- Quietest tornado summer on record
- Quietest hurricane summer on record
- Quietest long term hurricane period since the Civil War
- No global warming for 16 years
- No change in sea level rise rates
- Record cold in the midwest
- Average fire season
- A cyclical drought affecting portions of the country
Let’s panic and turn control of the US over to the UN, in order to stop all this bad stuff.
And CO2 is still rising.
Why are governments trying to restrict the oil and coal industries?
Yes, but it is still worse than we thought!
Lol, and this will be completely ignored by the AGWers.
Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet?.
Here’s the next type of contrived scare-mongering:
Australian scientists say there is now “striking evidence” of extensive southward migration of tropical fish and declines in other species due to climate change, in a major ocean report card.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2189624/Researchers-striking-evidence-tropical-fish-moving-south-climate-change.html#ixzz240D0PlT5
You left out:
Arctic Ice in record retreat.
July was the 4th warmest in historical record — globally
All 14 of the warmest Julys on record have happened since 1997 — globally
July was the 329 consecutive month above 20th century averages — globally
Saying that the globe’s temperature hasn’t risen in 16 years is like saying the landing at the top of the staircase is flat. I believe that when we get another El Nino, there is a strong possibility that we will have to build another staircase.
If you let me adjust the data, I could make all of the 14 coldest Julys on record take place since 1997. Once agenda driven people start tampering with data, all bets are off. After agenda driven people tell their first lie, all bets are off.
Adjusted data is necessary to account for Time Of Observation bias, change in recording technology. change of station locality, orbit degradation in satellite orbit — a whole hos of factors. It is not a conspiracy. In any case, what adjusted data do you suggest is responsible for the Arctic melt?
The time of observation bias adjustment is a fraud, just like the rest of them
Well Steven, you are certainly the only person that I know who doesn’t acknowledge the changing of TOB from the afternoon to morning, especially in rural locations, creates a bias. Even Anthony Watts acknowledges as much when speaking about his latest working paper on station bias.
And your opinion on orbit degradation, technology upgrades and moving stations? all irrelevant and no adjustments required?
You come across as a very simple minded person. Did you not read the article I sent you, or did you just not understand it?
The way it normally works Steven, is that you answer the questions that are in front of you and then I answer yours.
The article clearly showed that the TOBS adjustment being used by USHCN is a fraud. They made a critical error between USHCN1 and USHCN2 which gave them away. Read the article and please stop wasting my time.
Steven, please reread the questions. They were regarding orbit degradation, change of technology and moving the sitting of stations and how adjustments are necessary. I asked if you thought adjustments were required in these situations.
In regards to wasting your time, I respectfully suggest that could be improved by paying closer attention to what is actually being asked.
You are yakking so fast you can’t keep up with your own BS. TOBS
Simple questions Steven. Do you believe temperature adjustments are required for orbit degradation, change of recording technology or when a station has been relocated? A yes or no would be an answer, but if you wish to give reasons, I will read them.
Orbit degradation of USHCN surface stations?
Of course not Steven. The issue is whether temperature adjustments are necessary as Andy DC thinks they are part of some conspiracy. My point is that adjustments in the temperature record are necessary for a whole host of reasons. (see comments above).
Satellite adjustments are necessary.
Land based adjustments are not only unnecessary but are almost certain to be wrong. In any sane field of science, people would assume that the distribution of error forms a random Monte Carlo distribution and leave them alone.
Climate activists Tom Karl and James Hansen have used the error as an excuse to inject a warming trend.
*”With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.* ”
John von Neumann
I also agree that satellite adjustments are necessary as was with the case of Christy and Spenser who had to readjust a decade of erroneous data. And if you recall, that brought their new readings UP and more in line with NOAA, NASA and HadCRU. I don’t believe that was part of any conspiracy, do you?
I am surprised that you say a change in recording technology appliances didn’t require an adjustment as, according to all the temperature recording organisations, this appears to have a great bias on temperature readings.
What exactly did you mean by this? “Climate activists Tom Karl and James Hansen have used the error as an excuse to inject a warming trend.”
If you could provide an answer to that question which doesn’t depend exclusively on one of your home-made graphs, I would appreciate it.
Your “home made graphs complaint” is simply not acceptable to me, insulting, and a garbage argument. If you believe the graphs are incorrect, then demonstrate it. The code and data is all available for you to use.
Why would Karl and Hansen produce graphs that show they are cheating?
I am sorry that I “insulted” you Steven and given the fact that you have consistently used insulting language as a form of response to polite questions, I am a bit surprised that you have such a thin skin.
