Southern Greenland Showing First Spring Green On June 19

Nuuk, Greenland is showing its first spring green today, on the last day of spring.

arcticomm_webcam (5)

Vikings farmed southern Greenland 900 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, but the climate is much too cold now to support farming.

Lisa J. Graumlich, who examines the ring patterns of foxtail pine trees and western junipers in the Sierra Nevada, has compiled a detailed record of the year-to-year variation in temperature and precipitation over the last thousand years.

She has seen in the North American trees the feathery but unmistakable signatures of the Medieval Warm Period, a era from 1100 to 1375 A.D. when, according to European writers of the time and other sources, the climate was so balmy that wine grapes flourished in Britain and the Vikings farmed the now-frozen expanse of Greenland

In Unexpected Places, Clues to Ancient and Future Climate – Warming? Tree Rings Say Not Yet –

With only about six weeks left in the melt season, Greenland is still gaining ice.

ScreenHunter_9558 Jun. 19 02.57

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Greenland is almost completely covered with bright white snow and ice.

ScreenHunter_9559 Jun. 19 03.01

Climate fraudsters now claim that there never was a Medieval Warm Period, because they are paid to lie about the climate in support of the White House political agenda.

About stevengoddard

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

132 Responses to Southern Greenland Showing First Spring Green On June 19

  1. ren says:

    “A pulse of heavy rain and flooding associated with the remnants of Bill could focus on northern West Virginia and neighboring portions of northwestern Virginia, northern Maryland, southern Pennsylvania, northern Kentucky and southern Ohio Saturday night into Sunday,” Margusity said.”

    • ren says:

      El Niño is weakening. Of California threatens the drought.

    • omanuel says:

      Ren, we have unusually cool temperatures and lots of rain here in Missouri.

      YOUR GOD IS TOO SMALL was the title to a book that may succinctly explain the Pope’s problem.

      There is NO scientific evidence the Universe, Reality, God is limited in space or time, but the Catholic Church doesn’t like the idea life may exist on planets that orbit other stars than the Sun, and may be as important in the Big Scheme (Divine Plan) as those living on Earth, even those living in the Vatican!

      Copernicus first reported Earth orbits a fountain of energy in the center of the solar system in 1543. Subsequent measurements and observations [1] showed the fountain of energy at the gravitational center of the solar system made and sustains every atom, life and planet in the solar system today.

      Is the Catholic Church too steeped in tradition to grasp that the force of destruction of Hiroshima is the force of creation and preservation in the Sun that God uses to guide climate change on planets and the evolution of life?

      If so, Pope Francis, YOUR GOD IS TOO SMALL!”

    • rah says:

      Ren the remnants of Bill are passing just south of my part of the earth in Central Indiana as I write this. Hitting areas that really don’t need anymore rain for awhile.

      This trucker is tired of rain. Over the last two weeks I’ve gone North to MI, South west to southern, TN, and East to MA and EVERYWHERE I have gone I have run through rain at times. Sometimes the blinding heavy stuff. I’ve seen ponding water warnings on I-90, I-70, I-65, and I-40 during these last two weeks.

      Noticed Wednesday both the Tennessee and Ohio Rivers were up when I crossed over them. Down at Etna, PA just north of Pittsburgh the Allegheny was way up Thursday!

      But everything is sure green!

      My most enjoyable trip this week was a two stop run. I Love south and central TN. Went to Selmer, TN not far from the Shiloh battle ground and then took two lane highways up (TN 13) past the Coal Miners daughters home and Dude ranch. Then on up driving along the periphery of Ft. Campbell going through Clarksville, TN to Hopkinsville, KY.

      On my way home from Hopkinsville I passed just east of Evansville, IN to get to the new section of I-69. Took that to it’s terminus near the Crane Naval Support facility and then took IN 45 right up through the area where the best limestone in the world is quarried to my old stomping ground in Bloomington, IN where I caught IN 37 north to Indianapolis.

      It was a very enjoyable drive and so nice to get off the Interstates for a change.

  2. Barrowice says:

    In Medieval times the Wantsum Channel in Kent (UK) near Sandwich was two miles wide. Today it is barely 30 feet wide.

  3. ren says:

    Snow in Greenland.

  4. cfgj says:

    Looks like the jet stream is acting up again…did AGW cause this via relentless Arctic warming in the past decades. The new normal?

    • ren says:

      Just running the sun in the stratosphere.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The only “relentless” warming is the GISS smearing of warm data to create a trend.

