Talking To Religious Fanatics

Fanatic : Jennifer Francis says that dips in the jet stream are caused by global warming and Arctic ice loss

Me : The National Academy of Sciences said in 1975 that dips in the jet stream were caused by global cooling and excess Arctic ice

Fanatic : The science has advanced since 1975

This is classic leftist thinking! In 1975, there were deep dips in the jet stream. In 1975 there was also excess Arctic ice and global cooling.  This lack of correlation between Arctic ice area and jet stream dips completely wrecks Jennifer Francis theory, but the religious fanatic takes comfort in the delusional idea that scientists are smarter now – while ignoring the actual data.

About stevengoddard

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

92 Responses to Talking To Religious Fanatics

  1. If you want the real truth, go to; facebook.com/stillhopeforamerica and/or firsthandweather.com We are going into a mini Ice Age that will start this Winter of 2013-2014!

  2. miked1947 says:

    I asked the member of CACA to invite Jennifer Francis over for a chat about weather patterns and historical extreme weather events.
    You should be “Impressed” her work is promoted by Peter Sinclair! 😉

  3. WOW.

    Don’t suppose Mr Goddard would care to direct attention to what Dr. Jennifer Francis actually has to say.

    I am a citizen, I am a lay-person, I am not Professor Francis’s spokesman –
    meaning that you Mr. Goddard are playing a most disingenuous game and misrepresenting me besides:

    But – if we want to talk about the science please allow Dr. Jennifer Francis to speak for herself!

    • Richard Feynman explained this quite succinctly

      It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

    • Eric Barnes says:

      CC. This is a bit more accurate.

      I am a citizen, I am a very gullible, non-critical lay-person, I am not Professor Francis’s spokesman –
      meaning that you Mr. Goddard are playing a most disingenuous game and misrepresenting me besides:

    • Andy Oz says:

      In the first part of her presentation she mentions record snowfall in Europe, UK, North America and Japan. And this is from Globull Warming??? It’s stunning how factual observation of cold temperatures morphs into evidence of heating. And it’s never happened before? She just blew her credibility right there. Another disciple of Al Gore and Hansen et al’s religious movement to collect hundreds of billions in carbon taxes.

    • This is a really stupid presentation. I mean, really really stupid. The first hint as to how stupid is the opening slide, “A smorgasbord of Wacky Weather”. Then it goes down hill from there. I suppose most of us tolerate wacky academics when they limit their pontifications to sociology or even economics. But when they start doing this sort of pretend science, it gets pathetic. The only thing worse I’ve seen is the alternative medicine brigade.

    • QV says:

      “Drought one minute and flood the next” in the UK!

      Not very scientific really.

  4. ~ ~ ~
    stevengoddard says:
    July 4, 2013 at 2:33 am
    You are exposing yourself as another religious fanatic, using words like “belief” “soul searching” and “confession”

    Those are not the words of scientists
    ~ ~ ~

    Please let your viewers know I was using those word in regard to your own moral responsibility to yourself… and why would I say such a thing?

    Because, I’m convinced, you dang well know better than these transparent denialist memes you keep tossing out to your gullible audience.

    {Still Steven,
    twist it all the ways you want,
    between you and me,
    I dare you to look into your mirror
    and into your own eyes
    and think about this con you been pulling on people. }
    ~ ~ ~

    But, be sure that has nothing to do with
    discussing the actual climate science – that is another matter all together.
    And I’m ready.

    • Eric Barnes says:

      I would never be anything less. Especially for someone like yourself. Progressives are great in how they live, and intolerable when they want to force their lifestyle on others. Please stop preaching.

  5. And what does Feynman’s pretty comment have to do with the way YOU interpret climate information?

    • sunsettommy says:

      Zoooom………….., it went over your head.

      • terrence says:

        This bozo – cc – is ALMOST as stupid as Reggie Pooh and TOOie Poohie. I would not be surprised if they are all the same bozo.

        I am sure cc has NO IDEA of how naive and uninformed he has made himself appear. Zoooom………….., Zoooom………….., Zoooom………….., .

