Coldest October-March In The US In 102 Years

ScreenHunter_1012 Mar. 25 15.23

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
Image | This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

415 Responses to Coldest October-March In The US In 102 Years

  1. omanuel says:

    That is also what we are experiencing here in Missouri – the “show-me state !”

  2. Gail Combs says:

    Going by this winter we never moved down from New England. (Last summer was 10 °F cooler than ten years ago too.)

  3. D. Self says:

    But according to our corrupt government (NOAA) it was the 34th coldest. Here in Michigan we are close to the record for number of days below freezing and smashed the record for number of consecutive days with snow on the ground and we still have snow on the ground.

    • green bullies suck says:

      Non-stop lying is the only constant in the climate change hoax.

    • oracle2world says:

      Poor bebe, i moved to north carolina from michigan. I feel your pain, … truly!

    • They have to keep selling the carbon credits, by force, to keep up their income.

    • Rogowski says:

      You have to remember that the majority of the weather information gathering sites were originally in the middle of grassy meadows, and now are on runway 040Left, skewing the data to a warming conclusion. The whole statistical analysis of weather data is skewed to whatever political conclusions are wanted.

    • John says:

      Now you need to ask about the environmental disaster that has taken place right under the nose of NOAA in Virginia Key in Miami. These clowns(progs) have not even so much as even mentioned a syllable about how the army Corp of engineers destroyed the ecological biosphere in the Bear Cut area of Biscayne bay by introducing an enormous amount of fresh water into the Bay killing off the sea grass and making it a underwater desert wasteland. You you here all about AGW from the same screamers all the time but no mention of this catastrophe. It will take 30-40 years to recover from this disaster.

  4. “The Planet has a Fever” – Al Gore, 2007. http://www.M4GW.com

  5. Lyn Greeley says:

    That DadBurn global warming anyhow!

  6. Il Bui says:

    We need to bring back coal fired locomotives. Anything to kick start “man made global warming”. Before we all freeze to death!

  7. Its getting colder because its getting hotter because humans……………….caused all the damn ice ages for the last twenty million years………………yeah thats it.

  8. Mike Johnson says:

    Conservatives are ignorant and uneducated. They don’t know there is much more to earth than the United states. The area involved in this cold weather is about 2% of earth’s surface. being ignorant and uneducated, conservatives don’t know what a mean values means or that a spatial distributed of data is required to figure out the mean temperature of earth. These are extremely ignorant people. They believe the lies told to them by the conservative media who see them as being fools.

    There on the Left Coast, we had record warm weather. Australia and Europe had record warm temperatures. There is a drought in Brazil. The United Kingdom had record rain fall.

    Conservatives are right about the government wasting tax dollars. We wasted tax dollars trying to educate ignorant conservatives.

    Whine for us you conservative crybabies. write your ignorant nasty comments.

    • That would be the same US which the left couldn’t stop talking about during the warm winter of 2012?

      • Charles says:

        Steven Goddard, I appreciate the information about the October-March U.S. temperatures.

        Mike Johnson, I know for a fact that your hate-filled hyperbole and media conspiracy theory are untrue. The advanced-degree conservatives I frequently encounter are absolute geniuses – three sigma outliers, in statistics parlance.

        • David says:

          No they are not! Statistics parlance, more like cherry picking pirates, in a face to face debate you would fall to your knees when I presented the facts and PURE mathematics, you couldn’t wriggle away and post some rubbish about something irrelevant as I would just tear any such basic flawed maths to pieces.

          This site is only interesting to the deniers when REALISTS post on here so you can spout your rubbish to someone.

          Without us REALISTS, deniers become irrelevant and this site just becomes a handshake site with all the deniers thanking each other and telling each other how clever you all are for being the only 20 to 30 people out of 6,500,000,000 that are so intelligent that only they the select few can see the truth.

          You should be thankful some of us still post here at least then you can post all the ad hominem (oh look at us and our site phrase) while constantly telling us we are the ones posting insults.

    • What is the correct temperature of this planet?

      • Dmh says:

        A good start is RSS,
        climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

        • Claude Slagenhop says:

          Excellent Graph. If you go back for 3 centuries, you will find there are warmer times and cooler times. The only exception is that someone is always saying the sky is falling. They were saying the same maird in 1920.

        • JK says:

          0.2C as a global average means next to nothing.

        • JeffT says:

          The “experts” have been vacillating between cooling and over-heating since they started writing about the climate. Kind of like the climate itself, which pretty much behaves as it will no matter the bloviating of these minions of smart.

        • David says:

          Hi that spike is a natural event, man made effects will make those natural warm periods even warmer as more energy is being absorbed by the planet.

      • bite me says:

        ask a liberal, they know it all…

        • Tom Gordon says:

          As a great President once observed “… it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
          Every time I ask one of these drooling dingbats how they explain why glacial cores repeatedly show the earth being warmer roughly 1,000 years ago in the era of the Viking culture, they become agitated and even more irrational … especially when I suggest it must have been the peat-powered SUVs which were such a rage at the time.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Steve Bronson asks,

        “What is the correct temperature of this planet?”
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        The planet doesn’t care but the life on the planet would much prefer temperatures about 2°C warmer. The current temperature is not much warmerthan the warmer temperatures during the glacial stage of the current Ice Age. (D/O events)
        Graph 1
        Present is on the left. Note the Holocene has had relatively constant temperature compared to the last 450,000 years.

        Graph 2

      • Gail Combs says:

        cunt global temp is ~15 °C. Mankind is designed for a warmer planet with our up right stance to minimize the surface area the sun strikes and maximize the heat dissipating surface area. We find it most comfortable at 22 °C. plants also try to maintain a temperature of 21.4 °C around their leaves. Surprise: Leaves Maintain Temperature, new findings may put dendroclimatology as metric of past temperature into question

        graph

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          (Mr Valentine’s jaw drops)

        • Gail Combs says:

          ARGGH the first sentence was Current global temps…. (I had to get a roast out of the oven before it burned. I am taking advantage of the cold weather to do a bit of cooking to freeze for summer use as cold cuts.)

        • Shazaam says:

          {wonders if the market for electric heated prophylactics is about to “explode”}

          Yeah, I want a 5 minute edit window too.

        • Gail Combs says:

          How come you always notice the goofs 2 seconds AFTER you click the post comment button?

        • Tim. says:

          Yes, Its called a brain fart, I have the same problem, but at 67 sh*t happens, that’s what an eraser was invented for.

        • Andy Oz says:

          LMAO
          I can just imagine your mothers reaction Gail.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy Oz says:
          LMAO
          I can just imagine your mothers reaction Gail.
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          Actually she would probably laugh her head off if she was alive. Unfortunately she was killed in the US government/Rochester Univ radiation experiments on Strong Memorial Hospital patients. She had really gross radiation burns from an “acidental overdose’ and died a short time later.

    • green bullies suck says:

      And when the weather doesn’t match the predictions of the Marxist totalitarians, you can once again re-define them and re-brand whatever you’re calling climate-whatever this month.

    • omanuel says:

      Mike,

      Some of us skeptics finally realized that the AGW debate is a moral issue on which the survival of mankind depends, if the Sun returns to one it’s cyclic quiet periods:

      http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/consensus-what-consensus-2/#comment-26234

      • Tommy says:

        We all know that anything that mankind does to try to make the climate better would only help temporarily if at all because we will certainly perish as all planets change and will eventually be destroyed.

    • Sorry Mike – Ya’ll been blamin’ AGW for everything for too long – hell, Mother Jones even blamed the Malaysia plane crash on global warming – give me a break! AGW does not exist – the Earth climate runs through cyclical periods and nothing we as humans due can impact it – also taxing the snot out of US citizens to try to do so is only going to piss US citizens off and make your case even harder – especially when every other country pollutes like crazy – perhaps you should be squallerin’ at China and India and leave the US clean energy no pollutin’ awesomely fresh air country alone.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The CAGW scam has some very serious repercussions outside of the economic ones. People, when they wake-up will lose faith not only in the politicians (that is already gone) but in the scientists and Academia as a whole.

    • JIm says:

      Why should we write ignorant, nasty comments? You have more than satisfied the need for that.
      Thanks for illustrating what “mean” means. We ignorant, uneducated conservatives were wondering.

    • Send Al to the Pole says:

      Mike,

      Honestly, you’re a fool. You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you come with something like this, no one is particularly offended, because you present yourself as a pathetic child throwing a stone.

      We are perfectly aware of the 2% argument. It doesn’t change anything in this discussion.

    • Ben Note says:

      Left Free speech:
      Agree with me? Yes… You’re brilliant!!! I love you!!!
      Disagree with me? Yes… You’re an idiot, you should be shot! Why are you still here? You should be sterilized so no more of you could ever exist….
      Sound familiar ????

    • D. Self says:

      Mike, you need to review CNN exit polls from the presidential elections and midterms and you will find that the majority of college grads voted conservative and a majority of high school drop outs voted Democratic. So who is uneducated and ignorant? You are spewing the same narrative other brainless liberals followers spew.

    • LeftisRight says:

      Very erudite. Article is not accurate as the largest State had a warm winter recording December rain for the first time in the history of record keeping.

    • Gamecock says:

      “The only way to beat the troll is to not play the game.”

      http://academicearth.org/electives/psychology-internet-troll/

    • Johnson Mike says:

      Mikey, didn’t anyone ever tell you that painting a group of people with a broad stroke makes you look incredible ignorant?

    • Johnson Mike says:

      Mikey, it is amazing that you know all conservatives. Amazing!

    • Alan Terrell says:

      Take a deep breath, Mike. Did your parents teach you to be so nasty, or did you learn form your circle of friends?

    • Mike calls Conservatives, uneducated and ignorant, yet Mike’s grammar and spelling is worse than a 6 year old.

      *Mind Blown*

    • John says:

      It’s so tiresome to here the lock-step liberal democratic talking points that conservatives are ignorant, and anti-science. I can’t believe you left out racist. So Mike, Put your money where your mouth is, All democrats can stop your version of global warming by simply NOT reproducing. Start with yourself. DO NOT reproduce.
      Lets face it, you’re a socialist. I propose that you come up with a solution that does not involve a cap and trade tax, OR make it optional. Let’s see how many Democrats pay.
      You wont. You can be paying right now… You aren’t. Last, I love how EVERY aspect of global warming has to be BAD… would AL GORE have complained if he was a cave man 10000 years ago when the glaciers started to recede? What a joke. LIbs are fools and it’s time we smacked them down a bit.

    • Paul says:

      LoL Mike, your a real charm. Come here and troll your ignorant nasty comments, then say that we’re the ones with the ignorant nasty comments. Typical Liberal.

    • GDT says:

      We must assume that you consider yourself not ignorant and educated. Explain then how increasing CO2 can have the predicted catastrophic impact when the effect of CO2 is logarithmic?

    • Andy DC says:

      You look at the weather around the world at any given point in time, some places will be hot, some will be cold, some wet and others dry. That is the nature of weather. All I can tell you is that if you look at reliable unaltered weather records, away from the urban heat island in the US, there has been no warming since 1940.

      Why the US should be immune from allegedly catastrophic worldwide warming is something that no one has yet to explain.

      • JIm says:

        MIke would explain, but he’s so tired of wasting his tax dollars on ignorant, uneducated conservatives.
        If he were not so tired, he would tell us all about the magic heat-sink at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, where all the heat has been hiding.

    • magnets says:

      wow 32 flavors of bs from johnson

    • Morgan says:

      I’m not going to run an IQ test between the left and the right, but I am of the opinion that the left are the bigger liars, because their philosophy is that lying is perfectly OK as long as it’s for a greater cause. The right believe that truth is OK so long as truth is for a greater cause.

    • Bill Mathews says:

      I agree you can’t look solely at the United States in making judgments about Global Warming (or “Climate Change”). I am intrigued by the fact that the Polar Ice Cap (which is not in the US last time I checked) has grown by nearly 50% in one year. Al Gore predicted that the Polar Ice Cap would have been completely melted nearly five years ago. Ooops….. Perhaps Global Warming has “paused” because Al has stopped spewing his hot air. As for education…you forget that we Conservatives do not want your money. We do not want your indoctrination programs in our schools. Your teacher’s unions have delivered our public school systems into the cellar amongst other nations. Let us educate our own kids. Let us keep our tax money to do it. If you must, you may call Conservatives stupid for not believing in Global Warming ….but you will probably be doing it on your way to shovel the snow off your driveway…again! (BTW, we have also recently debunked the rumor that liberals can administer our healthcare system)

    • Jim says:

      Climate Change causes hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, comets, asteroids, hemorrhoids, mudslides, martinis, earthquakes, and plane crashes.

      • JIm says:

        And boy, don’t it look good makin a speech about climate change with a volcano belchin lava n ash in the background!?

    • John Marzo says:

      Reminds me of the cartoon where the boy says “Dad, what is math?” The father replies, “son, we are democrats, we don’t do math”. That best describes the post by Mike Johnson.

    • Henry says:

      Mike, you are a typical educated (maybe) ignoramus. So the US is only 2% of the earth? You ignore your own facts. 2%? And we have how much impact? You can put all people in Texas. Thats right the entire population of the planet. Yet we could alter the climate? How much of the earth’s land mass does Texas take up? You are the one, plus all those you are following who do not understand the planet and weather , wind, sun, moon. The oceans! You’re so dumb you don’t even know your ignorant. We are so small on this planet. Did you hear the latest? It has now been proven that the
      carbon content of the atmosphere was 5 times higher in the days of the dinosaurs than it is today. The planet flourished back than. It could even support dinosaurs. I pitty you for your arrogance.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Northern Hemisphere winter snow extent has been trending up since 1967.
      http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
      …..