      Reality is that the Arctic is much the same for the whole of the instrumental record.

      In fact, 2013 and 2014 had the shortest period above freezing of the whole record.

      • cfgj says:

        Wrong, for example Svalbard has warmed a lot:
        (Long-term temperature trends and variability on Spitsbergen: the extended Svalbard Airport temperature series, 1898-2012)

        So has Swiss camp on the Greenland ice sheet (SW Greenland):

        Widespread strong warming in Greenland since 1990:

        You can be a skeptic but you do not get to “invent” data or facts….

        • ren says:

          See the yourself this warming in the Arctic from 2013 (click x 2). Trends in temperature are not eternal.

          What is the AMO?
          The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thats correct, “You can be a skeptic but you do not get to “invent” data or facts….”

          However that is EXACTLY what has been done to the temperature record via continuous ‘Adjustments’

          DATA is what you measured. You express uncertainty in the data with error bars. If the data is really F–ckup you toss it (with explanation) but no scientist adjusts data and then continues to call it ‘data’ and they certainly do not refuse to show their work or toss out the original raw data.

          Here is just one example of how the temperature has been adjusted to cause a cooling trend to show warming in Iceland. Iceland BTW was NOT happy with their records being mucked around with.

          This is backed up by the lies told about my town in Febuary of 2014 when we had a snow storm in mid North Carolina and I had 2 inches of ice form overnight on my stock tanks. Jeff Masters at Wunderground showed the snow as rain and the temperature for the time period above freezing. The elevation at the station within walking distance of my home is approximately 213 feet (65 m) so the freezing point of water will be very close to oC or 32F but it seems NOAA/Jeff Masters has changed it.

          You do not have 2 inches of ice form on BLACK water tanks freshly filled with well water at 15C+/- 0.5C or 59F (from report of well water in Orange County fifty miles north)

          I have goats so I even pour hot tap water or boiling water in their stock tanks. (Goats hate cold water and it is bad for them especially when they are nursing. The kids are also drinking the water)

          And Yes I called Masters a LIAR on his blog and the data was immediately changed to show the snowstorm. (It had made headlines in the local news papers so he had to change the data back or be shown as the liar he is.)

        • gator69 says:

          From your first link…

          Long-term temperature trends and variability on Spitsbergen: the extended Svalbard Airport temperature series, 1898-2012

          I didn’t realize that Spitsbergen had had an airport since 1898.

        • gator69 says:

          From your second link…

          Climate observations (1991-2012)…

          Cherry pick much?

        • gator69 says:

          From your third link…

          Hemispheric and large-scale land-surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2010

          [1] This study is an extensive revision of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) land station temperature database that has been used to produce a grid-box data set of 5° latitude × 5° longitude temperature anomalies. The new database (CRUTEM4) comprises 5583 station records of which 4842 have enough data for the 1961–1990 period to calculate or estimate the average temperatures for this period. Many station records have had their data replaced by newly homogenized series

          Data fraud much?

        • Andy DC says:

          Your side is inventing data and facts by adjusting the data with an obvious bias to show more warming than what the raw data is showing. Somehow their adjustments always fits their agenda and their financial interests. How coincidental! Does not pass any reasonable smell test.

        • Gail Combs says:

          What does CO2 correlate perfectly with? Why it is a perfect correlation to NOAA temperature adjustments – SURPRISE!!!

        • cfgj …

          Why do all three of your links stop in 2012?

          You can be an alarmist but you do not get to “delete” the most recent 3 years of data/facts.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Twit … I think it was Caleb that already gave u this data but u likely are too stubborn to pay attention to real data … I suppose it isn’t pal reviewed and so u won’t look.
      DMI showing the arctic temps above 80 degrees below the mean for the past two summers and trending below the mean again in 2015. Tony showed this info this week too.
      Learn something please and stop posting nonsense!!

      • Gail Combs says:

        You have to understand Stewart, if it is Pal-Reviewed it was vetted and approved by the Alarmists. The Climategate e-mails made it very very clear the gate keepers would even go so far as getting an editor fired to make sure data they didn’t want the public to see was censored.

        Luckily the Chinese and Russians will still publish papers based on their scientific merits and not on whether or not they are ‘Politically Correct’

        • gator69 says:

          Most scientific journals are a “members only” club, and you can only be a member if you take the pledge. Real peer review happens outside the gates.

          Besides, the peer of a serial data rapist is simply a serial data rapist. The peer of a fraud is a fraud. Clubs that only allow frauds and data rapists will only reflect those illnesses, and not bring about any science.