  6. sunsettommy says:
    July 4, 2013 at 3:20 am
    Zoooom………….., it went over your head.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    trust but verify.

    When was the last time you got up to date on the state of our global heat distribution engine?

    Our atmosphere has this stuff called greenhouse gases, it’s natural and we need it, but over the past century and more, society has been returning millions of years worth of stored up solar energy by way of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, back into our atmosphere on top of the natural biosphere flux.

    These extra atmospheric greenhouse gas are like extra insulation and it does warm our planet.
    Warming our planet disrupts previously established biosphere patterns that have spent eons getting into place and that had found a {for humanity and society} “Goldilock zone” for the past few thousand years.

    We have severely impacted that system,
    in fact, we have convincing evidence that our climate is transitioning to a way more energetic state than any humanity has ever experienced. Which promises to disrupt the checks and balances that have been built into our weather patterns over tens of thousands of years.

    And Mr. Goddard I can’t help but believe you dang well know it.

    IF you want to dispute my claim – please can we keep to the issues
    and not worry about me…
    try to help me understand where you’re coming from.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    this has been informative – good night

    • Chewer, says:

      Then you do believe this inter-glacial is permanent?

    • sunsettommy says:

      Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

      All you did was babble and babble and babble while convincing many here that you are STUPID as hell!

      When will you start saying something with substance?

    • Traitor In Chief says:

      That’s Right Steve, Dangit! You Dang well Dad-blamed know it! 🙂

      Don’t ever lock the nutters out. They’re the entertainment.

      • Joe Freeman says:

        I agree with TIC, Steve…the nutters provide the high-quality science entertainment we haven’t seen since _Bill Nye, the Science Guy_ went off the air. Although you do owe me a new computer monitor; my old one didn’t survive the coffee-based spit-take after I read cc’s latest scientific insights…

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      CC, when was the last time you got up to date with the planet’s history?

      “Warming our planet disrupts previously established biosphere patterns that have spent eons getting into place and that had found a {for humanity and society} “Goldilock zone” for the past few thousand years.”

      The “Goldilocks Zone” you dribble about is the planet’s orbital distance from the Sun. You’re saying CO2 disrupts this?

      “These extra atmospheric greenhouse gas are like extra insulation and it does warm our planet.”

      Go spend a clear night in the desert. You’ll need extra blankets to avoid freezing to death. CO2 ain’t holding anything in.

      “We have severely impacted that system”

      If you mean by CO2, which was some 20x higher in the Carboniferous and 10x higher in the Jurassic than today, obviously without a runaway greenhouse as we wouldn’t be here today if it happened. C’mon – gimme something here.

      “Our atmosphere has this stuff called greenhouse gases, it’s natural and we need it, but over the past century and more, society has been returning millions of years worth of stored up solar energy by way of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, back into our atmosphere on top of the natural biosphere flux.”

      As per my above, where do you think it came from in the first place? We’re just borrowing it where it’ll be returned for plants to breathe. It appears you’ve forgotten the basics of photosynthesis or never knew it existed. How would you like plants regulating how much Oxygen YOU can breathe? Your arguments are historically and scientifically invalid. You offer no evidence, just parrotted opinion, which sounds like a girl arguing with her mother about her first crush.

      • michael says:

        “If you mean by CO2, which was some 20x higher in the Carboniferous and 10x higher in the Jurassic than today,” etc.

        Not really, Olaf. That would make the level 4,000 ppm in the Carboniferous. Actually it was more like 1500 ppm during the hottest period. And during that time there were steaming tropical swamps in northern Greenland. Is that the world we’re hoping for? If so, let’s keep belching carbon fumes.

        “Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
        “Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm — comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
        “Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.”

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

        Speaking for most of us, I like it a little cooler. Even the relatively pleasant Middle Carboniferous is at my upper limit for comfort.

        • squid2112 says:

          Speaking for most of us, I like it a little cooler.

          Firstly, don’t speak for anyone except yourself!