      You mean a 50% increase in arctic ice this winter and record breaking Antarctic Sea Ice?
      Or perhaps stories like these that never make it into the US news?
      2007
      First major snow in Buenos Aires since 1918

      2008
      Severe snowstorms batter China

      2009
      In Canada, several all-time snowfall records were set
      worst cold outbreak of the current decade for the northern plains down to Florida

      2010:
      Feb 13th 2010 – Snow in all 50 U.S. states
      20 million farm animals may die in Mongolia before spring as the fiercest winter in living memory grips the country,
      Record Snowfall for Baltimore
      Freak snow storm covers southern France
      Freak snow falls in Spain strands 6000.
      Scotland records coldest winter
      Temperatures were glacial across Europe over the weekend, kills 22 across Europe
      Snowfall in St. Petersburg [Russia] breaks 130-year record

      2012:
      Low temps in Peru – Death toll rises to 31
      Freak cold in the Andes kills hundreds
      Cold Blast Claims Over 600 Lives Across Eastern Europe/Russia…”Death Toll Keeps Rising…State Of Emergency”
      Coldest January on record for parts of Alaska
      2012 the coldest July on record in Anchorage Alaska
      Shortage of food in Uzbekistan city due to snow
      The First Time Occurred, Snow Storm Hits West Sumatra, Indonesia on Wednesday, March 28.
      Snow record broken in South Africa
      Johannesburg marvels at rare snowfall
      Unprecedented cold in Morocco
      Heavy snowfall in Tunisia, Roads in Ain Draham blocked by 31 inches (80 cm) of snow

      2013
      Record cold in Cape Town, South Africa
      Rare snow in Atacama desert
      Brazil – Snow in over 80 cities – Roads and schools closed
      Worst cold spell in 80 years hammers Chile fruit crops
      More than 25 000 animals killed in southern Peru
      “Extraordinary” cold and large snowfall for southern Brazil
      Lao Cai Province [Viet Nam] alone, an unusual snowfall early this week caused an estimated loss of around VND10 billion
      Jerusalem hit by worst snowstorm for TWENTY YEARS as eight inches fall across Holy City
      Wintry blast to hit New Zealand
      July frosts reduce Brazil wheat, coffee
      Tibetan nomads in Ladakh call out for help, Thousands of livestock perish

      2014
      Record snowfall (almost 7 ft) in northern Iran
      Temperatures up to 40 degrees below normal in the [US] High Plains
      Slovenia paralyzed by snow and ice
      Southern Austria on highest avalanche alert after heavy snow – A meter of snow in two days – Valleys and roads cut off
      Serbia – 1,000 evacuated from cars, buses and trains – Snow drifts 3.5 meters high
      Poland – Heavy snowfall and blizzards
      Heavy snowfalls and blizzard hammer southern Romania

      Tibet has also been hit AGAIN , February 26, 2013: Tibetan nomads in Ladakh call out for help, Thousands of livestock perish

      Restocking and Pastoral Development Among Tibetan Nomads
      The winter of 1997-1998 was one of the worst winters in recent history across much of the Tibetan nomadic pastoral area of Western China… by late Octobergrass on the rangeland that had been reserved for winter livestock grazing was buried under a meter of snow… yaks, sheep, goats and horses unable to reach any forage… started to die in large numbers. By early April 1998 it was estimated …had lost over 3 million head of livestock….

      Bremerhaven/Antarctica, 3 February 2010.

      Nearly double the amount of fresh snow compared to previous Antarctic winters fell on Neumayer Station III during the polar winter of 2009. “Because of the unusually heavy snowfall the station building had to be raised three times in succession with the hydraulic system,” says Dr. Eberhard Kohlberg, Logistics Coordinator at the research station of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association since December 2009.

      From the Independent, March 20th, 2000:

      However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

      “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

      Yeah, right and if you believe that I have a nice slightly used well engineered bridge I want to sell.

      • Dmh says:

        Thanks for the summary! :-)
        I believe NH winter snowfall will be smaller this year than 2013, due to the 2nd peak in solar radiations since last October.
        I expect the radiations to start to decline now.

        • Gail Combs says:

          It was just a quick summary and by no means inclusive. For example Scotland had major snowfall this winter. I put it together to counter the claim that “ONLY” the USA was cold. At one point this winter you could cross country ski from Tokyo Japan to Iran!!!

    • Oldbithead says:

      How do you account for the increased build-up of snow cover at the south pole? The ship that got stuck in the ice down there was a bunch of warmists thinking their trip would help prove their theory. Johannesburg, South Africa had their first snow in many years. Chile and Brazil closed places of business the past two years because of the cold and that hasn’t happened for a long time also.
      Follow the money and it will lead to Algore’s place in California.

      • LeftisRight says:

        If you opened a book or scientific paper or two and not parrot nonsense you would know that it is cold enough every year in Johannesburg South Africa for snow, the reason it doesn’t snow is that the atmosphere has a low humidity with the winds predominantly westerlies. When the rare winter north easterlies blow in with moist air, it snows. The only African nation above the snow line is about 150 miles south of Johannesburg.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The current weather in Johannesburg South Africa is 57 °F and 82% with thunderstorms predicted for the next few days.

          The minimum minimum temps for June, July and August (winter) are 30°F, 29°F and 30°F So snow is possible but not very likely.

          The minimum minimum temps for December, January and February in my area (mid N.C.) are 20 °F, 16 °F, and 15 °F and we get snow about once every five years.

          The snow was rare because the city of Johannesburg South Africa is ten degrees warmer not because of the lack of moisture.

          Also it is COLDER when there is LESS humidity. That is why we hardly ever get snow. When it is below freezing around here is on those very clear nights. If it is clouding up and we are going to get precipitation it is usually above freezing. Therefore the really cold nights in Johannesburg South Africa would also be clear nights with low humidity.

          Looked at ‘Scientifically’ your statement is lacking any basis in reality. It is a RED HERRING.

        • LeftisRight says:

          It has everything to do with the prevailing winds. Westerly winds are moisture deficient as they stream in over the cold Atlantic and are the prevalent pattern. Couple with winter highs over the interior the Westerlies migrate southward (part of the southern Atlantic oscillation). North-easterly winds come in over the warm and humid India ocean and are usually close to saturation with respect to humidity, the air cools resulting in precipitation. As to my original being a red herring … I suppose my nearly fifty years of travel around southern Africa as a geoscientist and engineer working across the subcontinent on water projects, nuclear waste disposal, sites, etc. that required collaboration with climatologists and meteorologists its amazing we were able to design, construct and operate some of the world’s most successful projects without one iota of climate knowledge … must have been divine intervention.

        • LeftisRight says:

          I take that as a honor citation after reading the drivel you write on this blog. You are probably one of the worst cases of Dunning-Kruger syndrome that I have witnessed in years despite stiff competition from the nutjobs on this site. Do you still have your time card from the Heartland Institute where pseudoscience at least made a better attempt to persuade the ignorant there was no link between smoking and lung and cardiovascular diseases than the climate denial hacks here who think that their University of Google knowledge trumps reality?

        • Gail Combs says:

          The prevaling winds/monsoons/ what ever are not going to cause snow unless it is BELOW FREEZING. That is the WHOLE POINT.

          As I just pointed out in general the cold freezing nights occur when there is a cloudless sky. Also while Johannesburg may have winds off the Atlantic ocean so does NC.

          Actually the wind direction has switched from being out of the West to coming from all different directions since the Jet stream is no longer zonal. Make figuring out the weather for the next few days a real pain these days.

          However I am willing to agree that a shift in the polar-night jet stream could be a likely cause of the snow in Johannesburg.

          Despite what you may think the weather patterns are NOT stable over the long term and changes in climate have ZERO to do with humans.

          Persistent millennial-scale climatic variability over the past 25,000 years in Southern Africa
          Abstract
          Data from stalagmites in the Makapansgat Valley, South Africa, document regional climatic change in southern Africa in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. A new TIMS U-series dated stalagmite indicates speleothem growth from 24.4 to 12.7 ka and from 10.2 to 0 ka, interrupted by a 2.5 ka hiatus. High-resolution oxygen and carbon stable isotope data suggest that postglacial warming was first initiated ∼17 ka, was interrupted by cooling, probably associated with the Antarctic Cold Reversal, and was followed by strong warming after 13.5 ka. The Early Holocene experienced warm, evaporative conditions with fewer C4 grasses. Cooling is evident from ∼6 to 2.5 ka, followed by warming between 1.5 and 2.5 ka and briefly at ∼AD 1200. Maximum Holocene cooling occurred at AD 1700. The new stalagmite largely confirms results from shorter Holocene stalagmites reported earlier. The strongest variability superimposed on more general trends has a quasi-periodicity between 2.5 and 4.0 ka. Also present are weaker ∼1.0 ka and ∼100-year oscillations, the latter probably solar induced. Given similarities to the Antarctic records, the proximate driving force producing millennial- and centennial-scale changes in the Makapansgat record is postulated to be atmospheric circulation changes associated with change in the Southern Hemisphere circumpolar westerly wind vortex.
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027737910300204X

          Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum
          (wwwDOT)nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/abs/ngeo1460.html

          Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate1 by inducing atmospheric changes. Specifically, it has been suggested that centennial-scale climate variability during the Holocene epoch was controlled by the Sun2, 3. ….Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759  ±  39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199  ±  9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.

          Rapid climate shifts in the southern African interior throughout the Mid to Late Holocene
          A detailed climate proxy record based on δ18O, δ13O, and grey index of a well-dated stalagmite from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley of north-eastern South Africa suggests that regional precipitation, temperatures and vegetation oscillated markedly and rapidly over the last ∼6500 years on centennial and multi-decadal scales. The mid-Holocene prior to 5200 years ago was humid and warm. A fundamental transition occurred 3200 years ago, leading to drier and cooler conditions that culminated at 1750 AD. Comparisons with ice core records suggest synchronous changes implicating rapid global teleconnections.
          onlinelibrary(DOT)wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000GL012728/abstract;jsessionid=71AD9074F2240E54274318E3BBEABAA0.f02t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

          A correlation of mean period of MJO indices and 11-yr solar variation
          (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000302

          …we test whether the ∼11-yr (Schwabe) cycle of solar activity could be reflected in the spectral features of [Madden–Julian Oscillation] MJO indices: namely, we study the evolution of MJO mean period within different period ranges and compare these with the evolution of solar activity. We focus on solar proxies best linked to UV emission and cosmic rays… A clear solar signature in MJO spectral properties is indeed found and shown to be both statistically significant and robust. UV proxies are found to be better correlated with MJO mean period than GCR, thus supporting rather the ozone mechanism of solar impact on MJO. The overall correlation with solar activity is found to be stronger in the Indian Ocean. Long periods (e.g. 50–80 day) are better correlated with solar activity than shorter periods (e.g. 30–60 day). A marked change in the relationship between MJO mean period and solar activity takes place in the declining phase of solar cycle 23, adding to its unusual character.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Still only snows when the moisture laden north-easterlies reach the interior.

        • In other words, you were caught lying, and like the leftist POS that you are, you simply shift to another lie.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Comprehension is another one of your many deficiencies. The sad gal like you doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate and no, none of the cut and paste articles are on topic but there again I don’t expect you to know the difference.

        • Dmh says:

          No matter how long you have lived and/or worked in given region or if you have worked with geologists, climatologists and whatnot, to understand the climate you *must study* the climate and be mature enough intellectually to be able to think by yourself and create your own independent, personal perception of it, otherwise you’ll be parroting others and not be able to “connect the dots” of the observed facts in a coherent way.
          The *only thing* that matters, from the scientific point of view, is if your analyses and predictions make sense and correspond to the observed facts closely or not.
          AGW is presently *so wrong* that you can almost predict *the opposite* of what “the models” say and in the majority of the cases you’ll be spot on with the facts.
          There are important regions where the present cooling of the climate is more well defined and steady.
          The polar regions are the two main regions and Antarctica’s cooling trend is so powerful that is already affecting the climate of the entire world.
          If you cannot understand this and the fact that the Sun ultimately drives all these great changes, then it doesn’t matter if you’re a “geoscientist and engineer” or not, your knowledge of *the climate* is defective and has been proven wrong by the observed data.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Actually your tome is so far off reality it aligns with the false premise of this article. One of the clueless pseudo-scientists in here used snow in Johannesburg, South Africa last year as an indication of no AGW. I was, rightly, pointing out that the conditions for snow exist every year in winter in Johannesburg but it doesn’t snow because it needs a moist air supply. That supply occurs very rarely in winter time due to the southerly migration of the oscillation in winter time.

        • Dmh says:

          I was not criticizing your analysis of Johannesburg’s snow, of which I have no knowledge, I was talking generally about AGW and the fact that you cited your qualifications as geoscientist and engineer to defend your positions on climate, I mean global climate.
          The relative warmth of Alaska this year is due to less negative anomalies of the PDO, normal oscillation (although for not so “normal” causes), which is also causing relative warmth of the West coast of the US in comparison with the East.
          This post of Steve is not misleading because the temperatures of the world are getting colder, although we’re still in a period where the trend is not pronounced.
          I’ve seen many intelligent people misled by AGW, which is itself a “creation” of famous climatologists like Hansen and Mann.
          AGW is wrong and Hansen, Mann, etc. *are wrong* because they use wrong hypotheses in their models and their analyses have become *systematically* wrong.
          The basic wrong hypothesis is that CO2 has an important effect on climate related with the GH effect.

