Obama And Kerry Have Saved The Planet

Climate experts tell us that Greenland is melting down and we are all going to drown in a great flood caused by our carbon sins and greed

National Geographic cites: “A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet, enough to submerge London.”

Cole: Damaging effects of human-caused climate change already hurt sea life

Meanwhile scientists in Greenland have nearly disappeared under the 10,000 foot thick snow and ice, with temperatures 59 degrees below freezing.

ScreenHunter_1622 Apr. 25 08.09


Greenland’s surface has gained nearly 500 billion tons of ice over the past eight months

ScreenHunter_1623 Apr. 25 08.20

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Arctic sea ice is the thickest it has been since 2006

Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst (1)

Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png (2488×1960)

Arctic sea ice extent is normal. Just below the 1981-2010 mean.

N_stddev_timeseries (3)

N_stddev_timeseries.png (1050×840)

Antarctic sea ice extent is at a record high

S_stddev_timeseries (2)

S_stddev_timeseries.png (1050×840)

Northern Hemisphere snow water content is well above normal.


nh_swe.png (1400×800)

The good news is that John Kerry has already stopped bad weather and sea level rise.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry took the helm of the Arctic Council on Friday on behalf of the United States

Kerry promised to make the battle against climate change the first priority of the two-year U.S. stewardship of the council

Preventing catastrophic weather events and rising sea levels “is not a future challenge; this is happening right now,” Kerry told the gathering at Iqaluit on Canada’s Baffin Island.

U.S. takes helm of Arctic Council, aims to focus on climate change – LA Times

Kerry and Obama ended the bad weather, by having exactly zero impact on global CO2 emissions over the past six years.


About stevengoddard

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

85 Responses to Obama And Kerry Have Saved The Planet

  1. sunsettommy says:

    Dam! This is awful news!

    I thought I was going to buy Oceanfront property in Greenland soon.

    Maybe better luck in Cuba…………….

  2. Anto says:

    I could’a had a birdie, but the greens just don’t run, and the fairways plug.

  3. emsnews says:

    Since the mainstream media refuses to show pictures of Greenland today buried under ice and snow, few people know about this.

    It is bitter cold here…and nearly May in New York and I imagine it is extremely cold in Greenland right now since the same cold blowing here is blowing there.

  4. Let’s face it. Until we live in small ferel groups of non pooping, non cooking, non killing humans, we will never be truly content.

  5. gator69 says:

    A March 26 article in the journal Science detailed how arctic sea ice is melting 70 percent faster in some places than it was just one decade ago.

    “Goofy claims require goofy evidence.”

  6. Eliza says:

    OT but when you think of it there can be no change in 100% matter (=1) on earth due to gravity including C02. Energy (heat) is the only thing that can be lost through space (I doubt the electrons could defy gravity though, so they also are retained). Therefore although atmospheric C02 appears to be rising, the equation will always be 1=1. This includes all the extra humans by the way (ie matter, so NOT extra) The only addition to Earth matter is through meteorites ect. My ramblings LOL

    • Gail Combs says:

      Be careful with that one.

      The earth is constantly losing atmosphere (especially at the polls IIRC.)

      • Snowleopard says:

        I wonder if anyone really knows the net atmosphere gain/loss balance.

        I’ve been told it goes negative with low solar activity. But there are also those pesky mini-comet “snowballs” that no one seems mention or keep track of these days:


        Also no idea on who is correct about how frequent they are. But in my skywatching days I personally have seen two of these go poof in the upper atmosphere.

  7. SMS says:

    I think we can all agree that CAGW is a myth and Obama and Kerry are both idiots. If not for the problem of stupidity and greenie fervor amongst the progressives, this would be a consensus view.

    • Snowleopard says:

      It’s not just stupidity and fervor. There is also the 5-6 billion available yearly for studies that support the meme, as well as megabucks donated to green groups by elite controlled foundations based on each group’s climate change focus.