Your graphs may be accurate, but they are YOUR graphs Steven. It is highly inappropriate and self serving to continually regard your own work self as the proof to the points you are trying to make. A prefer independent evidence to the points you make.
prove me wrong
This paper on temperature adjustments will do a far better job of that than I can. Please notice page after page of scientific formulae, highly detailed explanation and reasoning, references and attributions: In other words, what a REAL SCIENCE paper looks like:
Science fiction is always fun
Isn’t it convenient that NOAA’s “adjusted” temperature data always creates a warming signal that reinforces the theory of man-made global warming? When the raw data fails to show sufficient warming, the climate-science Houdinis simply alter the data to fit their pre-ordained conclusions.
The government-employed scientists at NOAA and NASA will always give their political masters the scientific evidence they demand. Any data that contradicts the AGW narrative will be ignored, minimized or “adjusted.” There are tens of billions of dollars in research funding at stake. Why kill the goose that laid the golden egg and lose one’s job in the process?
The AGW alarmists in government and academia decided long ago to abandon real science in favor of climate activism. They’ve fallen in love with their own theory..
I love it when a warmist moron slinks in here and watch Steve make a meal of him..
Try reading his LINK he gave you Whatever brain you have left.Then you will maybe just maybe you will realize that you are THAT ignorant and should slink on out of here
I did read that link. However, as I have stated before, there are a whole host of adjustments that need to be made to temperature recordings. TOB is just one of them and one which Steven appears to be out of step with NOAA, NASA, HadCRU, BEST and even Anthony Watts.
It doesn’t give me great confidence when Steven continually points to himself (his blogs) as a reference to the points he is trying to make, especially so when a high percentage of the time the reference is based upon a graph of his own making.
Have your guys attributed all of their “adjustments” with code and station data?
BEST has, Michael Mann has all the temperature data sets are in the public domain but I don’t know about their codes.
Well, that should be easy to get then. And rleiable no doubt.
Cyclical drought — as in really, really bad every 50 years?
“The U.S. Coast Guard said on Monday that 97 vessels were stranded by low water on the Mississippi River near Greenville, Mississippi, after it closed an 11-mile stretch of the drought-parched waterway for dredging and to replace missing navigation buoys.
The worst U.S. drought in 56 years has left the river there at its lowest point since 1988, a year when a similarly dire drought also stalled commercial traffic on the major shipping waterway.”
Yeah, that’s good news. And this too:
“Time to see the pristine panoramas is running out faster than ever before, with some experts saying the previous forecast of complete glacier eradication by 2030 is wrong – it will happen much sooner.
Thanks to climate change and pollution, scientists now believe the endangered landscapes will be entirely gone in less than a decade, causing devastating effects on the environment and the tourism industry.”
(Oh, and by the way, severe drought means less convective storm activity, i.e., less severe thunderstorm activity and less tornadoes. If you thank that’s good news, ask the farmers what THEY think.
whatever..the warm amo is responsible for the northern hemisphere ice melt as Bill Gray has been saying this would happen even in the late 70s since it was at its high. The flip to the cold AMO is still 10 years away. In the meantime the cold PDO caused the greatest buildup of ice around Alaska ever recorded. However the Pacific influence on the icecap is smaller due to very little direct contact with the arctic ocean
If you werent simply looking at one thing, you would be aware that the southern hemisphere is cooling enough so that it has forced the global temp for the year to only be .001 above normal
The physical reality of it being so much colder in the antarctic , where it is supposed to be cold, and enough cold over a largely water surfaced area, implies that that the heating of the northern hemisphere is because of the drying out in the means of the hemisphere due to the sharp drop in the pacific temps, brought on the by the cold pdo ( this allows less water vapor into the atmosphere, because water temps in the tropical pacific are lower.. and the amount of energy available in very warm water dwarfs that over dry land) but if the SOURCE REGION for moisture is limited because of cooling, it leads to what you are seeing now, and what happened in the 50s.
This has been a mainstay of the decadol forecast ideas I had since I put this out back in 2006 and 2007 and was roundly chastised for it by those wanting to link the weather to the increase in co2.
But here is what is alarming. The winter in the northern hemisphere last year was brutal except for the US. It is likely that the US shares in the much colder this winter because of a short lived el nino coming on. With the pacific now changing, and the 12 year global record showing that the heat added to the atmosphere by the previous warm cycle in the pacific, and the still warm cycle in the atlantic having been accounted for, as you can plainly see here
and since then the cooling that has begun over the last 3 years
you would understand why ARCTIC sea ice is a red herring in this argument, strictly a function of the warm cycle the atlantic is in, but will reverse, as per Bill Grays ideas, around 2020. Also the fact that the general trend of the southern hemisphere cap, which is surrounded by water, which is harder to cool, is increasing
one can see that quite the opposite, the bigger danger is that what you are seeing is the waning stage of a natural cyclical event, with a natural lag ( the atlantic is the smaller ocean and you must read Bill Grays outstanding work on the thermohaline circulation for more background) and that a collapse even greater than my forecast of a return to temps of the late 70s by 2030 is possible.