        • Gail Combs says:

          And honest scientists are leaving as a result.

          Nobel Laureate Resigns from APS Over Global Warming Policy “A well-known physicist has resigned from his position with the American Physical Society (APS) due to its recent policy stating that global warming is real.” (Dr. Ivar Giaever)

          Before that Dr. Harold Lewis, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) because of its anti-science stance on global warming. Lewis is one of the 160 physicists who failed to persuade the society to modify its “appallingly tendentious” formal statement on climate change, which it had released in November 2007. Since then APS backed down and decided to review its stance. APS announced it would Review that 2007 Statement on Climate Change on February 20, 2014. IIRC the statement was hastily composed on a napkin over lunch or some such nonsence.

          The orginal statement certainly was not put to the membership for a vote and therefore represents only the views of the person who wrote it. The new statement is not much better. Even Global Warming supporter, Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry pulled no punches: New Draft APS climate ‘statement is an embarrassment to the American Physical Society’

          Quotes from a lot more scientists HERE: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims that is up from the 2007 U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism. That is almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The report was originally published in 2010.

        • rah says:

          If they were doing real science they wouldn’t need “peer review”. The observations must match the hypothesis/theory. They do not as has been proven time and again and all the “scientists” in the world cannot change that no matter how many words they write.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    OT, but Sg will love this one.

    “The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report is out. Finally there is the black and white admission that the BOM “adjusted” dataset cannot be replicated independently, has not been replicated by any other group, and even more so, that the BOM will not provide enough information for anyone who wants to try.”

    • cfgj says:

      …and if it is not peer-reviewed, it does not exist. Applies to their solar-notch model too.

      • Gail Combs says:


        Oh my lord, cfgj just tossed out the invention of the wheel the invention of carts, the invention of the horse collar, gun powder and all the scientific inventions before someone got the bright idea of having close scientific journals they could make people pay for.

        In most scientific journals, peer review, as we know it today, wasn’t routine until the middle of the twentieth century, a fact documented in historical papers by Burnham, and Kronick, and Spier.

        Oh and cfgj can also toss out most of Einstien’s work. He published more than 300 journal articles between 1901 and 1955. It may well be that only a single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer review, according to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick. It is a paper about gravitational waves, co-authored with Nathan Rosen.The paper was submitted to the journal Physical Review in 1936 who had at that time recently introduced a peer review system. The system was only used if the editor found the paper questionable.

        What is even worse is peer review does NOTHING to guarrantee a paper is correct.

        Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
        There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

        cfgj really thinks we are Gruberfools.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Oh My I have never laughed so hard in years. It cracked up Hubby (a physicist) too.

        • Dave1billion says:

          I liked the horse collar reference.

          It’s nice to be on a forum where people are so read as to throw in references to obscure things that do things like revolutionize agriculture.

          The horse collar is especially interesting because it was invented during the so-called Dark Ages.

        • Dave1billion says:

          make that “well-read”

      • AndyG55 says:


        You have just proven.. again, that you have ZERO comprehension of the scientific method, and even less than ZERO understanding of the purpose of scientific peer-review.

        You are displaying your boundless ignorance for all to see. 🙂

        Keep going.. its getting quite hilarious. 🙂

      • Idiot. Peer review has nothing to do with scientists, it has to do with journalists. The editor of a journal has a paper peer reviewed. The scientists themselves could give two shits about peer review.

    • Gail Combs says:

      If it can not be reproduced by an independent lab it AIN’T SCIENCE!

      Heck one company I worked for FIRED a lab tech for not geting independent verification. She wrote the value from an insturment with a paper tape on the bottom of the tape when the ink ran out AND DID NOT GET ANYONE TO DOUBLE SIGN! Company policy was all data that was not on a permenant record such as paper tape had to be verified by a second set of eyes reading the data and signed off by both people.

  6. cfgj says:

    So Gail are you claiming that “adjustments” of Arctic temperature data caused the sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet lose quite a bit of mass? I do not believe that is possible. Honestly, did you think all that ice-mass was lost without ANY rise in average temperatures?

    • Stewart Pid says:

      cgfj …. are u thick enough to think the only numbers that can be adjusted are the temperature data. How do u think the “mass” numbers of Greenland are derived. You figure they send Mickey Mann out to put the Greenland ice on the bathroom scale and see if the continent has lost a few pounds. cfgj u aren’t the brightest crayon in the box.

