Exceptional Mildness In Canada And Greenland Continues

About stevengoddard

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

24 Responses to Exceptional Mildness In Canada And Greenland Continues

  1. suyts says:

    Yeh, I felt the foookers exceptional mildness last night! The internets ran and hid right before the north winds came a’callin!

  2. Anne says:

    Remember, this is a negative anomaly on an already very negative average temperature!

    • suyts says:

      Is true. The exceptionally mild seems to be extending beyond the averagely mild into near spring. My wallet is aching because of the freezer door opened up there! I wish someone would close it!

  3. suyts says:

    Steve, because of your boring ass trip, I was going to post a summary all the neat crap I learnt over last week. It’s fairly lengthy for this site. Is ok, or do you wanna preview…….I’d prefer if you did, but no biggy.

  4. Lance says:

    Yes, its stupid cold in southern alberta, windy… waa waa waa….

    just added up my Feb temps.
    Average -5.1 C
    2011 -10.7 C

    But that is just weather (unless sometime this year we get a heat wave, then its GW).

    James will adjust to red on his graph though….

  5. suyts says:

    Well, this is boring. Steve runs off to play snowman and we’re stuck with more insanity in the blogosphere. Well, when the cat’s away……..

    What I learned last week……….

    Much was made over the “Agreeing” posts at Curry’s and Lucia’s blogs. For those not familiar, they basically laid some tenets of CAGW/CC/(whatever they call it today) theory. Ostensibly, in hopes of finding common ground on which we could all agree and further the discussion from there. CAVEAT!! I haven’t wandered to the blackboard, and I won’t. I’ve had enough of Curry’s blog to fill myself of circular arguments and more.

    What’s the more, you ask? Glad you did. The appeal to authority that was a caveat added after the discussion had started!!! yehokfine. Except, it has to be known that we skeptics disagree with the “authorities” that posit such ludicrous assertions with such certitude. (Please note, this isn’t a criticism of Dr. Curry, but a criticism of the particular posting.) Skeptics come in all varieties and sizes. I don’t find many people that are skeptical for the same reasons I am. Even in this blog, I find skeptics that aren’t necessarily here for the same reasons. There are a few though. So, a long story, slightly shorter, skeptics took issue with #5 of Curry’s tenets.
    To quote, The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions.

    yehokfine……except not. Show me where this has been demonstrated! Well they didn’t. They didn’t show me, they didn’t show Latitude, they didn’t show Lucy, they didn’t show anybody questioning #5. As Lat stated, “Lucy, you say things so much better than I do…”. Which can be true at times. Boiled down, this was the reply to Lucy……..”“A serious minority hypothesis”, no there isn’t, there are just a bunch of internet cranks with some pretty screwy science.
    No one of any substance in the debate questions the source of the increase of CO2.”(emphasis mine)

    Oh, did I mention the caveats put in after the discussion started?

    “Epistemic levels

    When an individual is assessing these, the epistemic level of the assessor is relevant. I propose the following levels:

    1. Research scientist publishing papers on relevant topics

    2. Individual with a graduate degree in a technical subject that has investigated the relevant topics in detail.

    3. Individual spending a substantial amount of time reading popular books on the subject and hanging out in the climate blogosphere

    4. Individual who gets their climate information from talk radio”

    During my discussions with some of the alarmists, a recurring message was, “A #1 said X, therefore it is true.” yehokfine…………Except……… Didn’t we just finish a discussion of “Hide the decline”? And the subsequent discussions of Mann’s hockey stick that was thoroughly slapped down by Steve Mac? Well, yes, yes we did. Can two contradictory truths exist? If #1 is true, then Steve Mac should never had been published. Up until the time of his first publishing, his epistemic level was a #3! Suddenly and magically, Steve Mac was transformed, according to the Epistemic levels from a person of the lower end of the spectrum to the elite! But, it wasn’t just Steve, was it? No, there are Jeff ID, Ryan O, and many others! But, for the purposes of the conversation, the thoughts of 3s weren’t very valid according to the caveats. But how can this be if some 3s were suddenly propelled to 1s by way of being published?

    So what weight can we ascribe to a #1? Let’s see……Mann? Was MBH98 valid? No, not really. Steve Mac broke that stick. What about Briffa’s? Well, we beat that to death. But that’s just dendrochronology. Perhaps that’s the only field that being published doesn’t carry much weight, so much so, that it allows a #3 to be escalated to a #1……… Hm, let’s think on that for a second. It seems to me that we’ve ventured out beyond dendrochronology…..when and where did that happen???……..hmm……Oh yeh!!! Now I remember! It was ES09 and RO10!!!! Now, I know this is still a point of contention with many people, and I’d like to set things straight. The word duplicity was assigned to some of the statements ES made. On the surface, this seemed to be true. His statements seemed duplicitous. They really weren’t. I’d invite all to go to both sites to see the various contentions. The problem arose because of very different perspectives. Forgoing the re-hash of the debacle, I’ll assert that when Steig proposed a change, he didn’t understand that it was an insistence to change the methodology. The exposed history and subsequent statements bare this out. In Steig’s own words, he states he’s not a statistician. Oddly, Steig09 is basically a work of statistics….uhmm….err..wtf? In a view that can only be described a charitable, he was brought to be a reviewer because he was an expert on the issues O’Donnell, et al were addressing.