      • gator69 says:

        Speaking of ugly, I was just explaining to someone what a hypocrite Skeeter is. His wife screeches about food deserts here in the US that look like this…

        … while 21,000 people per day actually die from starvation around the world. And yet what does Skeeter spend his time promoting? Spending trillions on Global Climate Warming Ruination.

        I don’t know that I really believe in Hell, but I am hoping.

        • Gail Combs says:

          As an Agnostic I am certainly hoping that Dante’s Ninth Circle for traitors exists. There are a whole pile of US and world politicians that belong in Dante’s Ninth Circle. Dante’s Ninth Circle of Hell is reserved for the most evil of all sinners —Traitors.

  8. Eliza says:

    This is the beginning of the major backdown from AGW from the climate science establishment http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/14243/20150422/global-warming-progressing-slower-than-we-thought.htm
    expect to see this for years to come from “Nature” until its “disappeared”
    Of course it will not be admitted ever.

    • rah says:

      I doubt that is the beginning of the end. It’s more probably the end of the beginning. The Titanic that is the government-institutional head of the monster will take a quite some time to turn.

      • Snowleopard says:

        If that particular Titanic does hit an iceberg, expect that they have a replacement ready to go before it sinks under the waves.

    • gator69 says:

      I deplore scientific doublespeak…

      The new findings, based on 1,000 years of temperature records, shows that natural variability in surface temperatures – caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors – can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.

      Scientists refer to this natural variability as “climate wiggles,” which can slow down or speed up the rate of global warming as time passes. They can even accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations – which saw a record high in 2013.

      If natural variability can account for “decade to decade” changes, it can account for all changes. The second paragraph sounds like it was written by an excuse making toddler caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

  9. Eliza says:

    Gail Gravity at Poles same as Equator. Its the same everywhere LOL

    • rah says:

      But the Ozone isn’t.

    • emsnews says:

      Gravity is NOT uniform at all.

    • gator69 says:

      Gravity is not evenly distributed on the Earth, and changes over time.

      • Gail Combs says:

        ACK!!! CALIFORNICATE is a gigantic pimple on the face of the earth!

        (I can see whole vid)

      • Billy Liar says:

        Having seen that video, I’m now even more sceptical that GRACE produces any remotely useful data.

        They pretend that they can see changes in ice thickness at the poles with GRACE. Phoooey!

        • gator69 says:

          Agreed. Who knows what they are detecting aside from ice gain or loss. There are always uncertainties.

        • GRACE has had several papers noting reductions in their estimates of ice loss. At one point, a paper noted a 63% overestimate of Antarctic ice loss — which was reported with alarm in green news, and the paper disappeared.

          The Greenland ice loss intrigues me, as their data show that this ice loss extends out to see to the southeast, where Greenland doesn’t actually have ice at all. With no ice, how can it have an accelerated rate of loss?

          But the signal they seek is buried in massive amounts of noise. The accuracy of the readings is so bad that the differences from one pass to the next the same day are quite startling. They average it out over time, but have to use models to guess at the distinction between Earth mantle changes and the much smaller ice changes.

          I do not have confidence in GRACE results. Those models are part of the same climate model panoply that have fallen so far short of observations.

          And before the fall from GRACE: Radar altimeter ice measurements of Greenland from 1992-2003 (when GRACE replaced ERS-1 and -2) showed increasing ice sheets there, as well as Greenland’s isostatic rise out of the ocean at about a centimeter per year.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • Gail Combs says:

      It is not gravity it is the Magnetic field.

      I will see if I can dig out the paper.

      • gator69 says:

        The Earth’s crust is not uniform, and there are very small changes in gravity due to this, and ice gain and loss, etc..

        The video illustrates both gravity and magnetic anomalies.

        • emsnews says:


          The MOON also has differing gravity pools, too. Depending on where asteroids hit, for example, and ancient volcanic events.

        • rah says:

          Yes even sea level rises next to the masses of land.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Found it:

        Low-Energy Ion Escape from the Terrestrial Polar Regions

        The foot points of the magnetic field lines create a convection pattern (red) in the high-latitude ionosphere. As a result, an electric field (blue) is built up. The convection pattern follows equipotential contours of the polar cap electric field. 22

        Figure 2.6 of polar electric fields that look like double polar vortex..