Because of more land in the northern hemisphere, what you see is the distortion of the temperatures because of the cyclical nature of the oceans heating and cooling, but there is no change in the overall available energy that makes up the earths natural total. Therefore a degree is not a degree when it comes to this matter, A 10 degree rise in the arctic is more than offset by a 1 degree fall in the tropical ocean, and what you see in the GLOBAL temp charts is simply the earth getting ready to go back the other way. While this will lead to a colder global temp, in reality the average of the total energy budget is not changing, its just being moved back and forth. Suppose we took temperatures from the equator to the n pole at 120 west. The 2-3C drop where the water is near 26C more than makes up for a 10-15 rise where the average temperature may be near -10c for the year . Yet if one simply uses temperatures and adds all the points, you may get a major positive, when in reality in terms of energy, there has been no change. The problem is once the rubber band snaps, it can go back the other way ( and is likely to do so) in a way that can lead to abnormal cold over the northern hemisphere continents.. If one looks at the cold PDO and warm PDO graphic, you can see why this can occur
The cool phase will actually start the warming to shrink the southern ice cap, while we start turning colder when the atlantic flips.. but that will mean the northern ice cap comes back. But simply peaking in on one area ( in this case the ice cap, or a drought, or flood or heat wave) and not knowing the big picture as you can see for instance in the global temps means you are not looking globally, even though you are trying to convince us of your side of the debate on a global event.
This does even take into account what many feel is the main source of the coming cooling which are larger scale solar events, As someone who is more versed in the physical reactions of heat and the influence on both small and large scale events and the feedback that occurs, I am still trying to master that part of the game, but the solar part is something that I am sure will draw people into trying to open your eyes to this fact: Its ice, not fire, you should be weary of
Joe, you mean wary, I believe.
I tried earlier to reply to Whatever, but couldn’t get through for some reason. I think your reply is excellent. Thank you. There are things I could add, but what you have written is quite sufficient as a response to Whatever.
From: Salvatore Delprete
Sent: Fri, Aug 17, 2012 3:50 pm
Subject: Fwd: My forecast decade and winter of 2012-2013 for N.H and U.S.A/ An observation/question for you
My decade projections are for the N.H. No spin.
How does a gas such as CO2 showing an increase of .008% since 1944, while at the same time being responsible for 3.6% of the total Greenhouse effect, in addition to absorbing the long wave radiation bands it does absorb at near the saturation point , with no evidence of a CO2 /WATER VAPOR positive feedback connection, rate (in your eyes Dr. Spencer ), as a possible greater source of causing the climate to change ,then various solar changes, such as, but not limited to solar irradiance changes, EUV light emission changes and solar wind changes?
Secondary effects resulting from those changes, being the evidence from the data thus far.
I don’t understand how you are, or have got to that point. You don’t need reply, but it baffles me.
From: Salvatore Delprete
Sent: Wed, Aug 15, 2012 7:06 pm
Subject: Fwd: My forecast decade and winter of 2012-2013 for N.H and U.S.A
The video on the Little Ice Age was good. I think the period 1275 AD- 1300 AD ,just prior to the Little Ice Age, most closely resembles the current climate situation,of today. This is a tough business, but the AGW theory is a bunch of BS.
First of all, CO2 follows the temperature does not lead it. Secondly, the amounts of OLR (outgoing long wave radiation )being emitted from earth to space are essentially unchanged since the satellite era began,(1979) . Third, the main long wave radiation bands CO2 absorb’s in, (15 microns as an example) are very close to saturation, in that adding additional CO2, will have very little further effect in increasing the amounts of long wave radiation being emitted from earth, that the increase in CO2 will absorb. Fourth, CO2 is a trace gas which has had a trace increase from 290 ppm,one hundred years ago , to around 390 ppm presently. This is not going to exert any control on the climatic system of earth. Man accounts for something like .04% of the .036% of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, or put another way has added maybe 10 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. Fifth, the positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor has not ,will not be taken place, as the so called lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator is NO where to be found. Sixth, the atmospheric circulation in a response to an increase in CO2 was suppose to become more zonal(+AO,+NAO,+PNA etc etc), due to the fact stratospheric cooling was suppose to take place,and the amount of cooling was suppose to be more intense in the polar regions, in contrast to the lower latitudes. That has not taken place.
Items 5 and 6 from the above show that the AGW theory,( through the use of their USELESS global warming models) ,have got the basic atmospheric circulation wrong ,along with the basic temperature profile of the atmosphere wrong. If those two basic items cannot be accurately predicted ,that means a future climatic projection will be impossible to make, with any degree of accuracy. This has certainly been the case, since the models projected a further +.65c temperature rise from 1980-2011, in contrast to the reality of an actual +.20c temperature rise in that time period.