          If you like it cooler, move further pole-ward and leave the rest of us alone to do as we please. Thank you very much…

    • “And Mr. Goddard I can’t help but believe you dang well know it”

      My third out-loud laugh of the week, all at this one post.

    • There Is No Substitute for Victory says:

      Citizenschallenze, in another life your real name wasn’t Elmer Gantry or Burt Lancaster was it? Because your little screed reminds me of another huckster who crooned a catchy little tune that went something like…

      “Oh we got trouble
      right here in Capital City.
      That starts with “C”
      that rimes with climate…
      and that stands for coal”

      If there was ever a group that totally depends on blind, unthinking faith, and fanatic religious devotion to promote its dogmatic, the world is ending repent now beliefs, that group of people are the ones currently croaking in the choir of The Church of Global Meltdown.

    • Sometimes they just spout what they’ve heard, and can’t stop to see the critical flaws in their “theory”:

      “…Our atmosphere has this stuff called greenhouse gases, it’s natural and we need it…”

      Including one of the most prevalent, water vapor.

      “…but over the past century and more, society has been returning millions of years worth of stored up solar energy by way of CO2 and other greenhouse gases…”

      So if there was a sudden decrease in the current solar energy, we’d be fine, since we’ve been storing it for millions of years. And, since he says “and other greenhouse gases”, I’d like to hear how much water vapor we’ve released in the past century.

      “…These extra atmospheric greenhouse gas are like extra insulation and it does warm our planet…”

      Using the most alarmist source, GISS, we’ve seen about .8 degrees of rise over the past 133 years, or a temp rise of about 0.00001647 degrees per day.

      Let me know how you’ll survive tomorrow’s expected rise of 0.00001647 degree.

      “…We have severely impacted that system, in fact, we have convincing evidence that our climate is transitioning to a way more energetic state than any humanity has ever experienced…”

      Which is exactly the point that has been made here, several times: that there have been extreme weather events happening for a long time – well before Hansen and McKibbin came up with that “350” threshold.

      Hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, floods – you name it, man has experienced it.

      “…Which promises to disrupt the checks and balances that have been built into our weather patterns over tens of thousands of years…”

      Built-in checks and balances? Are you kidding me? Exactly what do YOU consider these “checks and balances” to be?

      THAT should be a good discussion…

    • Scott Scarborough says:

      Please provide graphs of increased Tornadoes, Hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. over the last 1 or 2 hundred years! If you can’t, exactly what the hell are you talking about?

  7. Read a paper on global warming theory from 1980 and it sounds exactly like a paper written on global warming theory from 2013. The science has moved on considerably from the last failed prediction while simultaneously being settled.

    • hannuko says:

      It’s funny ’cause it’s true! 😀

    • T.O.O says:

      Will,
      You just made a comment 2 days ago where you asserted that climate science was different from other sciences because it “flipped” and was saying the opposite on a decade or two before. Which Will Nitschke are we to believe?

      • michael says:

        Mystery solved. Will N is able to hold both beliefs at the same time.

        We didn’t know much about long-term climate before the 1970s. But then we figured it out, and understood that we’re now living in the middle of a brief interglacial– no doubt to be followed one day by a very long period under the ice.

        We still understand that. But since then we’ve found there’s been a radical departure from that expectation– and that the force behind that departure is man’s intervention.

        There’s really been no flip-flop. But that hardly matters– it’s the herd opinion that counts.

    • You mean greenhouse gases were known to cause global warming in 1980 and scientists were concerned about the implications – now in 2013 GHGs are still known to cause global warming and serious scientists are really getting worried because their predictions about a warming global heat distribution engine (system) have been realized to a respectable degree of accuracy – and of course the bottom line – where the rubber meets the road – we are witnessing the increasing tempo ever more radical weather events throughout the world.

      • sunsettommy says:

        NONE of the predictions/projections made by GHG/AGW believers have succeeded and there is no upward change from the usual climate trends either.

        You are being conned of things that are not happening.