        “Φ is referred to as the cross-polar cap potential. Equipotential contours of this potential are perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic fields, which means that the convection flow will be along these contours. In the polar cap proper the electric field is directed towards dusk, while it is directed towards dawn in the auroral region (see Figure 2.6(a)).”…….

        “The polar wind is mainly varying with solar UV flux, since it controls the ionization rate and photoelectron production in the ionosphere. Therefore the polar wind is sometimes referred to as photothermal outflow (Moore and Horwitz, 2007). The auroral outflows, on the other hand, are enhanced during active times, when the solar wind-ionospheric coupling is strong.

        Since the solar wind energy input shows larger variability than the solar radiation, the auroral wind is much more variable than the polar wind. Nsumei et al. (2008) have shown that solar illumination controls the plasma density over the polar caps mainly at low altitudes (below 2.5 RE), whereas it is controlled by the geomagnetic activity at higher altitudes (above 4 RE).”

  10. Joe says:

    Is that Greenland outpost still inhabited? Looks like it has been abandoned to snow and ice

  11. I commented on that Daily Orange article:

    Sen. Cruz was correct. Moreover, the thermometer-based datasets have shown no temperature trend since 1998.

    If you don’t believe me, please consult the WGI part of IPCC’s AR5 report, issued in 2013, which says the following: “Regardless, all global combined LSAT and SST data sets exhibit a statistically non-significant warming trend over 1998–2012 (0.042°C ± 0.093°C per decade (HadCRUT4); 0.037°C ± 0.085°C per decade (NCDC MLOST); 0.069°C ± 0.082°C per decade (GISS)).” Saying “statistically non-significant” trend is a coy way of saying “zero” trend.


  12. Pathway says:

    They are going to have to move the club house again.

  13. emsnews says:

    To Hawaii.

  14. Reblogged this on pappasven and commented:
    If nature is handling things in a normal way WHY WORRY?

  15. mikegeo says:

    And Hayhoe is doing her part to convince everyone. She’s on an evangelical mission to spread the “gospel” to the disbelievers.

    • gator69 says:

      Hayhoe, 43, grew up in Toronto. Her father is an evangelical pastor, missionary and science teacher, as is her mother. She studied science at the University of Toronto.

      That explains everything! It always puzzled me how a Texas evangelical could be such a fool for CAGW. But a dope raised by Canadian school teachers, who moved to Texas, would think that her world is getting hotter 😆

  16. Chris Barron says:

    It’s probably been discussed to death already but….doesn’t this graph resemble what you might expect if after every seasonal growth period there is more CO2 generated by die back rotting down ?

    The explanation for the seasonal oscillation is that the drop occurs from spring to autumn when growth of plants consumes CO2, but then die back after growth of fallen foliage releases CO2 again. Any imbalance in either of those systam could easily create a trend such as the one we see.


    Of course the southern hemisphere growth periods are out of synch but as the SH is mostly water that effect might be negligible when all is said and done.

    It’s a chicken and egg situation I know…but can we have more CO2 released during dieback this year than last year ? If the trees grow a little bit every year then of course there will be more dieback to rot away.

    97-98 was an El nino year and the CO2 level jumped up….it would be easy to assume the warmer ocean released extra CO2 but it absorbed it back when temps returned to normal, but still there is something else causing the rise…..did the warmer conditions result in either extra plany growth (likely) and more favourable conditions for better rotting ?

    There’s just something about this seasonal variation that makes me wonder if it isn’t the biosphere just going about it’s business…..left to it’s own devices the biosphere tends towards growth…..we all know what happens if you don’t do any gardening for 2 years….here, we get trees sprouting up all over the place if you don’t pull them out as first year seedlings when they appear….at he end of each year they dump more leaf litter on the ground than the previous year….if they are a net contributor to CO2 levels then there’s the culprit, and it’s all normal

    • rah says:

      My problem with “seasonal growth” is with my lawn this time of year. Have to mow every 4-5 days or it will get out of hand. Mowed yesterday. I usually can just leave the clipping down but this time and had to use the lawn sweeper on a portion to pick up some of them because they were just too heavy despite the fact I had mowed just a week before. The clippings were dumped next to my neighbors garden where they will be spread between the rows to help retain moisture.

