans-von-storch.html

  • Voodude

    Washington State’s Northern Cascade glaciers have responded to the cooler temperatures. Washington (whole state) has been COOLING since 1986, and by 1992, began advancing.

  • Voodude

    For the whole state, Washington shows COOLING since 1986, but those subdivided regions – like the West Olympic Coast, show COOLING since 1983

  • Voodude

    COOLING since 1986, like the whole state…

  • Voodude

    Some divisions of Washington State show earlier COOLING, like the Cascade Mountain West, COOLING since 1985.

  • Voodude

    ”Analysis of areal differences of 742 North Cascade glaciers, observed in A.D. 1958 and A.D. 2006 inventories, suggests change detection is limited by linear errors of 5 m, 7 m, and 184 m caused by the imagery, digitization operators, and snowpack variability, respectively. Using the cumulative error of 196 m as a threshold for detecting areal change over the 48-year period, only 250 glaciers were detectable outside of the error threshold. Of those detectable changes, 240 glaciers were decreasing in area and 10 were increasing in area.”
    Of 742 glaciers, 240 (32%) were shrinking, 10 (1%) were growing, and 492 (66%) were static.
    STATIC.
    Carisio, Sebastian. Evaluating Areal Errors in Northern Cascade Glacier Inventories Masters Thesis, Diss. University of Delaware, 2012.

    http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/12643/Sebastian_Carisio_thesis.pdf?sequence=1