      • rw says:

        Calendar claimed that CO2 caused the early 20th century warming even before 1980. (I think I recall a 1958 paper.) Not too many people in the climatological community were convinced, however (Willett comes to mind – I’m sure there were others, but I can’t cite them off the top of my head).

        Where do you get this “respectable degree of accuracy”? Or perhaps I should say, how far do the data have to deviate from expectation before you deign to notice? (cf. Roy Spencer’s recent graph of model predictions vs. actual temperatures)

      • Scott Scarborough says:

        Please show the plots of increased frequency of tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, over the last 1 or 2 hundred years. Or as another option you can just shut up.

  8. Traitor In Chief says:

    You could plot the movements of the bond market vs arctic ice and dream up some causal mechanism. The beauty of “research” is that your hypothesis need never prove true, and you can mold it anew every few years to stay ahead of reconciliation.

  9. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    ‘Deep dips in the jet stream’ are caused by low solar activity according to a fairly recent study by Prof Mike Lockwood (who is not a climate sceptic). We have had common occurrences of jet stream blocking these last few years, which is caused by unusual sinuosity of the Rossby waves. Ap Progression index has often been below 5 since the end of the last solar cycle.

    That may still be compatible with the NAS 1975 finding since low solar activity is linked with global cooling. But its certainly not due to CO2.

    • I’ve read that paper and Lockwood is looking at correlations. His assertions about a solar-jet stream link is based on citations that actually come to nothing if you follow up on them, as I did. In other words, as per usual, another paper that is big on speculation, short on evidence.

      • Correlation without physical connection is tyranny.

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        Will, that is a reasonable thing to say. No CAGW person that I have come across has ever attempted to look into the detail the paper. I have not hunted it up either, but if you read what I wrote it is correct.

        I have read LF2007 in detail, on the other hand, and I can show that it is scientifically incorrect. (I won’t link the paper since it is not relevant to this thread except as a paper by Lockwood, but you’ll know it well too, I suspect).

        But I like to raise this jet stream correlation BBC article because (a) it comes from the BBC, Fount of Climate Wisdom™ (b) it may be right (c) CO2 is certainly not the reason despite people like Schellnhuber of PIK invoking it to ‘explain’ the European cold events recently and (d) if CAGW people disagree with one of their own (ie Prof Lockwood) then they undermine their own side. Its a Catch 22, if he’s right then its not CO2 its the Sun, if he’s wrong then why can’t other IPCC senior contributors be wrong? So the citation works on several fronts.

        I do lean to low solar activity, but without knowing what the mechanism could be. But I’m also happy with ‘no one has the faintest idea’ too.

  10. gator69 says:

    I’m sick to death of the Natural Variability deniers and their kooky religion. It is a baseless faith, supported by those who would use it as a vehicle for their agenda(s).

    • michael says:

      Gate: Could you provide a link to one single person who says there is no such thing as natural variability? I don’t think there is such a person.

      • gator69 says:

        Good then we can all stop blaming man, and spend this money on starving children.

        Thanks for clearing that up!

        • michael says:

          Well, thanks for the link– not! I knew you wouldn’t have one.

          Everyone with any scientific standing agrees that the climate has primary natural drivers. And 97% of them would also agree that it has man-made drivers as well.

        • gator69 says:

          God you are dumb! 😆

          They only had to remove over 98% of those surveyed to get a 97% con-sensus! And you bought it! 😆

          Read me more fairy tales you ass, I cannot get enough! 😆

          PS – enjoy your ‘links’, I’ll be grilling mine today!

  11. Carboniferous Period was roughly from 369 to 300 million during early stages of life’s development.
    Jurassic Period is roughly from 200 million years ago to 145 million.

    Our complex society is less than, {depending on how you want to define it}, 100+ years old with the advent of “modern society”… ±1000 years old with the advent of global travel… ±10,000 years old with the advent of farming and society.

    It took our planet billions of years of evolution to the point where it could, first create and sustain hominids. Then it took another few million years for the final mellowing, which allowed human society to develop.