        • LeftisRight says:

          I made no comments on AGW; it was about snow and Jo’burg. I think you suffer from premature ejaculation.

        • it is cold enough every year in Johannesburg South Africa for snow

          Not in 1984. So, another lie by the SkS kiddy.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Al Gore’s place sitting by the seaside with all those fireplaces.

        We must be accurate now mustn’t we? {:>)

    • Mike says:

      Aww, somebody’s first time at the comment bar! Boring! Better luck next time, liberal parrot, here’s a hint on improving your vocabulary–read more!

    • Skip Allen says:

      Well put and so true. The conservatives have elevated the “cherry picking” of data to a new level in their efforts to prove that global warming isn’t happening. Overall the planet’s temperature is still rising although not in a straight-line (linear) fashion. And, the significant rise in ocean levels (evident on most beaches around the world) is clear evidence that the earth is warming.

    • joseph says:

      Conservatives are ignorant and uneducated ? Did you know that 70% of the world’s top scientists are atheists (poll in Scientific American magazine). They cannot conceive anybody being smarter than themselves- much less a God. – So tell us how are you going to stop ‘climate change’!! Let me guess – tax the ignorant citizens of the world.

    • curmudgeon inchief says:

      Every time I read one of these angry screeds from the brittle and fragile Left, I just smile and say to myself, “Self, they wouldn’t be screaming like this if they didn’t know the jig was up, the Fat Lady has sung, and the carnival was closing and leaving town ahead of the Sheriff”. Keep sending your messages of hate and ignorance to the rest of us, and we will all sleep better knowing that you know that it’s time to turn out the lights on AGW alarmism.

    • Bill from AZ says:

      The US is the gold standard for making temp measurements. Even that has been tainted by NOAA as they constantly adjust to match their models. The rest of the world has a extremely spotty record on accurate or continuous temperature measurements. The US has not been effected by Global Warming. Which must explain why the rest of the world is trying emigrate here.

    • DoggyDaddy says:

      Johnson is one of those clowns that is to dumb to see that he has been conned into believing the climate change scam. We conservatives are way to intelligent to be suckered with such BS. Democrats will lie and deceive by any way necessary to rip people’s money off. What low life thieves.

    • John says:

      Mike,
      Coming across with arrogance may make you feel better temporarily but won’t win you converts or friends. I understand your frustration. Since even the IPPC concludes the global temp hasn’t risen in 17 years you are left to flailing out with name calling. The masses understand the difference between weather and climate. There is a difference of opinion based on whatever statistic you choose. Global warming lost with real data. Climate change is off to an ominous start with a really poor hurricane season. What’s next? How about ‘ Climate Boredom’ nothing changing the way the alarmists predicted and therefore Bush’s fault?

    • Larry Bradshaw says:

      The epitome of ignorance is to call others ignorant and uneducated. The scientific fact is there has been no global warming for the last 20 years. Why do Liberals ignore that fact?

    • Tim. says:

      If you can’t win your argument throw a little slander and grandstanding to impress your climate change friends. Saul Alinsky would be so proud of you.

    • Terry says:

      What an uneducated fool your are, droughts & high rainfall – human created . It doesn’t get more stupid than that, please back to elementary school, you are not even smarter than a 5th grader.

    • dontbeleiveya says:

      When you copy and paste your smart sounding words you may want to check if you’re using them correctly (doubt that you can), Spatial distributed of data is gibberish. And you may also want to look up GIGO most of those data points.

    • Burt says:

      I think you need a hug!

    • RackyRocoon says:

      Ah, yes, the stench of leftist desperation. The problem with guys like you, Johnson, is that you and your socialist pals have run out of parlor tricks. The whole thing is coming apart for you. The lies, the deceit, the bombast; all of this would be amusing if it weren’t so destructive.

      And your type is used to being OBEYED, aren’t you? You smug little prig. Go crawl back into your hole in the baseboard.

      Who cares what you think?

    • Fred Brooks says:

      Wow, you got any spare tank keys I can borrow? Cause you’re really there, buddy.

      Pathetic.

    • JT says:

      That kool aid must really be good. In the 1970’s, the media was worried about global cooling and the onset of another ice age. In the late 20th/early 21st century, the average GLOBAL temp was slightly on the rise, prompting all of the GLOBAL WARMING from greenhouse gas emissions concern. After that, the GLOBAL average has receded again. And the “global warming” terminology by alarmists has changed to “climate change.” Whatever that means. Do greenhouse gas emissions cause global cooling, too? I know – some want to believe like it’s a religion without thinking about causation or explanation.

    • ClimateNews says:

      January 01, 2014 through March 04, 2014:

      -Most of North America Colder than Normal
      -Almost all of Russia Colder than Normal
      -All of India Colder than Normal
      -South half of Africa colder than Normal
      -Almost all of South America colder than Normal
      -Most of Australia colder than Normal.

      Before making a claim, you should probably check to see if the claim you are about to make is accurate.

      “…The area involved in this cold weather is about 2% of earth’s surface. ..”

      You have no clue what you’re talking about.

      Link to Global Temp Anomaly Image (Jan 01 ,2014 to March 04, 2014):

      https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNews.ca/photos/a.307151976056251.60675.306212519483530/481986621906118/?type=3&theater

    • Mike says:

      It’s called “global warming” bedwetter..

    • Eric says:

      Mike Johnson needs some serious mental help.

    • Floyd Johnson says:

      I agree, there has never been a drought in Brazil or record rainfall in the United Kingdom before. Next thing we know, there will be a drought somewhere in Asia and a lot of rain in Mexico. When that happens, please explain to me how climate change is not real.

    • Mac says:

      I wonder how your laughable left-wing cultism explains the recent Yale University study which found that people who identify as Tea Party members have a more thorough understanding of science than self-described liberals.

      You’ve been duped, pal, and now you can’t let go of your Green religion. It’s nothing but a cult. Part of the left-wing cult’s propaganda, though, is that politically conservative people are “ignorant”. Meanwhile, their hero and idol can’t make an off the cuff speech if his teleprompter breaks.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Your record warm temperature did not trump “OUR RECORD COLD” temperatures.

      From the highly warmist highly adjusted data sets.
      GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) for Jan 1979 to Feb 2014

      NCDC Monthly Global Land Plus Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies for Jan 1979 to Feb 2014

      For the realists, the temperature trend remains flat, that is the Plateau in temperature continues.

    • The Bobster says:

      The ignorant calling US ignorant. Global warming is your religion. Give it up.

    • Stogieguy 7 says:

      Said by a liberal who undoubtedly shouts “GLOBAL WARMING” from the rooftops whenever the eastern 1/2 of the USA has a heat wave, a tornado outbreak or a spate of tropical storms. “Unintelligent” conservatives like me will surely remind you of your childish diatribe (above) whenever the next inevitable weather event occurs during the summertime when a period of 2 degree warmer than average temperatures are followed by a 6 minute piece on the NBCCBSABCCNN evening news about global warming.

    • Morgan says:

      Record drought in one place and record rainfall in another. Nice. That was caused by carbon dioxide? Please explain.

    • catweazle666 says:

      Stupid child…

    • Mongo says:

      Mike how did you calculate your statistical Mean value for the Earths temperature. The Earth has been around for about 2 billion years, and we have only collected weather data for about 100 years. I’m not sure that you have a reliable sample to make your assumptions. As far as ignorance goes, I think you would be a fool to assume that the weather trends for the past 100 years is a valid normal range to use for you model. I guess only the important stuff has happened in your short little life span.

    • Bob says:

      I live in Russia, its colder here too

    • Jeff Mills says:

      In the 1970’s we were heading for another ice age, according to NOAA. That was after companies that had filled the air with smoke and ash from steel mills and other industries were closed down since they couldn’t meet the clean air rules. Now that the bulk of the world have clean burning cars and even the coal fired power plants burn cleaner, there is more CO2 and other pollutants in the air and it is causing global warming? There are also changes in the sun’s output that can cause both increases and decreases in overall temperatures, There are over 30 volcanoes erupting, which cause global cooling(historical fact!). Even the orbit of the earth changing slightly can cause global climate change. It is only those who worship human caused climate change that insist we are the cause

    • Joe Orefice says:

      Why don’t you go find another lunatic cause since the global warming thing has no legs anymore. Your fatal mistake was to agree with anything Al Gore says. Obviously, this can extend to other democrats who are similarly challenged by the truth. Your President has now eclipsed Al in the LIE department and is sprinting past him at lightning speed. As your new cause can I suggest some alternatives that are in the same category as global warming. Perhaps the most pressing is getting a real handle on the number of grains of sand on the worlds beaches. The other suggestion would be a project to study the impact of a steady salt peter program for all liberal democrats.

    • David says:

      I read a report recently that the USA could shut down everything it has that pollutes and it would make no difference because countries like China are the worlds culprits when it comes to pollution. But if ya like we can stop all unnecessary air travel starting immediately to help curb carbon emissions. With todays technology there is very little need to actually fly somewhere and meet somewhere. Of course this will mean changes from the top on down. Isn’t man made climate change still just a theory though? When it comes to man made climate change I always hear the phrase “common sense dictates”

    • Not bad for a trolling post-
      I am guessing you are a conservative who planted this comment to gauge how well conservatives reply to these types of accusations.

      If not, then you need a little schooling:
      Anytime there is a prolonged heat wave in any small portion of the globe, it is cited by someone out there as evidence of global warming and climate change. Not by everyone all the time, but by some meteorologist, politician or otherwise.

      But, come the most brutal winter in the past 100 years? And, btw, it wasn’t over 2% of the planet’s surface. It was way more widespread than that, and the extreme low temperatures were so bad that it would need some serious serious warmth elsewhere to be offset.

      I read that, as far as North America goes, the brutal extreme cold affected 24% of the land area of the world. Not counting oceans, of course. All of Canada and the US east of the Rockies…that is a lot of land area.

      And, Japan, parts of Asia and a bunch of other places were record cold as well.

      My question is:
      If the planet has only warmed a fraction of a degree since 1900, then, OK, extremely cold winters can certainly still occur. But, how much planetary warming will it take to end the possibility of a winter like 2014 for good? 10 degrees worldwide? 15 degrees? How much?

      That is what I am pulling for!

    • mikemoon says:

      Yo troll, if this was the truth, then why all the falsifying the paperwork at East Anglia college where all the data is stored? How come that refused to have a independent audit of all their records?
      Then again, one only needs to follow they money trail to see who is supporting it and whom is profiting from it. It all amounts to liberal and socialist greed and lust for power!

  9. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

    Just think how much colder the readings would’ve been if all the alcohol in the thermometers hadn’t frozen solid with all the rest of the equipment.

  10. TimSki says:

    Suck My A$$ Al Gore!

  11. The change is due to an overload of Algoregas!

  12. Sojourner Truth says:

    Warming-Shwarming!

  13. Red Top says:

    Another winter like this and we can kiss all the pro Global Warming statistics good by.

  14. green bullies suck says:

    My favorite explanations from the climate clowns this winter: #1 – heat in the Australian deserts during their summer causes cold and snow in the northern US during their winter; #2 – global warming is currently in the form of a great big ball hiding at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and it is causing the heat and cold mentioned in #1.

  15. Jason Joseph says:

    That graph shows a fairly repeating sin wave if you take the mean points and were to plot them along a single line. It appears we are now on the leeward side of the sin wave and will likely be in a continued pattern of cooling for a few decades.

  16. Jim says:

    It won’t matter the climate goof balls will still say global warming.

  17. oracle2world says:

    I like warm weather.

    Why are people always b* about global warming?

  18. iambicpentamaster says:

    Global warming, of course.

    Google “Al Gore adductors release second chakra”

  19. Joe Byden says:

    Algrrrrrr says it is ’cause of “Gerbil worming”

  20. Charles says:

    I kept track of the temperatures in Minnesota this winter, where I have relatives. I am absolutely amazed the temperatures there have been those found in a deep freezer. For months. And the cold temperatures aren’t finished, just yet.

    • JIm says:

      I used to gripe about the heat and humidity in summer, until heating-oil hit $4.42/gal.
      Now I love all conditions. Freezing? No stinkbugs and ticks!

  21. Andy Jarrett says:

    If I were a socialist I would think that taxing people for the thing they use the most, energy, would ensure that you would never run out of other peoples money.

  22. B Cole says:

    It won’t be long before the radical democratic communist left will be spinning it was the warming year in recent memory. The left has been wrong on every issue.

  23. seenoevil says:

    Accuweather has been adding +5-10 F to the low temperature in my Michigan town this winter as “recorded temperature” so the -18 F morning and the -16 F morning we had are nowhere to be found.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Keep track and then call them on it.

      I called Jeff Masters a Liar on his blog and Lo and Behold the temperature was ‘Readjusted’ and the RAIN====> Snow!

    • Marc77 says:

      On Accuweather, the normal temperature that they report for my region is a few degrees too low. Very few months have been colder than their normal.

  24. IbSnooker says:

    I’m thinking of commandeering an Alka Seltzer truck and driving that thing into a lake, after chain-sawing a big enough hole in the ice, of course. Maybe the CO2 will help warm things up around here. I’m freezin’ my @ss off.

  25. Greg Locke says:

    This thread now on Drudge, Steve. You’re going to get a lot of visits.

  26. JohnWolf says:

    Boy global warming is sure cold

  27. JohnWolf says:

    VOTE OUT ALL DEMOCRATS
    save the country

    • Gail Combs says:

      VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

      Replace the big hogs with little piggies.