      Been to windy and rainy to spray for weeds.

      As for the trees? Had them trimmed and one taken out just a couple years ago so their good to go for another five years or so.

    • Gail Combs says:

      by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD


      Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

      Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

      • Gail Combs says:

        If you want to see our Beloved Gavin Schmidt of NOAA get his rear handed to him, Dr Jeffrey A. Glassman does a fine job.


        Dr Glassman’s third essay:

        CO2: “WHY ME?”

        by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

        Revised 3/14/10.

        Myles Goodman at Drexel posted the following question as a comment to the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide:

        You posit that CO2 does NOT accumulate in the atmosphere. How do you explain atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increasing over the last 100 years?

        The Acquittal shows that carbon dioxide did not accumulate in the atmosphere during the paleo era of the Vostok ice cores. If it had, the fit of the complement of the solubility curve might have been improved by the addition of a constant. It was not. And because the CO2 presumably still follows the complement of the solubility curve, it should be increasing during the modern era of global warming in recovery from Earth’s various ice epochs. These conclusions find support in a number of points in the IPCC reports.

        So the answer to the post begins with supporting background on why CO2 is known not to accumulate in the atmosphere, and then goes on to other aspects of the model that global warming causes increases in CO2, which accounts for the last 100 years or so.
        RSJ Logo
        Rocket Scientist’s Journal

        1. Estimates vary, but climatologists in the Consensus say that the atmosphere contains 730 Gtons (PgC) of carbon and the uptake to the oceans alone is at least 90 Gtons/year. It’s a ninth grade algebra problem to calculate how long it takes to empty a bucket with 730 units at the rate of 90 units per year. If you throw in uptake by photosynthesis at 120 Gtons/year and perhaps leaf water at the IPCC figure of 270 Gtons/year, thus including everything in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, 480 Gtons a year is pouring out of the bucket.


      • Snowleopard says:

        Perhaps a tangent, but it occurs to me that maybe it is not just a coincidence that “World CO2” just happens to be measured on an active volcano located on an island in the warmer part of the ocean

        • Gail Combs says:

          It is not at all a coincidence. Especially when they take the raw reading and ‘curve fit’ then toss the outliers. Then the rest of the world CO2 measurements are ‘fitted’ to the Mauna Loa data. (It is called calibrated to the Mauna Loa data)

          Lots of duscussion on that topic over at WUWT a few years ago with F. Englebeen doing his best to protect the reputation of the Mauna Loa data.

        • gator69 says:

          You noticed that too?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, I and Richard Courtney (A UK socialist) and a few others spent years on WUWT trying to counter Englebeen’s CO2 propaganda.

          The whole edifice is constructed on NOTHING BUT LIES!

          Just a sample:

          Click to access igs_journal_vol21_issue085_pg291-300.pdf

          CO2 in Natural Ice
          Stauffer, B | Berner, W
          Symposium on the Physics and Chemistry of Ice; Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Cambridge (England) September 12-16, 1977. Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 21, No. 85, p 291-300, 1978. 3 fig, 5 tab, 18 ref.
          Natural ice contains approximately 100 ppm (by weight) of enclosed air. This air is mainly located in bubbles. Carbon dioxide is an exception. The fraction of CO2 present in bubbles was estimated to be only about 20%. The remaining part is dissolved in the ice. Measurements of the CO2 content of ice samples from temperate and cold glacier ice as well as of freshly fallen snow and of a laboratory-grown single crystal were presented. It is probable that a local equilibrium is reached between the CO2 dissolved in the ice and the CO2 of the surroundings and of the air bubbles. The CO2 content of ancient air is directly preserved neither in the total CO2 concentration nor in the CO2 concentration in the bubbles. Possibly the CO2 content of ancient air may at least be estimated if the solubility and the diffusion constant of CO2 in ice are known as a function of temperature. (See also W79-09342) (Humphreys-ISWS)


          Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
          Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
          Warsaw, Poland
          Figures 1A and 1B
          The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A). The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was “too high”. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.