    So to say the Earth was a different planet 145,000,000 or 300,000,000 years ago isn’t telling any intelligent person anything we don’t already know. To claim that this fact somehow undermines the scientific consensus on modern global warming is deluded and indicate a profound poverty of understand regarding our planet’s development.

    And an even worse, it reveals a gross misunderstanding regarding what current global warming is all about.

  12. And this stuff denialists consider discussing the issue?
    ~ ~ ~
    There Is No Substitute for Victory says:
    July 4, 2013 at 4:06 pm
    Citizenschallenge, in another life your real name wasn’t Elmer Gantry or Burt Lancaster was it? Because your little screed reminds me of another huckster who crooned a catchy little tune that went something like…
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Don’t supposed you’d care to discuss the facts of the issue…
    Goddard want’s to talk “Grapes of Wrath” and you want to discuss “The Music Man”
    What about the science or the evidence?

    Your arguments have been painfully disconnected from the actual issues and yet Goddard claims I’m the one high on religion.
    ~ ~ ~

    PS. this ain’t religion it’s active healthy learning science in the open:

    • gator69 says:

      There is not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the case of our climate.

      Not.

      One.

      Paper.

      Period.

      You are a useful idiot.

  13. Gator:
    “There is not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the case of our climate.

    Not.

    One.

    Paper.

    Period.”
    ~ ~ ~

    And who in the world ever said that “natural variability” doesn’t exist within our climate system?
    ______________________________________________________
    &
    What does that have to do with society increasing the GHG insulation within our thin atmosphere by a third in a century (±). Resulting in the Earth retaining more heat and driving our climate into a new more energized active state?

    One that’s looking more and more poised to overwhelm a society that has done it’s best to ignore the geophysical realities of our finite planet – thanks to decades worth of the disingenuous ‘Republican-power-politic’ driven attack on science.
    ~ ~ ~

    And like I said to Steven at the beginning of this little adventure – calling me stupid names may make you feel better – but it doesn’t turn me into your cartoon.

    • gator69 says:

      What part of perfectly natural do you not get? 😆

    • michael says:

      Citizen: Gator just lies at the extreme of something that’s the norm in here. He is a person totally resistant to information. None enters. None exits. He is created whole, like a perfect vacuum.

      If you’re hoping that he will respond to some point you’ve made, you’re destined to be disappointed.

  14. Not just 1975, but 1962 as well.

    The Met Office paper, “Why was the start to spring 2013 so cold?” ,that for some reason was not publicised states

    It is informative to consider whether there are similarities in the global climate system in 1962(Figure 6) to this year’s situation (Figure 3). Comparison with the equivalent figures for 2013 shows a remarkable resemblance.

    The hemispheric pattern of the surface air temperature anomalies is almost identical, as is the hemispheric pattern of mean sea level pressure anomalies. Again the negative phase of the NAO dominated the Euro-Atlantic sector in 1962, with the same southwards shift in the jet stream taking the weather systems into southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/jet-stream-weirding-1962-style/

  15. HL Mencken says:

    The magic number of 97% again rears its head. The problem is that it is alleged to include the work of many skeptics who disagree with the manufactured global warming consensus. Anyone with a modicum of skill can find refutations such as those posted in the Heartland Institute’s recent newsletter. Heartland checked with several of the so-called dissenting skeptics who had been counted among the 97%. They, like almost all serious climate scientists, agree that there has been warming since 1850, but attribute it overwhelmingly to natural causes. Warming caused by man’s activity is seen by most skeptics as local and connected with land-use change, heat-island effects and not to forcing from incremental man-produced CO2. According to them, the global contribution of added CO2 is at best slight and difficult to pinpoint. The so-called “extreme weather” syndrome is only the latest in a series of projected calamities that began with the “global cooling” scare in the mid1970s that have since faded from view.

    HL Mencken

    RE: “97% of them would also agree that it has man-made drivers as well.”

    • michael says:

      Hi, HL. The figure 97% was of published scientists polled who had a specific expertise in climatology. Does it include “skeptics”? Well, any good scientists should be skeptical of a scientific consensus– so they check it for themselves. That method is in fact what makes them scientists. They test a hypothesis to see whether they can falsify it.