      Many of the Re-boobs are as crooked as the Demi-Rats.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Voting will not remove anyone — not as long as they control who goes onto the ballot and they do the counting.

        Remember the old game of flipping a coin and guessing “heads or tails”? Would you play (for money!) if only I choose the coin, only I get to flip the coin, and then only I get to peek and see which side came up? That is what our election system is today.

    • Eric says:

      That’s a great first step.

  28. Billy Martin says:

    The cold weather trend must me more of Al Gore’s global warming crap.

  29. RHReese says:

    Coldest October-March In The US In 102 Years. Boy this global warming just gives me the chills !!!!!

  30. If Al Gore doesn’t fix this global warming/cooling/change thing; we are all gonna freeze to death!

  31. MCW says:

    Don’t say that out loud, this doesn’t fit into the global warming narrative.

  32. tony rocco says:

    Mars was once green and fertile. The US is scanniing the atmosphere above mars to see if there is any co2 left. They want to know if the co2 left mars and killed the planet. That is what Gore, Obama and prince charlie want. Dont let it happen to us.

  33. JohnWolf says:

    We should sue Al Gore for economic fraud. Along with the Democrats in general

  34. truckinmack says:

    TG for Global Warming, or just imagine how cold it would be.

  35. B Marty says:

    There is NOTHING more funny/sad than watching/reading America’s ‘Conservatives’ & ‘Liberals’ tear into one another so endlessly!
    Seriously folks, WTF is wrong with you people?
    You have it so good that ripping each other is all you have left?
    The world’s watching and many are laughing while you fiddle amongst the flames.
    Al Qaida loves it. As do the Russians. And the Chinese. While your successive Rep-Dem-Rep-Dem circuses spend your hard earned reputation and dollars on stupid ‘World Cop’ cowboy adventures, you sit here – many with little or no significant science training of any merit – blowing on each other. Party on Wayne.
    PS – Romes ablaze folks. Y’all might want to go a little easier on each other – you’re probably gonna wish you had more friends on this earth sooner or later. Just sayin’.

  36. 4life4america says:

    Its Bush’s fault

  37. Eyeballing the graph, the average temperature has been constant since about 1920.. Pretty convincing that GW is a myth if the data is reliable. Also, the variation of 3.5-6 C shows that variation over 100 years can be pretty high.

    Don’t forget that population and energy usage has grown 10X over the same period. Hardly cause and effect.

    Quick Googled Reference:
    http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-energy-consumption-by-source.png?w=448&h=269

  38. -=NikFromNYC=- says:

    You disorganized individualists are fated for obscurity. Steve destroyed my post, making it look like I posted some random weirdness. He is the reason you are *all* effectively stereotyped. I mean what positive message do any of you ever offer? Steve *Godwin* has censored me 9 out of 10 times. What you see above is *not* what I posted.

  39. Tom Dockery says:

    The left even believes that the Obama who went to Indonesia in the 60’s is the same one who returned in the 70’s.

  40. YouGotToBeKiddingMe says:

    The colder it gets the hotter it gets or so the ‘warmers’ are telling us.

  41. David says:

    If the next 10 years brought only mild weather throughout the earth with just the right amount of moisture and no major tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., what would the global warming alarmists say? Here’s what they would say: “This unusually mild weather is proof of man-made global warming caused by the consumption of fossil fuels and too many people voting republican.

  42. cavemansback says:

    Al Gore must be turning in his grave !

  43. Tired says:

    Proof again that there is no man made climate change as 102 years ago there were less people and less pollution and it still happened as part of the Earth’s cycles. I love it when I am right.

  44. There is a simple solution. The actual temperature readings will have to be adjusted up. When they’re done, it will be one of the 5 hottest years on record.

    Mann Made Global Temperature Data

  45. j vjj says:

    OMG! What is Al-Buffoon going to say about this??? ANSWER: Probably nothing because he is too busy counting his money from selling that network to the terrorists.

  46. But yet, the adolescent destroyer of the United States keeps shutting down coal fired power plants, and doubling the peoples electric bill. I suppose is is just one more part of his plan to destroy this country.

  47. Herman Vogel says:

    And the Global Warmers are STILL saying it’s man made???? How many SUV and A/Cs did we have 102 yrs ago,,,and why didn’t the unrestricted smoke stacks raise our temps back then and why were the 900s hotter then now? Earth hasn’t seen a rise in Temps since 1996,,,so….I still say “someone” is trying to tell this Yahoos something,,and this will NOT stop until the start telling the truth. Hey, if they can run on a MYTH,,,so can I…ya know.

  48. ManOnPoint says:

    I love living in FL!!! With all this global warming we are the only state that didn’t get snow this year!!!

  49. TXMAN says:

    I wonder who the liberals blamed for the cold weather 102 years ago?

  50. Barry bin Inhalin says:

    The only question remaining is who is the biggest douchebag? Is it Algore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, ChuckU Schumar or Barry Himself Soetoro? So many choices but someone must grab the crown for numero uno.

  51. Ron S says:

    Great men of science used to say the earth sat on the back of a turtle. How’s that theory holding up today?

  52. Earl P. Holt III says:

    IMPORTANT NOTICE:

    In Harvard Yard at Noon on Friday the 28th, there will be a meeting of all those concerned about the issue of Global Warming. Please dress appropriately.

  53. JoJoJams says:

    The Washington Post
    The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

    Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
    * * * * * * * * *
    I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 90+ years ago.

  54. Rex says:

    Climate (THE WEATHER) has always changed…..Only Democrats are stupid enough to just now being able to figure that out.

  55. jkimbr says:

    Great! Now can we all finally agree it is time to stop global whining?!!!! :)

  56. Kevin Retcho says:

    Missing person attention, attention Has anyone seen the environmental nut Al, Gore he may be with the other M.I. A. group the Sierra Club…
    Please help us find him we want to ask them both how this can happen.

  57. Educated_Engineer says:

    If the earth is 5 BILLION years old, why do we even discuss 10, 100, even 1000 years size data samples or averages???? They are miniscule, nanometer size data points …. and, as such small samples are really meaningless and irrelevant on a large curve. Are they not, by their very nature, cherry picked?
    How about a real scientific question:
    What is the earth’s average temperature over 5 BILLION years?
    Are we presently above or below that average? (Hint, glaciers are a very recent phenomenon on that scale)
    What is the statistical range of temperatures over 5 BILLION years?
    Is present earth temperature within the one sigma temperature range? (Meaning, is our present temp “normal”, and even 5 degrees warmer might be “normal”???? )

    Also another question, what is your data station distribution???? U.S. has lots of stations (as compared per square mile), but what about cold, low population areas of the world, like Russia (Siberia), Mongolia, or even Northern Canada? What about lots of other 3rd world countries? How does a low sample rate of very cold places (per square mile) not get overwhelmed by warm populous 1st world sample rates?
    And if only 29% of the earth’s surface is land (where we have lots of sampling stations), what about the low number of samples from the 71% of the earth that is covered by water?????

      • LeftisRight says:

        Of course the moderator is more biased than most the posters. It just removes any posts that prove them wrong, so the net result is very lop-sided. The moderator considers itself free to write ad hominems but removes posts that prove it wrong or biased. Another good indicator is the use of English grammar and syntax, usually no better than grade 4 level. The deniers are not educated in any science let alone climate science and suffer from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, a phenomenon that tends to take the form of pseudo-scientists who think that their University of Google knowledge trumps the knowledge of scientists who have dedicated large swaths of their lives to the rigorous study of conditions such as paleoclimatology and the question of how earth’s climate naturally warms and cools.

        • Andy Oz says:

          Communist alarmists suffer from superiority complexes and insanity delusions that their opinions mean anything to anybody else. Global sea ice extent is above average today.

        • Shazaam says:

          Bitter much?

          Just because you had your backside handed to you on a gilded platter doesn’t mean you should lob accusations with no basis in fact about censorship on this site. Examples are ever so much better than baseless accusations.

          However, carry on, the entertainment you provide is priceless. And best of all, you persist in hoisting yourself upon your own petard!!

          I could be wrong, yet based upon your commentary so far, you appear to have attended president laughingstock’s school of logic.

        • Back to your mindless paranoid ramblings.

  58. RTC says:

    … Al Gore could not be reached for comment …..

  59. Teddy Novak says:

    Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.

    http://www.zazzle.com/FirstPrinciples?rf=238518351914519699

  60. Mary gould says:

    Well, these statistics put a chill on global warming, but support climate change. More study to be done to assess impact of climate changes.

  61. JV says:

    It amazes me that little is discussed regarding the most significant variable in ALL climate models used to promote the leftists agenda

    The sun…

    • omanuel says:

      That is no mere coincidence !

      FEAR of nuclear annihilation convinced world leaders in 1945 to:

      1. Form the United Nations
      2. Take totalitarian control of society
      3. Forbid knowledge of the energy in cores of
      _ a.) Heavy atoms like Uranium
      _ b.) Some planets like Jupiter
      _ c.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
      _ d.) Galaxies like the Milky Way
      _ e.) The expanding Universe

    • Dmh says:

      I believe we’re about to learn important lessons with the Sun in the next couple of decades, probably some ideas from the EU (electric Universe) model will become mainstream.
      Solar radiations have no random pattern, are not exactly cyclic and are not chaotic. This indicates that there is an external agent that is missing in our models/theories.

  62. mikemoon says:

    Remember according to all the leading liberal propagandists, Global Warming is caused by man made C02 increasing the levels in our atmosphere.
    Today there is more than three times as many people on the planet as there was in 1940.
    Today there is 7 billion 2 hundred million people with an increase of about 97 million per year.
    In 1940 there was 2 billion. In 1800 about one billion.

    So if global warming is caused by man made C02, and the planet has had Hugh increases every year for the last 50 years. How in the world can it get colder with so much C02 in our atmosphere?
    Liberal/socialist greed! They take 40% of all food grown every year and turn it into ethanol.
    This is the single biggest reason for the increase in food cost since 2004.
    In this country corn is used to produce ethanol. Coal powered electric plant electricity is used to process the corn into ethanol. The trade off is less than 5% less pollution produced.
    However the fertilizer used to grow the corn makes ethanol a Hugh source of ground water pollution.
    Meaning that the production of ethanol in this country produces a hell of a lot more pollution than is gets rid of. The main reason for the production of ethanol, is to drive food costs up and force people into welfare, so as to make them more dependent on government for everything.

    Welfare is the 21th century’s Opium. The UK used Opium to turn China and India into colonies in the 18th and 19th centuries.

    • David says:

      The world hasn’t got colder that’s the point! its is warming.

    • Gail Combs says:

      mikemoon says:
      ….This is the single biggest reason for the increase in food cost since 2004.
      In this country corn is used to produce ethanol. Coal powered electric plant electricity is used to process the corn into ethanol. …
      >>>>>>>>>>>>
      Actually Mike the 2008 food riots was caused by several things not just ethanol and it was done intentionally so the rich could profit from the starvation of the poor. Clinton was instrumental in putting through the original policies.
      (I modified links so I don’t get kicked into moderation. H*T*T*P:// has been removed and the period replaced with (DOT))

      THIS WAS THE SET-UP
      Amstutz was VP of Cargill. He wrote the WTO Agreement on Ag in 1995. (Even Clinton admitted that agreement lead to starvation and riots of 2008) Amstutz then wrote the Freedom to Farm act in 1996. This law was later called the Freedom to Fail act as US farmers over produced and grain prices dropped like a rock. Grain traders used the surplus of very cheap grain to bankrupt farmers around the world. This was actually a KNOWN US policy as Clinton has just admitted.

      President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, publicly apologized last month for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported, subsidized US rice during his time in office. The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient. (wwwDOT)democracynow.org/2010/4/1/clinton_rice

      Amstutz was also responsible for wiping out the US grain reserve system. How to fight a food crisis: To blunt the ravages of drought and market greed, we need a national grain reserve… the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act abolished our national system of holding grain in reserve.
      articles(DOT)latimes.com/2012/sep/21/opinion/la-oe-kaufman-food-hunger-drought-20120921

      Amstutz then went to work for Goldman Sachs. This has always puzzled me until I finally ran across the last piece of the puzzle.

      That is where things get really interesting. This is stolen from WANTtoKNOW. Info: Excerpts of Key Financial News Articles in Major Media
      (wwwDOT)wanttoknow.info/financialnewsarticles-20-20

      The first articles states:

      Commodity Futures Trading Commission judge says colleague biased against complainants

      ..Painter said Judge Bruce Levine … had a secret agreement with a former Republican chairwoman of the agency to stand in the way of investors filing complaints with the agency. “On Judge Levine’s first week on the job, nearly twenty years ago, he came into my office and stated that he had promised Wendy Gramm, then Chairwoman of the Commission, that we would never rule in a complainant’s favor,” Painter wrote. “A review of his rulings will confirm that he fulfilled his vow….

      Levine had never ruled in favor of an investor. Gramm [wife of former senator Phil Gramm (R-Tex.)], was head of the CFTC just before president Bill Clinton took office. She has been criticized by Democrats for helping firms such as Goldman Sachs and Enron gain influence over the commodity markets. After leaving the CFTC, she joined Enron’s board.
      (wwwDOT)washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101907216.html

      NOW we know WHY Goldman Sachs hired Dan Amstutz!