          Click to access scientific_paper_on_global_warming.pdf

        • gator69 says:

          Trust me, one of the first things I did was bone up on ice core samples, knowing full well that ice is fluid. Glaciers are what started my fascination with geology. Ice “traps” CO2 about as well as CO2 “traps” heat.

          The cherry picking and outright lies of alarmists never ends.

        • Gail Combs says:

          As a chemist the ‘ice traping CO2 in bubbles’ made me laugh. Think how flat a plastic bottle of soda tastes if you leave it in the pantry for a year by mistake. Anyone who has had courses on analytical chemistry is made aware molecules will migrate into the glass and contaminate the results.

          Englebeen says he is a Chem Engineer so his refusal to accept reasoned arguments loudly shouts PAID TROLL!!!
          Dr Glassman does a good tap dance all over Englebeen BTW.

          I bring up Englebeen because he is one of the trolls on WUWT who shepards thought in the Politically Correct direction. He is in charge of CO2, Dr. L. S is in charge of no change in the sun, Zeke and the Mosh pup guard the temperature record and for a while R.Gates guarded the Arctic ice data. (I outed him with some quotes of nasty comments he made on Alarmist websites and he dissapeared after that.)

        • gator69 says:

          I still get a laugh out of the “Star Tech” girl…


  17. gator69 says:

    It ‘s pretty obvious which party has the sheep vote, again…

    Hottest year ever! 😆

    • Gail Combs says:

      Brain dead Huff ‘n Puff readers vs individuals with inquiring minds. No wonder the Progs hate the repugs and esp the Tea Party.

  18. rah says:

    This is OT but no one has brought up that earth quake in Nepal. Actually, as is normal, it was just the strongest of a swarm. But check out how unusually large and powerful the swarm was. Enough to make one wonder if that 7.8 is really going to be the big one.

    4.9 23km NNE of Nagarkot, Nepal 2015-04-25 12:27:21 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.6 14km E of Panaoti, Nepal 2015-04-25 10:10:02 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.6 23km SSW of Kodari, Nepal 2015-04-25 09:36:14 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.6 51km NNW of Kathmandu, Nepal 2015-04-25 09:30:28 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    5.2 29km ESE of Lamjung, Nepal 2015-04-25 08:44:04 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.5 32km N of Nagarkot, Nepal 2015-04-25 08:17:55 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.2 36km N of Nagarkot, Nepal 2015-04-25 08:01:13 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.4 21km SSW of Kodari, Nepal 2015-04-25 06:53:43 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.8 32km E of Panaoti, Nepal 2015-04-25 06:40:35 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.2 20km WSW of Kodari, Nepal 2015-04-25 06:23:19 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    5.0 31km NNW of Nagarkot, Nepal 2015-04-25 05:30:29 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    5.7 33km SE of Xegar, China 2015-04-25 05:17:02 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.9 19km N of Kathmandu, Nepal 2015-04-25 05:03:15 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    5.3 1km WNW of Banepa, Nepal 2015-04-25 04:55:55 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    5.0 41km SE of Lamjung, Nepal 2015-04-25 04:29:24 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.7 22km W of Kodari, Nepal 2015-04-25 04:20:11 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.9 17km ENE of Banepa, Nepal 2015-04-25 04:16:59 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.6 20km E of Nagarkot, Nepal 2015-04-25 04:05:37 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    5.0 15km NNE of Nagarkot, Nepal 2015-04-25 03:47:01 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.5 22km E of Banepa, Nepal 2015-04-25 03:39:33 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.8 33km N of Kathmandu, Nepal 2015-04-25 03:16:56 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    4.8 5km SE of Panaoti, Nepal 2015-04-25 03:13:44 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    5.0 25km S of Kodari, Nepal 2015-04-25 03:07:59 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    5.5 25km NNE of Nagarkot, Nepal 2015-04-25 02:56:34 UTC-04:00 10.0 km
    6.6 49km E of Lamjung, Nepal 2015-04-25 02:45:21 UTC-04:00 14.6 km
    5.1 28km SSW of Kodari, Nepal 2015-04-25 02:37:58 UTC-04:00 9.8 km
    5.3 65km ESE of Hachijo-jima, Japan 2015-04-25 02:35:45 UTC-04:00 77.2 km
    7.8 34km ESE of Lamjung, Nepal 2015-04-25 02:11:26 UTC-04:00 1