      Overwhelmingly, as shown in the original study by Oreskes (2004), they find that man’s influence can be seen in recent climate changes. Maybe you should go to the sources, which are abundant on the web. Start here:

      Click to access Oreskes%202004%20Climate%20change.pdf

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

      There’s very little doubt that 100% of this 97% would agree with the statement that climate drivers include both natural and man-made components. And I would suggest that your time would best be spent not reading refutations issued by the Heartland Institute but by examining the actual science, published by scientists. The propaganda machine exemplified by Heartland emits far more smoke than it does light.

      You could start by taking a closer look at the “global cooling scare”, to see whether we ever actually had one. What happened during the 1970s was that we discovered that we had been living in a brief interglacial, and that in time another ice age would develop.

      Try to think of that not as a “scare” put out by someone with a sinister agenda, but as a newly discovered fact about our planet. Read some old Scientific Americans from those years, which you can still find occasionally at a thrift store. Or, use your search engine to locate the older findings. Search for things like “international geophysical year”.

    • That’s just great Mencken – so you rely on a “free-market” advocacy groups for your scientific information? http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41 fossil fuel-funded think tank
      ~ ~ ~
      Worse your HI boys are like a bunch of spoiled angry adolescents,
      case in point: It was the Heartland Institute that in May 2012 launched an ad campaign comparing those who agree that humans are causing global warming to the Unabomber and Osama bin Laden.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder
      ~ ~ ~

      ‘nough said about Heartland’s trustworthiness…

      I would hope aren’t one of those who thinks that sort of behavior is OK.
      After all, shouldn’t we be trying to learn rather than ridicule ? ? ?

  16. HL Mencken says:
    July 4, 2013 at 10:25 pm
    “The so-called “extreme weather” syndrome is only the latest in a series of projected calamities that began with the “global cooling” scare in the mid1970s that have since faded from view.”
    ~ ~ ~

    Don’t let the evidence get in your way:

    The Global Climate 2001–2010 A Decade Of Climate Extremes

    Click to access wmo_1119_en.pdf

    WMO-No. 1119
    © World meteorological organization, 2013
    ISBN 978-92-63-11119-7
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    • January 10,1871

      We have often noticed that in the tabular statements of those compilers of weather records who write to the Times, useful and welcome as their communications are, every season is sure to be “extraordinary,” almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known. Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it.

      http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1298497

      • Mr. Goddard,
        First it’s Grapes of Wrath and now it an interesting 1871 UK newspaper article that tells us what?

        That people have been concerned about the weather, since like for eever?

        That people have long been concerned about the radical changes modern society is making to it’s landscape and skies; having unknown consequences to the “natural order” of things? (mind you in those days they were choking in the streets of London and every other industrial city.)

        Or that climate is a sensitive balanced dynamic that does change depending on a whole suite of drivers and other influences?

        How – unless you folks believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas – does that article inform our current situation with the atmosphere containing a third more GHG insulation acting to retain more of our sun’s energy and heat within our global heat distribution engine?

        • So what you are saying is that you have a one track mind and are incapable of thinking about issues in any other way than what you have been programmed to believe.

        • gator69 says:

          Nothing unusual or unprecedented.

          Period.

          It’s an acorn little buddy.

          This is the dishonesty that is at the core of CAGW. Alarmists blather on about ordinary events, things that we have seen before, and then act as if they are”unprecedented”, which they are not.

          Zero peer reviewed science refuting natural variability. All alarmists have are models and idiots.

        • Latitude says:

          Well….at least it’s good to know that the 30’s over a decade dust bowl….was natural, normal, and not a radical change

    • Chewer, says:

      So we agree, this inter-glacial is of the never ending kind?

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        You know he won’t comment, Chewer.

        • Chewer, your article by Spencer is a sad appeal to ignorance and it may be fine if you want to limit the amount of information you are willing to expose yourself to – but you should be aware it only presents a sliver of relevant info – and ignores a world of interesting and authoritative information.