      The second Article states:

      How Goldman gambled on starvation

      This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world – Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more – have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly and stratospherically. Within a year, the price of wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent. In a global jolt of hunger, 200 million people – mostly children – couldn’t afford to get food any more, and sank into malnutrition or starvation. There were riots in more than 30 countries, and at least one government was violently overthrown. Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.” Through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations [controlling agricultural futures contracts] were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof. (wwwDOT)independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html

      Here is the real attitude of these sons of syphilitic jackals:

      In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends…very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008 (wwwDOT)financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2008/0104.html

      Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices… and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush (wwwDOT)naega.org/images/pdf/grain_reserves_for_food_aid.pdf

      Dan Amstutz was president of the North American Export Grain Association.

      They even named an award after the B@$t@rd!

      The Amstutz Award is given by the North American Export Grain Association in honor of Dan Amstutz and in recognition of his outstanding and extraordinary service to the export grain and oilseed trade from the United States. Appropriately, the first recipient of this distinguished service award was Mr. Amstutz… naega(DOT)org/?page_id=301

      More on Biofuel, starvation and profit:

      Biofuel starvation wasn’t “unforeseen consequences”
      terrancethisisstupidstuff(DOT)blogspot.com/2008/04/biofuel-starvation-wasnt-unforeseen.html

      The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world’s corn imports…

      Congress required that biofuel use increase five times…

      wheat prices have tripled, corn prices doubled and rice prices nearly doubled…

      …. there were real warnings about possible starvation as a consequence of the law Sarasohn refers to [the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ].

      The possible consequences were clearly communicated in a Senate briefing a week before initial passage of the Senate bill and 6 months before final approval of the final House-Senate bill. (wwwSOT)earth-policy.org/Transcripts/SenateEPW07.htm

      Here’s a bit from a June 13, 2007 Senate briefing given by Lester Brown from the Earth Policy Institute:

      The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world’s corn imports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy.

      In six of the last seven years, total world grain production has fallen short of use. As a result, world carryover stocks of grain have been drawn down to 57 days of consumption, the lowest level in 34 years. (wwwDOT)earth-policy.org/Transcripts/SenateEPW07_data.htm See Data.)

      To add insult to injury Congress did not even see if biofuel actually saves on the use of oil. It does not! David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell found it takes more fossil fuel to produce biofuel than is recovered:

      * corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
      * switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
      * wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
      * soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
      * sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
      (wwwDOT)news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

      WHO PROFITS?

      Being Like Soros in Buying Farmland Reaps Annual Gains of 16%
      (wwwDOT)bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-10/being-like-soros-in-buying-farm-land-lets-investors-reap-16-annual-gains.html

      [US] Farmland reaps high investment returns
      (wwwDOT)reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/us-column-yourmoney-farmland-investment-idUSBRE82I0SZ20120319

      Credit Suisse: The Hunt for Land Has Already Started
      infocus(DOT)credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=284894&coid=162&lang=EN

      Rothschild cashes in by Investing in Farmland
      davidgarnerconsulting(DOT)wordpress.com/2010/03/17/rothschild-cashes-in-by-investing-in-farmland/

      ———-

      Archer Daniels Midland Co (who capitalized on ethanol manufacture)
      Starvation, Obesity, and Corporate Welfare: Archer Daniels Midland and U.S. Policy
      (wwwDOT)emergingmarketsoutlook.com/?p=1469

      ADM’s Largess Preserved Ethanol Break, Study Says
      Agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM), the single largest beneficiary of a controversial federal ethanol tax subsidy, contributed more than $3 million in unregulated “soft money” to Republican and Democratic national party committees during the past 10 years
      (wwwDOT)washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces98/stories/keycash061198.htm

      Mother Jones: Dwaynes World
      …For all ADM’s size, the question now is not whether the government can survive without ADM but whether ADM can survive without the government. Three subsidies that the company relies on are now being targeted by watchdogs ranging from Ralph Nader to the libertarian Cato Institute.

      The first subsidy is the Agriculture Department’s corn-price support program. Despite ADM’s close association with corn, this is the least important subsidy to the company….

      Of more benefit to ADM is the Agriculture Department’s sugar program. The program runs like a mini-OPEC: setting prices, limiting production, and forcing Americans to spend $1.4 billion per year more for sugar, according to the General Accounting Office. The irony is that, aside from a small subsidiary in Metairie, La., ADM has no interest in sugar. Its concern is to keep sugar prices high to prevent Coke and all the other ADM customers that replaced cane sugar with corn sweeteners from switching back. “The sugar program acts as an umbrella for them,” says Tom Hammer, president of the Sweetener Users Association. “It protects them from economic competition.”

      The third subsidy that ADM depends on is the 54-cent-per-gallon tax credit the federal government allows to refiners of the corn-derived ethanol used in auto fuel. For this subsidy, the federal government pays $3.5 billion over five years. Since ADM makes 60 percent of all the ethanol in the country, the government is essentially contributing $2.1 billion to ADM’s bottom line. No other subsidy in the federal government’s box of goodies is so concentrated in the hands of a single company…..

      The grease–or perhaps oleo–that helps keep these kinds of programs going is the money Andreas, his family, his company, and his company’s subsidiaries provide politicians who have influence over agricultural policy. (wwwDOT)motherjones.com/politics/1995/07/dwaynes-world#13675928225631&action=collapse_widget&id=668135

      More on ADM: – So You Want to Buy a President?
      (wwwDOT)pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/president/players/andreas.html

      Ethanol: The latest Incarnation of Snake Oil
      oilprice(DOT)com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/Ethanol-The-Latest-Incarnation-Of-Snake-Oil.html

      Analysis: U.S. bankers say, love or hate it, ethanol here to stay
      in(DOT)reuters.com/article/2012/09/05/us-usa-ethanol-farmbankers-idINBRE88413O20120905

      ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve
      (wwwDOT)biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/08/04/adm-profits-soar-550-percent-as-ethanol-margins-improve/

      Cargill (Privately held Grain Trader)
      Record profits for Cargill
      (wwwDOT)familybusinessmagazine.com/index.php?/news/single/record_profits_for_cargill/

      Monsanto

      New report shatters GE crop myths
      The study carried out by the UK Soil Association, shatters industry myths that GE crops produce higher yields, reduce herbicide use and benefit the economy. Included in the report is the revelation that between 1999 and 2001, GE crops actually cost the US economy up to US $12 billion dollars.
      (wwwDOT)non-gm-farmers.com/media_seedsofdoubt.asp

      Monsanto (85% held by mutual funds)
      Monsanto Extortion Letter
      (wwwDOT)mindfully.org/GE/Monsanto-Extortion-Letter12nov98.htm

      2012: Monsanto posts record $8.6B in sales
      (wwwDOT)bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/10/08/daily35.html

      2012: Monsanto posts record second quarter, sales jump 15 percent
      (wwwDOT)reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-monsanto-results-idUSBRE8330JI20120404

      2012: Monsanto 3Q profit soars, maintains year view
      (wwwDOT)stltoday.com/business/local/monsanto-q-profit-soars-maintains-year-view/article_9cf34af6-c053-11e1-bf24-0019bb30f31a.html

      Food fight: The business of biotechnology
      themolokainews(DOT)com/food-fight/food-fight-the-business-of-biotechnology/

  63. Abba says:

    Not to mention that temperature was measured with mercury thermometers 100 years ago and we are now using digital technologies measuring to 1/100th of a degree. How accurate were those old measurements in comparison to current ones?

  64. omanuel says:

    The inhabitants of planet Earth face a serious threat to survival that will not be averted by acrimonious exchanging of insults with each other.

    As Dr. John Christy noted recently, the climate debate has now evolved into a moral issue:

    The survival of mankind will be at stake if the Sun moves into another cyclic period of low activity !

    http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/geologic-record-shows-sun-not-co2-drives-climate-change-models-meaningless/

    • Dmh says:

      Thanks for the link.

        • David says:

          What makes me laugh is when deniers post graphs, talk about warmer periods and spout crap about times gone by when it was warmer to prove a point that everything is as it should be

          ### When all they are doing is proving the mechanics of what warms a planet or cools a planet!

          DENIERS wouldn’t understand this though as most deniers are to stupid to understand what I just posted.

        • Andy Oz says:

          I understand Global Sea Ice extent is above average according to the deniers at the University of Illinois. Alarmists are getting desperate and more alarmed their religion is dying.
          http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png

        • LeftisRight says:

          Is the volume greater or smaller?

        • Andy Oz says:

          What makes me laugh is when alarmists cannot read a graph.
          http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

        • LeftisRight says:

          Why is the extent of antarctic ice growing?

        • Gail Combs says:

          October, 2013, the Antarctic sea ice extents was at a record high maximum right at 19.5 Million square kilometers. For the past two years, Antarctic sea ice has been consistently two std deviations ABOVE normal levels for sea ice.

          The Antarctic continental ice (14.0 Mkm^2) + Antarctic permanent ice shelves (3.5 Mkm^2) + the variable Antarctic sea ice itself (3.5 Mkm^2 to 19.5 Mkm^2) all combine to cover an area larger than the entire southern hemisphere continental land area combined! The 40 year trend of ALL Antarctic Sea Ice measurements (maximum, average, and minimum extents) continues their steady increases since 1979. At today’s rates of increase in southern sea ice extents, Drake Passage around Cape Horn could be closed to ship traffic as soon as 8 to 12 years.

          What that will do to the earth’s climate is anyone’s guess because part of the West Wind Drift becomes the Humboldt Current at that point and the Humboldt Current causes El Nino/La Nina

          If I were asked to pick a single point on earth that most likely has the greatest effect on global weather and climate, it would be 0 and 90W (Galapagos). This is where El-nino winds, the deep sea Cromwell current, the Panama current, and the Humboldt current meet. These flows are not constant and each has different cycles and those cycles are not constant. Cycles on cycles create extremes in weather and climate. These extremes have an effect globally. I suspect these cycles are also controlling our observed atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is very likely a lagging indicator and not a cause of climate change. ~ F.H. Haynie, EPA research scientist, retired.

        • Dmh says:

          “Why is the extent of antarctic ice growing?”
          Short answer: ocean cycles and low solar radiations, causing a worldwide cooling trend.
          The cooling trend in the last 14 years is obvious,
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015
          The period 1997-2001 must be avoided in the analysis because of the “step change” in world temperatures that happened then, with the greatest variation of the ENSO ever recorded.

        • LeftisRight says:

          There are limited weather stations in antarctica and satellite data are relatively short with about 40 years of records. Do these records show cooling trends that follow your hypothesis? Is there more of less volume of ice?

      • David says:

        I have provided the links where your cherry picked data comes from when you read ALL the data together it may help you on your quest!

        Link one: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/#gtemp
        LInk two: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
        Link three: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

        And a link to explain about cherry picked data.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/

        Thank you.

        • gator69 says:

          David, without cherry picking dates, and without modeled data, what do you have to offer here? I can answer that for you, nothing.

          You are a projecting fool.

        • David says:

          Hi Gator69 please find and read my many posts on various threads where I offered something before being shouted down and insulted.

          Thank you.

        • gator69 says:

          Are you really that stupid? Let’s try plain English again.

          David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Care to prove me wrong? Are you dumb enough to try?

        • David says:

          Hi gator69

          Thanks for the mandatory insult! What do you need me to explain? First I need to ask what your view point is on Global warming and its causes then I will be happy to provide you with my ignorance………!

  65. Tim. says:

    There is of course climate change, with out question the Earths climate does change and has and will for millions of years. Global warming and cooling does happen no doubt. Has man caused it is the million dollar question well yes and no.. We the animal life have increased in population that has an small effect. We use energy in increasing quantities that has some effect. There are fewer Volcanic events that has a cooling effect. The Sun goes through cycles emitting more or less energy that has a big effect. We are at times closer and farther from the Sun also a big effect. We cannot lower the population, nor stop consuming energy only change the method of production to a minor effect. We cannot change the Sun or our position in the solar system. We cannot control Volcanic activity (the largest producer of green houses gasses.) So then what can we do ,nothing useful. Unless you wish to murder a few Billion people and animals and return to living in caves that is. For all the Global Warming crowd are you willing to give up your auto, TV, Cell Phone Air Con Heater Stove Refer and lighting? Forget Medicine requires to much power to produce. No Mickey D’s KFC, Everyone carry guns on Police cars. In other words its a mute point no one wants to give up ‘their’ goodies, perks and life stile. So argue away lefties call all the names that you really deserve. The Earth will not care. And by the way I know from history several ICE Ages have occurred but only one Fire age when the Dino’s got cooked by an asteroid hitting the Caribbean. Show me in history where a HOT period did any damage to civilization. Noah caused the ice caps to melt, Enyone ????????

  66. LeftisRight says:
    March 28, 2014 at 1:41 am

    Why is the extent of antarctic ice growing?

    Hey, ladies! We got us another smooth-talking ice-expert here. Can anybody guess what his answer to his own question is?

    I guess people who know lots about geography & precipitation have lots of super-specialised areas of knowledge, & are just itching to let us know.

    • LeftisRight says:

      Please educate me why is the extent of ice growing? I’m sure you are highly educated and knowledgeable and would elucidate and rise to the task to educate your inferiors?

      • The ice around Antartica is growing because it is cold.

        Also, I notice you haven’t bothered to apologize for both lying & then trying to bluff your way out of lying. Prehaps you would like to explain why you think it is okay to lie.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Did you pluck that from your butt or is that scientific fact? If you plucked, I’ll thank you for your honesty in advance. If it is scientific fact please provide the corroboration, doesn’t need to be reams of papers just a succinct paragraph will do with at least one citation.

        • Dmh says:

          … and the ice in the Arctic is rebounding also because it getting colder there.
          Basic thermodynamics! :-)
          Everyone can see that except the climatologists, because they’re too busy running their “model codes” to pay attention to the obvious facts.