  19. SMS says:

    Powerlineblog has an article on the latest study into the warming pause.


    I like the way Steven Hayward sums up the study conclusions.

  20. Eliza says:

    Gail very interesting did not know just thought round ball “earth” gravity equal anyway fellow AGW denier I hope.

  21. Eliza says:

    Rah::For me the sun is going through its normal cycles (ie Billions of years): Therefore expect massive earthquakes, glaciations ie =NORMAL (over billions of years) unfortunately we only live max 100 years its absolutely nothing that’s why we will NOT see climate change in our lifetime.

    • gator69 says:

      I bought one of these t-shirts years ago, and it gets more interest than you can imagine. It has allowed me to talk about the CAGW scam with complete strangers, and it has never failed to get positive results.

      Our lives are insignificant on a geologic scale, but they can be significant to others, if reason is firmly seated.

      Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
      -Thomas Jefferson

    • rah says:

      Eliza. Though sun spot counts are the longest running data set in science I don’t think we even know what “normal” is when it comes to the suns long term (millions and billions of years) cycles or even if there really are “cycles” except the expected transitions towards brown dwarf status. The time scale is just too long. We can study other similar stars in their various stages but as for cycles? Same problem as with the sun. The time scale is just too long.

  22. Eliza says:

    Actually if we saw climate change (glaciations) we would be all dead long time ago. Fortunately we only live 80-100 years these days hahahaha

    • Gail Combs says:

      The switch from the Wisconsin Ice Age to the Holocene occured in ONE YEAR!!! The switch to glaciation takes longer — a decade to decades. Of course we will not see the mile high glaciers but all it takes is short growing seasons to mess up human civilization.


      Paper: (paywalled)

      Palaeoclimatology: Icing the North Atlantic

      Richard B. Alley1

      The North Atlantic region has experienced large, abrupt climate changes in the past1, and similar changes occur in some models of the future2. But there is disagreement as to whether these changes originate in the North Atlantic itself or are transmitted to the region from elsewhere.

      Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes
      Richard B. Alley*


      Ice-core records show that climate changes in the past have been large, rapid, and synchronous over broad areas extending into low latitudes, with less variability over historical times. These ice-core records come from high mountain glaciers and the polar regions, including small ice caps and the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

      As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen. The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability. Records of these changes are especially clear in high-resolution ice cores. Ice cores can preserve histories of local climate (snowfall, temperature), regional (wind-blown dust, sea salt, etc.), and broader (trace gases in the air) conditions, on a common time scale, demonstrating synchrony of climate changes over broad regions.

      ….Additional paleothermometers are provided at times of rapid climate change. An abrupt air-temperature change causes a temperature difference between the snow surface and the bubble-trapping depth, and this temperature difference then relaxes over a century or so as the deeper layers adjust to the new surface temperature. Temperature gradients cause gas-isotope fractionation by the process of thermal diffusion, with heavier isotopes migrating toward colder regions. Diffusion of gases through pore spaces in firn is faster than diffusion of heat, so the isotope signal reaches the bubble-trapping depth before the heat does, and the isotope anomaly is recorded as the air is trapped in the bubbles (8). The degree of enrichment reveals how big the temperature difference was, and thus the magnitude of any abrupt climate change. In addition, the number of annual layers between the record in the ice and in the bubbles of an abrupt climate change is a known function of temperature and snow accumulation; using snow-accumulation data, one can learn the absolute temperature just before the abrupt climate change (8).