    I think, given the evidence, a #1 is ~ a #3. Except, I’m told, we are most assured of the statement #5. This, by golly, we are really super duper sure of……yehokfine. During my discussion with some pleasant, and some not so pleasant people (Tobis) who I didn’t really mention because of the parenthesis, I was informed that this is “known”, that if we don’t “know” this, we don’t know anything. Their proof? Ice cores! And they are valid because #1s said so. yehokfine……..except, there was something I remembered (thanks to Robb) that had been stuck in the recesses of my memory. Jaworoski! What seems like a lifetime ago, I’d read the paper Robb cited during a different discussion. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf I’m sure I have it on one of my many PCs that I’ve gone through since, but it hasn’t been at the forefront of my mind for many years. As of this writing, a Ferdinand Engelbeen actually proactively thought of Jaworoski and gave me a link, (this is to his credit) http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html , which I haven’t read yet. I missed this, but later I asked all others if Jaworoski had been credibly refuted……….crickets chirping. But then the question is why wouldn’t we skeptics focus on Jaworoski’s paper?

    Why? Jaworoski seems to refute ice core samplings! Here’s why…… https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/romm-joke-part-2/

    The lunatics keep us so preoccupied by their assinine assertions that it is impossible to focus on one issue. I want to tackle ice cores, but some #1 idiot blathers about the “worst evuh” when it is so blatantly false that one can’t help but address that first. The problem is, it never ceases! Steven has shown proof that Romm is misleading his readers with hyperbole and falsehoods. But, they persevere. Prior to that, it was a freezer door opened that caused warm generated cold. Before that, #1 alarmists, with pinpoint accuracy, showed us how they knew the U.S. SW would be stricken with drought…….well…err…no, they didn’t show us. Nor does any paper show us how they know where drought will occur if CO2 reaches X level. They can’t do it now if CO2 remains constant, which, BTW, it never has. The fact that the U.S. SW is a freaking desert is lost on many. What’s a desert? Look it up!Maybe MSN will show us another video of a polar bear and a penguin in natural harmony again.

  6. suyts says:

    lol, oh snap, I had too many links in the damned thing……….Steve, let it go through!!!

  7. AndyW says:

    It’s strange that when Canada and Greenland were mild Steve didn’t mention it at all, but now it has got colder Steve does.

    So the logic goes like this

    1. If it is cold then mention it all the time.
    2. If it is hot, then mention it but only when it suits.
    3. If it is hot and suits but then goes cold do not mention it.
    4. If it is hot and does not suit then goes cold mention it.

    This therefore falls into a category 4 post.


    • suyts says:

      That’s way different than mentioning when its mild but not mentioning when its cold……….any blog like that out there?…..no wait……any alarmist blog/MSM news blog that doesn’t partake in the same tactics?……..If so, please name one…………It’s exceptionally mild in Canada……except when its very cold……Steve’s mentioned the cold often…..Romm ever do the same?

      • AndyW says:

        “Steve’s mentioned the cold often”

        I know, see point 1 above.

        Just because Steve does the same trick as people on the other side of the fence doesn’t make it right.


        • I have discussed the “warmth” in Canada and Greenland and post NCEP maps of the globe very often. The fact that you don’t read them is not my fault. Don’t post BS here.

    • suyts says:

      Andy, don’t you get tired of the double standard?

    • Al Gored says:

      Actually Andy, back when the gang were going on about the ‘extreme heat’ in Nunavut – you remember, the heat that caused the cold – Steven was regularly posting maps to show how localized that was.

      I guess some people needed to have the cold parts pointed out to them then, but…

      Even better, he has posted maps comparing some incredible GISS extrapolated Arctic heat and where the temperature stations actually are. Those GISS people are real artists.

    • No, I only wrote about 20 articles mentioning that and a paper for SPPI.

    • Mike Davis says:

      I guess that is why we spent the winter talking about all the countries now in Western Europe with Global anomaly maps that showed the “Pretty” colors.
      AFAIK this site is about the “Absurd” claims by the CLB such as -20 being relatively warm and proof of a warming world. It is real nice of you to provide more of your absurd claims to prove the point! As the Hurricane Center scale only goes to Cat 5 this post is within the Cat 5 showing it is worse than they expected!!

  8. Airframe Eng says:

    Let’s just hope that mildness stays where it is and doesn’t come to visit….

  9. AndyW says:

    “I have discussed the “warmth” in Canada and Greenland and post NCEP maps of the globe very often. The fact that you don’t read them is not my fault. Don’t post BS here.”

    Can you tell me how many posts you did in January on temp anomalies for Canada and Greenland at the same period NSIDC were claiming

    “Air temperatures over much of the Arctic were 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in January”

    Please provide links.

    It’s like the current Antarctic and Arctic anomalies, you just want to ignore it. Why don’t you post up about Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extents now? You haven’t done so for months, since it was in your favour.

    I like your blogs Steve but you need to be more consistent. And that’s the scientist speaking, not a warmist, because I am not.



  10. Andy Weiss says:

    Some places are warm others cold. Does that mean that the world is coming to an end? Of course not. It’s called teleconnections, the way the weather has worked forever. We aren’t doomed after all.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s