        • Dmh says:

          More details:
          /1/ The PDO is in the middle of its negative phase, which should continue for another 2 decades or so.
          /2/ The AMO is about to flip negative very soon and this year so far has been already considerably colder than 2013,
          http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
          /3/ If we don’t have an El Nino this year, it’ll be the first time since 1950 that more than 4 years pass between one El Nino and the next
          http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
          We already had two La Nina’s since the last El Nino and the anomalies are at La Nina level now (below -0.5 C)
          http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/sur/images/nino34_short.gif
          /4/ The Antarctic basin is becoming colder due to increased ice extent and the cooling of SH oceans is evident,
          http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/13-southern.png
          and last but not least,
          /5/ The Sun is entering the declining phase of the present solar cycle and many studies indicate that the next cycle won’t be stronger that the present one.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Simple question; is there more or less volume of ice in antarctica?

        • David says:

          Why do deniers jump from stupid theory to idiotic argument as the season changes?

          Answer it suits your stupid theories. As the seasons change just point to things that are so basic and stupid hey the ice is growing in ANARTICA in winter?? record SEA ICE what does sea ice matter?

          Of course climatologists just ignore them, just as a mathematician would ignore someone keep telling him about basic maths hey 2+2 = 4 yes we know. we also now it means nothing that you can achieve basic maths when we are working on much harder sums!!

          TOTAL ice globally is disappearing, the planet is warming satellite temperature readings have proved this, why SEA ice matters to deniers is a plain as when the season changes.

      • LeftisRight says:
        March 28, 2014 at 4:05 am

        Did you pluck that from your butt or is that scientific fact? If you plucked, I’ll thank you for your honesty in advance. If it is scientific fact please provide the corroboration, doesn’t need to be reams of papers just a succinct paragraph will do with at least one citation.

        You don’t know what temperature water freezes at? That’s some sweet nollij you’re putting to us, bro.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Are you implying it is getting colder and therefore growing? If the temperatures from year to year are always below freezing (which they are) please enlighten me why the extent of sea ice is growing now we have established that we both know the temperatures are below freezing? As an aside does this mean there is more volume of ice now than when the extent was less in the past or less?

        • David says:

          Do you actually know the answer to that STARKdick?

        • LeftisRight says:

          The root logical flaw in many of the climate deniers is that showing a statistical correlation between some non-CO2 variable and some observed climate time series somehow disproves the hypothesis that CO2 is a driver of climate change. This is as silly as saying the cost of my sneakers is correlated with how fast I run and therefor I have invalidated the hypothesis that training makes me run the 100 yard dash faster.

      • LeftisRight says:
        March 28, 2014 at 5:34 am

        Are you implying it is getting colder and therefore growing? If the temperatures from year to year are always below freezing (which they are) please enlighten me why the extent of sea ice is growing now we have established that we both know the temperatures are below freezing? As an aside does this mean there is more volume of ice now than when the extent was less in the past or less?

        Maybe you should read what I wrote. The answer is right in there.

        Since I’ve answered several questions for you, you stupid ass, maybe you can answer a question for me: Has it ever rained in Alaksa in December prior to 2013?

        • LeftisRight says:

          No you haven’t answered why the ice in Antarctica is growing as we have established the conditions for freezing haven’t materially changed. With your climate science knowledge you must have an explanation other than temperature otherwise the ice would be the more or less the same extent every year if it were solely temperature dependent.

          As to Alaska having rain in December I should have clarified interior but I wrongly assumed that those with science and geography knowledge would know that as coastal Alaska is a different climatic zone and rains year round. Let me be precise; non-coastal sub-arctic Alaska.

        • David says:

          starkDICK, you didn’t answer the question that’s the point because answering the question correctly would go against yours views, proving you are wrong and this stupid theory (one of many in the deniers arsenal) proves what climate scientists are telling you and you’re not man enough to face the fact you are wrong.

  67. David says:

    And as for the DENIER spew mantra that always gets regurgitated, like your average lower class, uneducated, tabloid paper reading slaves spew on regular basis like It was warmer once before theories?

    You are aware of what causes those ‘natural’ warmer periods I assume?? the same mechanics involved in what happens ‘naturally’ are the basis of the man made induced warming.

    If one of those ‘natural’ warm periods happened now you are aware that the man made warming already in existence would make those ‘natural’ warmer periods even warmer!!

    Really you couldn’t make up how stupid deniers are pointless even trying to explain it over a blog.

    If we met face to face I would be able to convince you!!

    • Gail Combs says:

      Since you can not do anything but spew invectives and say “It is Warming” I doubt you would have anything worth while to say in person.

      Even the IPPC has (reluctantly) agreed it has not been warming for 17 years.

      The Australian reports an interview with Dr Pachauri (IPCC chair)

      …“‘People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,’ Dr Pachauri said.

      “He said there was ‘no doubt about it’ that it was good for controversial issues to be ‘thrashed out in the public arena’.

      “Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

      “Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”

      Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

      A 17-year pause is very significant because it invalidates (Proves false) the climate models.

      The NOAA 2008 Report on ‘State of the Climate’ said

      The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr 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

      The global temperature trend has been indistinguishable from zero at 95% confidence for more than 17 years whether or not one removes the 1998 ENSO peak.

      Dr. Phil Jones – 5 July 2005
      The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

      Dr. Phil Jones – 2009
      ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

      “A single decade of observational TLT 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. ”
      (wwwDOT)agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

      The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.
      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
      (wwwDOT)pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109

      Translation: Forcing Errors = CO2 forcing is too high

      “The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
      (wwwDOT)llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

      • LeftisRight says:

        “Even the IPPC has (reluctantly) agreed it has not been warming for 17 years.” IPPC makes no such statement … here is the rebuttal:
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

        The above cut and paste is nonsense without full context. The science is succinctly precised here:
        http://web.archive.org/web/20080607061138/tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

        • Gail Combs says:

          TAMINO??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          The Frecken MET OFFICE finally was dragged kicking and screaming into finally acknowledging the seventeen year pause!

          Another article:
          Met Office proof that global warming is still ‘on pause’ as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising

          Executive summary
          A wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works. Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously. This paper is the first in a series of three reports from the Met Office Hadley Centre that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions….
          http://www.metoffice.gov.uk

          As I said kicking and screaming but finally having to address ‘The Pause’ after their noses were rubbed in it.

        • LeftisRight says:

          How about untying your knickers from their wad and give one peer-reviewed citation that supports your position Until then your bluster in the bubble stokes your self-importance about being an expert on nothing. You should take up evangelical christianity or selling gold and silver … at least you’d make money by being a shill.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Nice subterfuge, veering off in a direction that doesn’t support your original premise viz IPCC.

      • David says:

        Hi Gail no one cares what women think especially Australian women, your fragile brains cant cope! :-) :-) :-)

        Get a boyfriend he will explain it for you.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

        • Andy Oz says:

          Global sea ice extent is above average.
          Antarctic Sea ice is 2 std dev above average.
          Nenana 2013 Alaska was record late ice break up.
          Australia will repeal the stupid Alarmist carbon tax by June. Green votes in Australia 2013 election were the lowest in decades.
          Alarmists cannot face facts.

        • LeftisRight says:

          NASA et al have all reported greater sea ice extent … tell us what they report about antarctic land ice and the overall volume? Better yet tell us what is reported about cryosphere ice volumes?

        • Andy Oz says:

          Most of Antarctica never gets above zero C. Ice melts above zero C. Antarctica averages over 150mm of ice precipitation per year. I deduce from those three facts that the Antarctic glacial ice sheet is fine. Do you have any other climate alarms you wish to share?
          http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/climate_graph/vostok_south_pole_mcmurdo.htm

        • LeftisRight says:

          So are you saying you don’t know if the volume of sea and land ice is greater, neutral, or declining even though the data (and many peer-reviewed papers) are published on the topic and just make silly assumptions akin to “making ice in your stove”.

        • Andy Oz says:

          Australia’s AT coastal bases – Mawson has 6 days per year above zero C and Casey has 7 days per year. Horrific isn’t it.
          http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/climate_graph/casey_mawson.htm

        • Andy Oz says:

          http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/6120
          “In contrast, the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased, with the greatest growth being in the autumn.” – Peer reviewed paper from 2009 and it has only gone up from there according to NOAA and NASA. Translation – there is more ice in Antarctica.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Didn’t read the paper did you?

          Sea Ice: In contrast to the Arctic, the extent of Southern Hemisphere sea ice has actually increased in the period since reliable satellite data became available in 1979. The increase has been statistically significant, and has been greatest in March and in the Ross Sea sector of the Southern Ocean.

          Land ice: … rate of losses has increased by 59% over a decade as measured in 2006 in the East … not atmospheric temperature change but increases in ocean sea temperatures … due to warming oceans and changes in wind patterns … 87% of the 244 glaciers show retreat … peninsular antarctic showing land surface temperature rise with large losses of glacial ice sheets calving off … all showing evidence of anthropogenic influence …

          Conclusion: There’s a net loss of ice due to anthropogenic causes due to ozone hole, rise in GHG, soot pollution, etc.

        • Shazaam says:

          @LeftIsRight/Wrong

          Ya know doofus,,,,, there is a limit to land ice….. 100% of land covered with snow and ice and you cannot go higher.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Get a 4th grader to teach the difference between area and volume. One of your fellow deniers posted a great link to show ice was increasing just like you regurgitate … like you he never reads scientific papers which actually shows Antarctica is losing ice to AGW. Read my reply to Andy Oz or the original paper.

  68. Gail Combs says:

    LeftisRight says: @ March 28, 2014 at 10:17 pm

    The root logical flaw in many of the climate deniers is that showing a statistical correlation between some non-CO2 variable and some observed climate time series somehow disproves the hypothesis that CO2 is a driver of climate change….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The root logical flaw in many of the climate reality deniers is that showing a NO statistical correlation between some non-CO2 variable and some observed climate temperature time series somehow DOES disproves the hypothesis that CO2 is a driver of climate change….

    There fixed it for ya.

    “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein

    Mother Nature just ran a seventeen year Experiment and proved the hypothesis that CO2 is the driver of climate change WRONG.

    No amount of back pedaling squirming and idiotic excuses can make that experiment go away.

    • Dmh says:

      … and Mother Nature is about to give a even more explicit demonstration of the truth- the cooling trend is obvious and clearly intensifying- but I don’t think the warmists have intellectual honesty enough to change their views when that happens.
      This guy said in a previous answer to me that he was *not* talking about AGW, only local weather in S. Africa, and now he wants you “peer reviewed proof” that AGW is not happening!
      As Steve uses to say, they’re becoming desperate, incongruous and pathetic.
      Their arguments can’t resist 15 secs of scrutiny and to even talk to them is usually a complete waste of time.

      • LeftisRight says:

        As a sufferer of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome it is evident to those who are not inflicted that you probably got the contagion at a young age due to being known as the slow one. As you have aged nothing has improved. To wit when I was pointing out to one of your fellow sufferers the facts about weather and climate in Johannesburg you rambled off about AGW which had nothing to do with topic. Now you allege I request proof. If simple English is beyond your comprehension how would you understand an academic paper or presentation of any sort let alone climate science. But I look forward to your rebuttal as they are dark humor.

    • David says:

      Hi Gail COMBS

      Your information is old and out of date!! and as it says if you have the ‘aptitude’ to watch the video!

      I have also provided the links where your cherry picked data comes from when you read ALL the data together it may help you on your quest!

      Link one: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/#gtemp
      LInk two: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
      Link three: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

      And a link to explain about cherry picked data.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/

      Thank you.

      • gator69 says:

        David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Quit projecting your ignorance on the thoughtful.

        • David says:

          Hi gator69 what are you babbling about? I have posted absolute facts that show where the cherry picked data that DENIERS post comes from.

          What are you scared of??

        • gator69 says:

          Are you really that stupid? Let’s try plain English again.

          David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Care to prove me wrong? Are you dumb enough to try?

        • David says:

          Hi gator69

          Thanks for the mandatory insult! What do you need me to explain? First I need to ask what your view point is on Global warming and its causes then I will be happy to provide you with my ignorance………!

  69. David says:

    And as for the DENIER spew mantra that always gets regurgitated, like your average lower class, uneducated, tabloid paper reading slaves spew on regular basis like It was warmer once before theories?

    You are aware of what causes those ‘natural’ warmer periods I assume?? the same mechanics involved in what happens ‘naturally’ are the basis of the man made induced warming.

    If one of those ‘natural’ warm periods happened now you are aware that the man made warming already in existence would make those ‘natural’ warmer periods even warmer!!

    Really you couldn’t make up how stupid deniers are pointless even trying to explain it over a blog.

    If we met face to face I would be able to convince you!!

  70. David says:

    TO GAIL COMB OVER!

    Hi Gail no one cares what women think especially Australian women, your fragile brains cant cope! :-) :-) :-)

    Get a boyfriend he will explain it for you.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

  71. David says:

    Hey good news DENIERS apparently the USA is going to get fucked over on this global warming with some of the most severe events being thrown at the yanks, so not all bad news.

    Your children will be the first to suffer, hurricane season starts soon!!

    • David says:

      HI this should help you.

      If we stopped all emissions now the planet will still warm by another 0.6c!

      The best we can do is learn to live with consequences there will be consequences, the models struggle to predict anything and if anything most understate china and India alone are polluting more than ever before.

      India and china, well then lets add every other up and coming country, if we do nothing to kerb the escalating impact we are having then it will spiral out of control it will be impossible to mitigate.