      These paleothermometers agree closely on the size, speed, and timing of surface-temperature changes in central Greenland. Results from other regions rest on fewer paleothermometers and are somewhat less secure, especially in meteorologically complex areas (10, 14).

      ….Isotopic composition of dust allows “fingerprinting” of source regions (18). Major ions provide information on sea salt, continental dust, and biogenic contributions; pollen tracks productivity on land nearby; methane sulfonate responds to oceanic productivity; and other insights are possible. Cosmogenic and extraterrestrial indicators also are of interest for some studies…..

      The ice-core records from the Greenland Ice Core Project and Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) deep cores (Fig. 1) in central Greenland often are used as reference standards for abrupt climate changes. These records provide annual resolution for some indicators through 110,000 years (older ice has been disturbed by ice flow; refs. 4 and 5) and provide an exceptionally clear picture of events in Greenland (temperature and accumulation), regionally (wind-blown sea salt and continental dust), and more broadly (trapped-gas records, especially of methane)…..

      The Greenland records show that climate changes have been very large, rapid, and widespread. Coolings were achieved in a series of steep ramps or steps and warmings in single steps. The more dramatic of the warmings have involved ≈8°C warming (8, 25) and ≈2× increases in snow accumulation (9), several-fold or larger drops in wind-blown materials (17), and ≈50% increase in methane, indicating large changes in global wetland area (5, 24).

      Other Greenland data also show that the climate changes were geographically extensive. The isotopic composition of dust in Greenland ice indicates an Asian source (19), and the sea salt is oceanic. The large changes observed in dust and sea salt indicate reorganizations of weather patterns well beyond Greenland. The changes in snow accumulation were larger than can be explained by the effect of temperature changes on the saturation vapor pressure (28), indicating changes in storm tracks. Available data indicate that not all transitions were identical, and further analyses certainly are desirable, but most abrupt changes seem to have exhibited broadly similar patterns.….

      …A north Atlantic cooling triggers other processes that propagate a cool, dry windy signal through the atmosphere into the trade-wind belt. Very strong feedback processes and hysteresis behavior (34) have caused the changes to be abrupt. The larger of the northern changes especially involved loss of the cross-equatorial flow, leaving heat in the south Atlantic (35), and the southern response involves the complex interplay of the atmospheric cooling signal and the oceanic warming there.

      One abrupt century-long cold event ≈8,200 years ago is prominent in Greenland and other records and affected methane significantly (36). Temperatures before and after this event in Greenland and many other regions were slightly higher than recently, showing that warmth is not a guarantee of climate stability.….

      So there is zero guarrantee the climate will remain stable and reason to believe it can change ‘abruptly’ within years to decades.

  23. Eliza says:

    This will probably occur in North America in then next 100 years so don’t worry LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5jfHzKDDJ8 but your children may have a problem.
    That’s why I live in the tropics (South America) neutral, no wars, neutral, reasonably warm even in an ice age, countries never involved in WW1 or WW2 or WW3 LOL

    • gator69 says:

      The tropics are nice if you don’t enjoy seasonal changes, but I do. I actually enjoy Winter, and I don’t have kids, so no worries!

  24. Eliza says:

    This will occur in North America because the sun changes but it will take 100,s of years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5jfHzKDDJ8

  25. Eliza says:

    I do love Americans very much. You remind me of the Romans especially Claudius and Augustus would be very proud of you but I don’t think humans should be living in cold climates (basically we are advanced monkeys which live in the tropics our blood temp is 37.4C ) hahahah BTW just joking

  26. Eliza says:

    Actually I am not joking Humans should not be living in Cold climates it does not make sense even if you like cold. God my ex Swedish girlfriend HATED me for saying this LOL

  27. Eliza says:

    This is interesting but I don’t think it means much https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_BbpsPaSvk

    • gator69 says:

      I have been looking for some video or a photo of Kerry’s “accident”, and I finally found it…

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