That was then, when all the factors I talk about below were favoring warmer conditions,and the temperatures did go up by +.20 c. None of that rise due to CO2 ,in my opinion. This situation has changed, with the change starting sometime around 2005(when the prolong solar minimum started) ,and the climate won’t be to far behind. Lag times (especially due to the oceans) have to be appreciated .Things don’t happen instantly,although it is the N.H., in contrast to the S.H., which is much more susceptible to the items that cause the climate to change, due to the land and ocean arrangements, and the percentage of land versus water in the N.H., in contrast to the S.H.
I hope all of this will be of interest to you. I have just started my quest to make an impact on this climate issue debate. I see much opportunity in this field which is in complete disarray. Thanks. Take Care
From: Salvatore Delprete
Sent: Wed, Aug 15, 2012 3:38 pm
Subject: My forecast decade and winter of 2012-2013 for N.H and U.S.A
Here is what I think might unfold going forward for the short term,although I am more into the long term climatic outlook,which I will address first. Put simply, the long term temperature trend for the rest of this decade will be lower, as this decade proceeds. The probability of a temperature rise from here to the end of the decade ,I put at 0%.
I am thinking a 1.0 C to 2.0 C temperature drop by the end of the decade, probability 65%, with a slight 5% probability, it could be greater then 3.0 C, temperature drop by decade end.
It is going to depend(in large part) on how the decline from solar cycle 24 maximum(weakest since solar cycle 5,around 1700 AD) phases in with an increase in volcanic activity. I expect geological(volcanic activity to increase) as solar cycle 24 declines. Not to forget the secondary effects which will be a lower Atmospheric Cicruclation Index(ACI) as the EUV light emissions from the sun lessen, promoting a more meridional type of circulation,(which has started back around 2009), combined with a decrease in the solar wind ,giving rise to a greater cosmic ray flux, perhaps increasing global cloud cover as a result, along with a lower solar irradiance ,which has been shown to be in a range of 0.20 to maybe as much as 0.50 lower(during the Maunder Minimum), then what irradiance ranges were last century ,when the sun featured a more or less 11 year sunspot cycle, with high sunspot activity in general. That level of solar activity changing in a DRASTIC manner during OCT. of year 2005. When the current prolong solar minimum started, which I say has at least 25 more years to go.
Take into account, a continuation of a cold PDO, more La Ninas, a warmish Arctic, and the SET-UP is in for a Northern Hemisphere cool down, substancial in my opinion.
Let us now visit the short term.
CONDITIONS EXPECTED FOR WINTER 2012-2013 FOR THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE AND THE UNITED STATES
1, euv light emissions from the sun will be below normal
2. solar wind will be below average(more cosmic rays,more clouds)
3. irradiance compared to pre 2005 levels will be weaker
4. qbo will be in an easterly phase
5. enso will be either la nada or weak el nino
6. arctic ice below normal
7. volcanic activity the question mark? unknown
8. great lakes temperatures well above normal
9. aci will be negative, a more meridional atmospheric circulation
10, pdo will be in cold phase, how cold -0.5, -1.0 or -2.0 standard deviations ,unknown
Given all the above, the N.H. is very likely to experience many extreme cold outbreaks, with a tendency toward a persistence in weather patterns once they get established. Some places will feature above normal temperatures and dry condtions, but the rule will be for below normal temperatures and more wet ,in contrast to dry conditions.
As far as the U.S.A., I expect a trough to develope around the longitude of the Great Lakes, a ridge towards the North and East,from the Lakes,say in the direction of Greenland, more or less. I expect another trough in the extreme Eastern Pacific, with some sort of ridge in the Western U.S.A.
That should then result in very snowy conditions around the Lakes with temperatures on the cold side,east coast being stormy (rain and snow),while Western U.S.A will be for the most part closer to average conditions, with maybe wetter conditions along the Western Coast of the United States.
NOTE: I have a much higher degree of confidence in my long range outlook for the rest of this decade ,then for this short range attempt I just made.
Whatever, here is a news flash. The AGW FRAUD THEORY will be proven wrong before this decade ends. All the spin from your side will not make a difference.
Temperatures will be lower by decade end. Keep spinning, you will need it.
There are three zones of temperature change that will take place by end of decade.
This will clarify my temp. projections in the first post.
N.H land areas north of 30 n -1.5c by end of decade
N.H. ocean areas and land areas 30 n and south -1.0 c by end of decade
S.H. the whole hemisphere around a 0.65c drop by end of decade.
We will see how right/wrong this is, in contrast to the models which are all predicting higher temperatures for all three zones by decade end. Time will tell ,who is right and who is wrong.