      In my opinion it is already to late: we are wasting money on ineffective green technology and all the time we have deniers saying it isn’t happening?

      It is why is it just Deniers and Alarmists? why isn’t there a 3rd group who understand it happing REALISTS but can also see the current ideas to stop the effects are fucking useless.

      While babies like you argue we are losing the last chance to do anything real about it.

      These links are actual proof any data on this site just cherry picks from these to suit a specific argument.

      Link one: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/#gtemp
      Link two: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
      Link three: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

      And a link to explain about cherry picked data.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/

      Thank you.

      • No one knows what will happen in the future.

        • David says:

          We can have good stab at it though if you cant predict the future deniers look to the past to predict what the future holds so you are just talking shit again!

          why do you need to be a denier or an alarmists, im a realist the planet is warming no matter how you try to sugar coat it.

          You can try and do something about it or you can talk shit!

        • Andy Oz says:

          You really should take your ADHD pills David.

      • Gail Combs says:

        You seem to be completely missing the damn point.

        If CO2 keeps rising it means the Trees are happy and your C3 Veggies are happy. C4 plants (grasses & weeds) have recently evolved to compete with CO2 starved C3 plants (trees and veggies) especially during glaciation. In other words the CO2 levels are TOO LOW to support C3 plant life during the next interglacial without mankind RETURNING TO NATURE the CO2 that has been sequestered. SEE: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California and Transactions of the Royal Society: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution

        In case you did not know life on this planet is CARBON BASED!

        Second the temperatures have stayed the SAME for 17 years 6 months to 22 years depending on the data set. Even the IPCC and the MET acknowledge this after having the data shoved in their face repeatedly. Within the last five years there are indications of a slight down turn in temperature and all indications are that the temperature will FALL not rise in the coming decades. Correlation may not mean causation but NO Correlation means IF there is any causation it is in the very weak category.

        The solar insolation (amount of sunshine) at the Holocene optimum was 523 Wm-2 @ 60N June. (The anomaly during the Holocene Climatic Optimum was 6 °C higher, while the anomaly in the current period has been no higher than 0.52 °C). (Koshkarova & Koshkarov. 2004).

        GLACIAL INCEPTION
        DEFINITION: The start of a glacial period characterized by an increase in the volume of the ice sheets.

        From the paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? I extracted the 21 June solar insolation @ 65◦ N for several glacial inceptions:

        NOW (Modern Warm Period) 479 W m−2

        MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
        MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
        MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
        MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
        MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2,

        The depth of the last ice age – around 437 W m−2 @ 60N June
        NOW (Modern Warm Period) – 476 Wm-2 @ 60N June)
        Holocene Optimum: 523 Wm-2 @ 60N June
        From (www)1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun

        Note we are closer to the depth of an ice age than we are to the Holocene optimum and within the window when glacial inception can occur.

        This means the BEST CO2 can do is prevent the next ice age. The Ruddiman Hypothesis (2003) is Mankinds release of CO2 has prevented glaciation. Glacial Inception @ half precession old, was due about the time of the Little Ice Age (I can drag out a lot of papers about this subject, I have 300 stored on my computer but I will reframe.)

        The most probable effect is the CO2 released by man will prevent trees and other C3 plants from becoming extinct during this interglacial or the next.

        The one thing CO2 will NOT DO is cause some sort of ‘run away’ global warming. The age of the Holocene (The tail end) makes that near impossible.

        The data is all there in the geologic record for those willing to get off their rear ends and read the papers and think for themselves.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Why do you avoid including CO2 levels with your paleoclimate ramble … is it because they never exceeded 280 ppm and show response and direct correlation to paleoclimate change?

      • gator69 says:

        David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Quit projecting your ignorance on the thoughtful.

        • David says:

          HI gator69 are you trying to groom me?

        • gator69 says:

          Are you really that stupid? Let’s try plain English again.

          David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Care to prove me wrong? Are you dumb enough to try?

        • David says:

          Hi gator69

          Thanks for the mandatory insult! What do you need me to explain? First I need to ask what your view point is on Global warming and its causes then I will be happy to provide you with my ignorance………!

    • Shazaam says:

      You seem to prefer 2-year old Forbes articles.

      However, this one comparing and contrasting the IPCC (UN sponsored report) and NIPCC (non-government funded report) may be educational for you.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

      The part I liked best was: “How credible are the NIPCC reports? Endorsements by prominent scientists, reviews, and citations in peer-reviewed journals appear at the Web site mentioned above. NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed. In June 2013, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the 2009 and 2011 volumes.

      We know the authors of the IPCC’s reports have financial conflicts of interest, since the government bureaucracies that select them and the UN that oversees and edits the final reports stand to profit from public alarm over the possibility that global warming will be harmful. The authors of the NIPCC series have no such conflicts. The series is funded by three private family foundations without any financial interest in the outcome of the global warming debate. The publisher, The Heartland Institute, neither solicits nor receives any government or corporation funding for the Climate Change Reconsidered series. (It does receive some corporate funding for its other research and educational programs.)”

      • LeftisRight says:

        The Heartland Institute that shilled for the tobacco industry (smoking doesn’t cause lung and cardiovascular diseases) now shilling for private fossil fuel interests. At least when they shilled for tobacco the pseudo-science was a much better quality than their climate science nonsense.

        • Shazaam says:

          Now THAT’s FUNNY!!!

          Dismiss the data because you don’t like the politics of the publisher? i.e. the publisher, who didn’t author the report???

          With the bar set that low, you’ll have to keep scraping whale shit off of it!!!

          Given the UN’s record here (just one incident*): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html — And based upon your own standards, we should shun the IPCC reports!!!!

          .

          * if that first UN failure wasn’t enough for you, consider Cambodia. The United Nations recognized the Khmer Rouge as the true government of Cambodia from 1975 to 1994. And the UN did so in spite the fact that the Khmer Rouge executed 2.5 million Cambodians (about 1 in 3).

        • LeftisRight says:

          First, do you accept Heartland’s pseudo-science role in smoking debacle? Second, according to all published accounts Heartland hasn’t changed tack with respect to pseudo-science shilling – what is different this go around that makes them creditable? The rest of your post is subterfuge stay with science versus pseudo-science.

        • Shazaam says:

          Well, now. If I understand the points you are trying to make:

          1) You wish to dismiss anything published by the Heartland Institute because of their past associations.

          2) You wish to ignore any published pseudo-science as well.

          As a matter of fact, I can live with that.

          Given that the IPCC report is fabricated pseudo-science, and is completely riddled with data adjusted to meet the report conclusions and other raw data jiggery-pokery. Not to mention the IPCC’s computer generated fantasy climate simulations.

          And given the UN’s unsavory associations with genocide (Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) and child prostitution, they should be shunned!!!

          So yeah, I’m in complete agreement with you.

          Based upon the UN’s past associations and present dalliance with pseudo-sciency methods, I am quite happy to dismiss the IPCC report as a total fraud.

          Toss that puppy (UN’s IPCC report) into the dustbin of history I say!!!!!

        • LeftisRight says:

          Well I reviewed NIPCC as I have an open mind. This was an interesting caveat listing their 30 contributors/reviewers (16 were retired or self-employed and no qualifications nor pertinent research, experience, etc was given for any one except the four main authors not included in the 30) credentials:

          “Several additional reviewers wish to remain anonymous.”

          I read some of the summary and chapters which are authored by anonymous so I presume it is the four lead authors. The cited references are themselves Idso, Singer, and Carter. So to support their research they only cite themselves wrt AGW and CO2 issues. That’s akin to the gospels in the NT and we know how that has panned out wrt creditability.

          From the report I gather they are four paid authors with 30 paid reviewers of unknown specialties (two were physicians … not too sure if they were pediatric or internists or neurologists or amateur climatologists or classic car collectors) from eight countries who don’t list their credentials or affiliations (they list institution but don’t state post held … could be janitors or Nobel prize winners … other than being mostly retired). Obviously there is no rigorous standards or review process to ensure accuracy and inclusiveness. The IPCC for all its faults is supported by thousands of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world from over 100 nations that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science with 500 lead authors and 2000 expert reviewers who all list credentials and pedigree.

          Then I reviewed the Heartland Institute and found it has a long history of valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts. It has campaigned against the threats posed by second-hand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered Species Act. With its aggressive campaigning using tools such as billboards comparing climate change “believers” to the Unabomber, Heartland makes no pretense at being a scientific organization.

          Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund.

          Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference.

        • Shazaam says:

          I’m quite sure your mind is open…. ;)

          So, as far as I can tell, given the reputation of the UN as a fair and “unbiased” institution of exalted scientific research. We both agree that based upon your criteria, that the IPCC report is less useful than toilet paper.

        • LeftisRight says:

          Actually you’re an ignoramus on steroids. The UN does no climate research … it reviews all the papers published around the world and summarizes the findings that are in turn peer-reviewed. There are extensive lists of the reviewed science papers within the IPCC report. Within each paper are listed the authors and affiliations. Within each paper are the science, the methodology, the mathematics, the thought process,the conclusions. The data sets are usually public or can be had by request. It is not secret except to those who cannot follow the science. To you it is all strange or magic. I would not recommend the report as toilet paper for you as you may suffer from rectal knowledge suppository effect which would increase your intellect to a half wit.

          “The Heartland Institute, neither solicits nor receives any government or corporation funding for the Climate Change Reconsidered series. (It does receive some corporate funding for its other research and educational programs.)” Of course, that Exxon/Mobile and Koch money has no bearing on Heartland Institute’s relentless campaign to discredit the IPCC. Riiiight. And the Easter Bunny will be coming by with some candy later this month. Hop hop hop.

      • David says:

        Shazaam: Ha what a totally idiot you are please learn to read, seriously is there something wrong with you?

    • D. Self says:

      You are a crazy SOB. Cyclone ACE is is not going up. There is no trend in ACE and Hurricanes are down. Quit smoking crack.

  72. David says:

    Hey StevenGODDARD you would get more publicity if you could admit what was actually happening you might even make some money!!!

    I like the way its blamed on green taxes when the people with the most vested interest in polluting the planet are the fuel giants!!!!!

    HISTORY always judges no lies, just truth , when you die your legacy will be to leave children who are ashamed of you!!

    • Andy Oz says:

      I didn’t know the circus was in town?
      No warming for 17 years and counting.

      • David says:

        ANDY OZ What are you on about that is just a lie you are thick and cannot understand maths and for that I have no respect for you so nothing you post is relevant, Australians are so lower class.

      • David says:

        Andy Oz we have already established your views and posts are irrelevant. Please stop cherry picking data, oh and be sure to serve my food at the right temperature :-)

    • Gail Combs says:

      David says:
      “HISTORY always judges no lies, just truth”
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
      GOOD GRIEF are you actually that naive?

      History is written by the WINNERS. It has NOTHING to do with the truth and in many cases is pure out and out PROPAGANDA!

      Think about what you learned about the history of thanksgiving and then read the actual words of the governor of the colony, William Bradford.
      The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

      That article even has a link (now dead) to excerpt of William Bradford’s personal journal, completed around 1650 (new link = http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.asp )

      Originally the colony was set-up as a commune but that form of government did not work. From the diary at the fordham link.

      … For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it….

      … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression….

      If that does not convince you how about a bit of recent history?

      Remember the Kent State Riots where the National guard fired on students and killed them? The “Official Story” was the riot was a protest against the Vietnam War. THAT WAS A LIE!!

      My boy friend (in the 1980s) Bill F. was a student and a protester at Kent State. The actual cause of the riot was a law passed by the town removing the right to vote from any student at Kent State. At the time many students were going to school on the GI bill. These were not kids living with mommy and daddy in the summer but MEN. Bill F. at the time had a wife and two young boys. My boy friend at that time, Dale W. another vet, was 27 years old and going to school at the same Big Ten University that I was attending.

      The right of 18 year olds to vote was set on July 1, 1971. (The Twenty-sixth Amendment) The Kent State shootings were on Monday, May 4, 1970. SO this was all about the right to vote of 21 year olds!

      To add a semblance of reality to the fiction that Kent State was a protest against the Vietnam War. The National TV stations showed film footage of a ‘RIOT taking place’ at my big Ten University. The footage was shown several states away where my parents saw it and I got a hysterical phone call from my Mom. One problem. I was on campus from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm and there was NO RIOT. More interesting the parents of my instate friends never heard of the riot. The entire thing was coldly manufactured propaganda to squirm out of the responsibility for the murder of those students!

  73. Robert Bruin, you are a first rate idiot & a liar. You have already been demonstrably proven wrong enough times that you have no credibility at all. You should be silent & quietly accept the teachings of poeple who know better than you.

  74. LeftisRight says:
    April 1, 2014 at 12:36 am

    Why do you avoid including CO2 levels with your paleoclimate ramble … is it because they never exceeded 280 ppm and show response and direct correlation to paleoclimate change?

    Wait, are you saying that CO2 has never in the entire history of the world exceeded 280ppm? Because I honestly thing that you are that stupid, Bobby. Maybe you should try to explain how it doesn’t rain in Alaska or something, because that was a hoot.