          Gotta love Roy’s parting remark: “NOTE: Oh, silly me. This book was written in the late 1930′s. Nevermind.” Hahaha, he must crack himself up.

          Here again is an example of how the contrarian mind stops as soon as you’ve found the sound-bites they like. I, on the other hand, I am intrigued by such teasers and proceeded to look a little further. As it turns out even from a superficial review, it’s obvious that the 1920/30s warming was a localized event that began around Spitsbergen. One climatologists have been scratching their heads over it for a long time.
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

          Jules Schokalsky, 30th January 1935, the Royal Scottish Geographical Society lecture

          Click to access chapter_7.pdf

          ~ ~ ~
          The early century warming in the Arctic – A possible mechanism
          by 
Lennart Bengtsson • Vladimir A. Semenov • Ola Johannessen – 2003

          Click to access max_scirep_345.pdf

          What they write makes sense and highlights that this event did not span the entire Arctic as current warming does.
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

          Then I wound up at http://arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_3.html
          which lead to: “The Arctic Warming 1919 to 1939” by Arnd Bernaerts.
          Which I’d seen advertised but had never looked at before. This time I looked at it starting at chapter 5 “The Warming Event In Details” and wound up reading to the end chapter 8 with it’s “Oh Wow” moment and considering the implications of WWI North Sea naval activity. Returning to scan & read bits of the first half I’d skipped.

          The author seems critical of the IPCC, but he stays focused on his issue and shares plenty of substantial quotes and data from other studies he cites. It seems to my laymen eyes to be a fair complete review of the issue in a serious scientific way – that’s not to imply I think it’s all perfect.
          ~ ~ ~
          But, that’s how science is – evidence, ideas, conjecture, arguing, winnowing the grain from the chaff and so on. The flaws and mistakes are what people learn from – in science as well as in real life!
          ~ ~ ~

          Now after reviewing all the available information which Bernaerts feels doesn’t help in explaining the “why” of the warming – Bernaerts presents his argument that WWI navel activity must be considered when trying to explain the extreme warming event. And his numbers are impressive.

          >>> In any event, as fascinating as all that is, one thing we can know with certainty is that current warming is totally different quantitatively and qualitatively for that event. So this game you folks play with trying to mix and match any story to repeat only the lines you want to hear… well it’s more religious behavior than scientific behavior.

          But youz folks call me the religious one. Now that’s a joke, hahaha. ;- )

  17. michael says:

    I wonder what this thousand-year record means:

    “The atmospheric CO2 reconstructions presented here offer records of atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios from 1006 A.D. to 1978 A.D. The air enclosed in the three ice cores from Law Dome, Antarctica has unparalled age resolution and extends into recent decades, because of the high rate of snow accumulation at the Law Dome drill sites (Etheridge et al. 1996). Etheridge et al. (1996) reported the uncertainty of the ice core CO2 mixing ratios is 1.2 ppm. Preindustrial CO2 mixing ratios were in the range 275-284 ppm, with the lower levels during 1550-1800 A.D., probably as a result of colder global climate (Etheridge et al. 1996). The Law Dome ice core CO2 records show major growth in atmospheric CO2 levels over the industrial period, except during 1935-1945 A.D. when levels stabilized or decreased slightly.”

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html

    Hmmm. So the only period since 1750 where CO2 levels were decreasing was during the Second World War. Verr-ry interesting.

  18. stevengoddard says:
    July 5, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    So what you are saying is that you have a one track mind and are incapable of thinking about issues in any other way than what you have been programmed to believe.
    ~ ~ ~
    Got nothing to do with one tracked –
    What I’m saying is, I don’t cotton to dishonest word games.
    Other than to mock – you haven’t tried to explain a thing.

    Want me to think about the issue in a new way, get real about the way you talk about it.

    Heck, just this morning, ol’ Bernaerts did a great job of getting me to think about the Spitbergen warming in a new way, but that’s because he’s sticking to facts rather emotional mocking and name calling.
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/talking-to-religious-fanatics/#comment-245793

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 )

Connecting to %s