  75. Gail Combs says:

    LeftisRight says: @ April 1, 2014 at 12:36 am

    Why do you avoid including CO2 levels with your paleoclimate ramble … is it because they never exceeded 280 ppm and show response and direct correlation to paleoclimate change?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Because that is cherry picked hog wash.
    Modern data:

    …North-European stations measured atmospheric CO2 over a 5 year period from 1955 to 1959. Measuring with a wet-chemical technique the atmospheric CO2 level was found to vary between approximately 270 and 380 ppmv, with annual means of 315 – 331 ppmv, and there was no tendency of rising or falling atmospheric CO2 level at any of the 19 stations during this 5 year period (Bischof, 1960). The data are particularly important because they are unselected and therefore free of potential biases from selection procedures, unlike the CO2 measurements based on the procedures at Mauna Loa (see below). Note that these measurements were taken in an industrial region, and would indeed have shown an increase in CO2 levels if increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2 were accumulating in the atmosphere during this period.

    During the same period atmospheric CO2 measurements were started near the top of the strongly CO2-emitting (e.g., Ryan, 1995) Hawaiian Mauna Loa volcano. The reason for the choice of location was that it should be far away from CO2-emitting industrial areas. At the Mauna Loa Observatory the measurements were taken with a new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques. Critique has also been directed to the analytical methodology and sampling error problems (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; and Segalstad, 1996, for further references), and the fact that the results of the measurements were “edited” (Bacastow et al., 1985); large portions of raw data were rejected, leaving just a small fraction of the raw data subjected to averaging techniques (Pales & Keeling, 1965)….

    The take home phrase is “a new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques.” There is a darn good reason the IR analytical method was never validated and Keeling rejected large portions of raw data.

    Keeling et al may have never have tried to validate the IR analytical method but I DID> Because of Keelings work IR was sold by Perkin-Elmer in the early 1970s as good for analytical analysis that would be much faster and simpler than Gas Chromatography (GC)**. I spent a good portion of my time during my first decade working as an analytical chemist trying to get the blasted method to work at various companies. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! IR will give you a rough idea of how much of a contaminant you have but the accuracy and repeatability are just not there. Even with the same sample read over and over. I was doing my work about a decade after Keeling on brand new hot of the truck top of the line Perkin-Elmer equipment. The claims by Perkin-Elmer were quietly dropped and the GC remained King.

    ** In the 1970s GCs were not equipped with computers that did the curve integration. This had to been done very carefully by the chemist either by using very special paper and cutting out the curve and weighing it on an analytical balance or by drawing a base line and measuring the height of the peak and the width of the peak at half height and using a triangle to approximate the area under the curve. Even with these methods the GC is accurate to parts per million. The IR did not even come close.

    ICE CORE CO2 DATA:

    …It was believed that snow accumulating on ice sheets would preserve the contemporaneous atmosphere trapped between snowflakes during snowfalls, so that the CO2 content of air inclusions in cores from ice sheets should reveal paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) compiled all such CO2 data available, finding that CO2 levels ranged from 140 to 7,400 ppmv. However, such paleoatmospheric CO2 levels published after 1985 were never reported to be higher than 330 ppmv. Analyses reported in 1982 (Neftel at al., 1982) from the more than 2,000 m deep Byrd ice core (Antarctica), showing unsystematic values from about 190 to 420 ppmv, were falsely “filtered” when the alleged same data showed a rising trend from about 190 ppmv at 35,000 years ago to about 290 ppmv (Callendar’s pre-industrial baseline) at 4,000 years ago when re-reported in 1988 (Neftel et al., 1988); shown by Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) in their Fig. 5.
    source

    Older samples were mesured by using the entire sample (crushing the ice) newer samples used only the ‘air’ captured in the bubble. This does not take into account that CO2 will migrate out of the air bubble into the ice. If you do not believe CO2 will migrate, leave a 2 litter plastic bottle of soda pop in a closet for a year and then open an taste it. It will be FLAT because the CO2 migrated out through the plastic.

    Dr. Hartmut Frank (Professor of Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, University of Bayreuth, Germany) who wrote the forward to Jaworowski’s 1994 paper, says

    ….Prof. Jaworowski’s main argument is valid and will remain valid because it is based on simple, but hard physicochemical facts. Most of the facts can be found in the old, traditional “Gmelin’s Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry” – but nobody reads such books anymore today. The facts are so basic that one cannot even start a research project on an investigation of the validity of such carbon dioxide analyses in ice cores because the referees would judge it too trivial. But if one would apply proper quality assurance/quality control principles, as they are common in most other areas of application of chemical-analytical methods (for instance in drug control or toxicology) the whole building of climate change would collapse because of the overlooked fault.

    A scientific discussion Molecular Fractionation of Air in Ice

    A simple compilation of the history by Dr. Ball

    • David says:

      Jesus you are really thick aren’t you GAIL COMBS? Seriously fuck off!

      • Gail Combs says:

        Aren’t you a real sweetie Davey.

        You are not willing to actually look and read anything that might disturb your cemented in position and can only sling feces instead.

        All “IPCC Climate Science” has is a short period (a couple decades) of warming that has since come to a stop.

        Legend from the slide 16 and 17 from February 2014 presentation to the UK House of Commons

        Slide 16:

        Compares global temperature time series for the periods 1895-1946 with 1957-2008. The trend and variability for the two periods are very similar (which is a strong argument against the unprecedented rate of change), but there is no clear indication that the second period is overall warmer than the first.

        Slide 17:

        Some take away points of the global mean temperature anomaly record:
        Changes are small (order of several tenths of a degree)
        Changes are not causal but rather the residue of regional changes.
        Changes of the order of several tenths of a degree are always present at virtually all time scales.
        Obsessing on the details of this record is more akin to a spectator sport (or tea leaf reading) than a serious contributor to scientific efforts – at least so far

        The UK is finally starting to face up to the fact they have been conned and that Global Warming is POLITICAL SUICIDE because it is ECONOMIC SUICIDE based on faux science.

        If you want to know what carrying political and economic suicide too far does read history, especially the history around the 1790s.

        • David says:

          Yes all this while the sun reached its damp squib of a solar maximum!

          The UK has not finally woke up to anything of the sort that is just something you have made up.

  76. Tim. says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUa7s3xuqxI#t=604 Something for you to consider as you attempt to force your ideas of Global Warming upon the world.

    • David says:

      Seriously you are a whack job as your messiah would say, seriously what the fuck???? You deniers are so righteous in your quest to tell us all we are so are wrong when you cherry pick OUR data to prove us wrong. Then just post some absolute bollox to prove what. You fucking idiot.

      You are the one that is brain washed you easily led little lamb.

      • Tim. says:

        David I am surprised and yet not on your comment cussing and demeaning as usual, The post was to attempt to show you the futility in you method, but alas there is no hope in reasoning with a fool trying to pick a fight. Idiot in your eyes perhaps but not in the real world. You fail to understand your being manipulated by those that profit from this game you are the fools fool the ultimate Idiot’s idiot. So prove me right and reply with more if your diatribe, Good Day.

        • David says:

          Tim seriously you are a tool, its your messiah that starts insulting then the pack of wolves gang up on anyone trying to debate then you come on trying to be patronising.

          The average denier when met is a toothless simpleton, red neck, yahoo cowboy. I like it when the interview one on telly its son funny watching them get angry and trying to babble out some maths LOL.

          YEHAAAAA.

        • Gail Combs says:

          David: “…The average denier when met is a toothless simpleton, red neck, yahoo cowboy….”

          Sure simpleton’s like MIT professor Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Judith Curry Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Dr Robert Brown of Duke University….

          I have over thirty pages of “den!ers” and their scientific back ground and Dr. Robinson in his SECOND petition has 31,487 American scientists including 9,029 with PhDs who have signed the petition for the SECOND TIME. This time including verifiable credentials.

          Keep digging Dave. If you make enough of a fool of yourself maybe Shell Oil will fire you and find a better astroturf troll to employ.

        • Tim. says:

          David, Thank you your reply has proven me correct…..A Very Good Day.

      • gator69 says:

        David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Quit projecting your ignorance on the thoughtful.

        • David says:

          Hi gator69 all you have to offer so far is nothing but posting about the facts that I have posted, what do your posts actually mean? Are you upset that facts I have posted are going to be read by someone intelligent?

          What is your point?

        • gator69 says:

          Are you really that stupid? Let’s try plain English again.

          David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Care to prove me wrong? Are you dumb enough to try?

        • David says:

          Hi gator69

          Thanks for the mandatory insult! What do you need me to explain? First I need to ask what your view point is on Global warming and its causes then I will be happy to provide you with my ignorance………!

      • gator69 says:

        David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Quit projecting your ignorance on the thoughtful.

        • David says:

          Again really?

          What are you actually saying Gator69? David (me) without the facts you have posted that demonstrate how cherry picked data can be used by deniers to try and fool the stupid.

          And David without these facts and your fundamental understanding of maths and physics can you please stop posting as you are actually starting to convince some of us deniers that we may have been wrong.

          Please stop posting common sense and explaining the maths on a basic level as now I understand it I have seen how stupid I have been.

          Even Goddard is starting to see the light!

        • gator69 says:

          Are you really that stupid? Let’s try plain English again.

          David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Care to prove me wrong? Are you dumb enough to try?

        • David says:

          Hi gator69

          Thanks for the mandatory insult! What do you need me to explain? First I need to ask what your view point is on Global warming and its causes then I will be happy to provide you with my ignorance………!

    • gator69 says:

      David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Quit projecting your ignorance on the thoughtful.

      • David A says:

        David here is one of your champions engaged in cherry picking. Now try, for once, to have a rational conversation. Tell me what (in words devoid of frothing personal attacks) is wrong with the message of this post, and tell me who is cherry picking. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/trenberth-vs-the-climate/

      • David says:

        Again really?

        What are you actually saying Gator69? David (me) without the facts you have posted that demonstrate how cherry picked data can be used by deniers to try and fool the stupid.

        And David without these facts and your fundamental understanding of maths and physics can you please stop posting as you are actually starting to convince some of us deniers that we may have been wrong.

        Please stop posting common sense and explaining the maths on a basic level as now I understand it I have seen how stupid I have been.

        Even Goddard is starting to see the light!

      • David says:

        Hi Goddard many sites are blocked stop lying and I would suggest you stop calling people names.

        • gator69 says:

          Are you really that stupid? Let’s try plain English again.

          David, without cherry picking or modeled data, you have nothing to offer. Care to prove me wrong? Are you dumb enough to try?

        • David says:

          Hi gator69

          Thanks for the mandatory insult! What do you need me to explain? First I need to ask what your view point is on Global warming and its causes then I will be happy to provide you with my ignorance………!

  77. Gail Combs says:

    Hey Davey, Still trying to promote the self confessed liar and wire fraud perpetrator Peter Gleick?

    When Peter Gleick fell, California’s water world lost big
    …. the leak was overshadowed six days later by another scandal: Peter Gleick, president of the Oakland, Calif.-based Pacific Institute, an environmental and global security think tank, admitted on Huffington Post that he “solicited and received … materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.” Soon after, the Heartland Institute announced that Gleick had impersonated one of its board members to obtain the documents. Gleick wrote: “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists.”

    He has since resigned from the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, and is on indefinite leave from the Pacific Institute, which is investigating his actions. The Heartland Institute may seek to have him prosecuted for wire fraud.

    So a guy who KNOWINGLY broke the law and tried to frame another institute was on the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics – sure tells us a lot about the ETHICS of the Climastrologists doesn’t it? Trenbreth with his recent rantings about Republicans is just more of the same.

    Oh and just to clear things up it is CLIMASTROLOGISTS who are well funded by the OIL COMPANIES. Want documented evidence? See my comment on SHELL OIL

    So how much is Shell Oil paying you and LeftisRight to spread your lies?

  78. gator69 says:

    “David says:
    April 18, 2014 at 8:39 pm
    Hi gator69

    Thanks for the mandatory insult! What do you need me to explain? First I need to ask what your view point is on Global warming and its causes then I will be happy to provide you with my ignorance………!”

    You need not explain a thing to me. I was a climatology student in between the ice age scare and the great global warming swindle. What you fail to understand is that your entire ‘crisis’ is based upon models, altered data, and cherry picked dates. I couldn’t insult you if I tried, because I would only be accurately describing you.

    Find a new hobby. Maybe a sport.

    • David says:

      Hi GATOR69

      You only posted rhetoric rubbish and didn’t answer my question therefore I can only assume you are too scared to post what your view point on Global warming and its causes are.

      Thank you.

      Also who was your lecturer I may know him?

      • gator69 says:

        “Hi GATOR69

        You only posted rhetoric rubbish and didn’t answer my question therefore I can only assume you are too scared to post what your view point on Global warming and its causes are.”

        Don’t you mean my view on “climate change”? And no, you would not know my professors, they were before your time.

        Aside from models, cherry picked dates and hyperbole, what do you doomers have to offer? The only rhetoric is what your priests spew. I speak in truths.

  79. Tim. says:

    Just to add yet another point of view from another well respected Climatology Expert…:

    Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is ‘Nonsense’

    A prominent scientist and former NASA researcher has added his voice to those who challenge the “scientific fact” that manmade carbon emissions are causing global warming.

    Dr. Leslie Woodcock is a professor emeritus of chemical thermodynamics at the University of Manchester in England, with a Ph.D. from the University of London, and served as a senior research consultant at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Laboratory in Ohio.

    In an interview with Britain’s Yorkshire Evening Post, Woodcock declared: “The theory of ‘manmade climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

    “The theory is that CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel causes ‘global warming.’ In fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere [than carbon dioxide].

    “Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion. I understand why people defend it when they have spent so long believing in it.”

    Woodcock is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a founding editor of the journal Molecular Simulation, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a former guest scientist at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    He went on to say: “If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.

    “The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years. If there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.

    “It’s become almost an industry, as a consequence of this professional misconduct by government advisers around the world.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s