    • gator69 says:

      You need to back up youir claims with facts. So far you have utterly failed to do so.

      You are all mouth.

      • cfgj says:

        Mass-numbers for Greenland are derived from altimetric measurements (airborne and spaceborne), gravity measurements (airborne and spaceborne) and ice velocity measurements with spaceborne SAR and optical imagery. In addition, GPS-stations on the bedrock show the amount of elastic rebound resulting from the ice mass loss.

        Summa summarum, multiple lines of evidence prove that Greenland has been losing mass rather rapidly since ~1990 with the exception of 2013 – this year might see a pause too.

        ps. you cannot dismiss all science by claiming it’s a conspiracy. that would be called denialism.

        • gator69 says:

          I have already shown you that the methods you cite are unreliable platforms, and yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

          According to NASA’s Land-Ice Study published in 2012, from 1992-2008:

          “Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses.”

          During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input).

          The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001.

          Increases offsetting losses:

          …“The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning.

          Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves.

          In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.”

          GRACE is an error ridden platform, that never had proper calibration, and whose data is then run through models, until the grantologists get their desired results.

          What’s a TRF error? That stands for Terrestrial Reference Frame, which is basically saying that errors in determining the benchmark are messing up the survey. In land based geodesy terms, say if somebody messed with the USGS benchmark elevation data from Mt. Diablo California on a regular basis, and the elevation of that benchmark kept changing in the data set, then all measurements referencing that benchmark would be off as well.

          In the case of radio altimetry from space, such measurements are extremely dependent on errors related to how radio signals are propagated through the ionosphere. Things like Faraday rotation, refraction, and other propagation issues can skew the signal during transit, and if not properly corrected for, especially over the long-term, it can introduce a spurious signal in all sorts of data derived from it. In fact, the mission summary shows that it will affect satellite derived data for sea level, ice loss, and ice volume in GRACE gravity measurements.

          And the Earth’s gravitational field is not uniform, or constant. GRACE measure gravity, and not ice or water.

          You are all mouth.

        • cfgj, we already learned from studying Antarctic sea ice that sea ice increases with warming, so if Arctic sea ice is increasing, it must be warming. You guys can’t have it both ways.

    • Gail Combs says:


      Sea Ice melts from below. AIR temperature has little if anything to do with it since the mass just isn’t there for major heat transfer. It is a warm North Atlantic SST that is critical and there is a Quasi 60-year climate cycle. (Storms are also critical as 2007 showed.)

      Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change

      Abstract The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) obtained using instrumental and documentary proxy predictors from Eurasia is found to be characterized by a quasi 60-year dominant oscillation since 1650. This pattern emerges clearly once the NAO record is time integrated to stress its comparison with the temperature record. The integrated NAO (INAO) is found to well correlate with the length of the day (since 1650) and the global surface sea temperature record HadSST2 and HadSST3 (since 1850). These findings suggest that INAO can be used as a good proxy for global climate change, and that a ~60-year cycle exists in the global climate since at least 1700. Finally, the INAO ~60-year oscillation well correlates with the ~60-year oscillations found in the historical European aurora record since 1700, which suggests that this ~60-year dominant climatic cycle has a solar–astronomical origin.

      From WIKI



      Given the cold east coast winters of the last few years and the ‘polar vortex’ it is pretty obivious we have switched.

  7. cfgj says:

    Gravity measurements cannot be easily validated but altimeter, GPS, optical and SAR measurements certainly can be, and they work. Greenland has lost thousands of gigatons of ice mass since ~1990, there is really no doubt about that at all. Hell, at many outlet glaciers the ice loss is visible with naked eye as tens to hundreds of meters off ice thickness has vanished.

    Please educate yourself, spend less time on WUWT and more time on the established science. Of course, for people unfamiliar with satellite remote sensing the stuff WUWT picks up can seem relevant. I don’t think there is a cure for that, sorry.

    Ok, so why has arctic been warming up and shedding ice-mass? Certainly not because of “adjustments” as that is impossible. Any studies indicating “natural cycles” or whatnot are the cause?

    • gator69 says:

      Once again, you come back with nonsense. The Earth is 4.5 billion yerars old, and 1990 is a cherry picked date.

      I have a remote sensing degree, and can tell you that all satellite data is corrupt, and must be constantly recalibrated using in situ measurements.

      And at the risk of repeating myself, a sane and educated person would expect ice to melt during an interglacial. We are in an interglacial.

      The property I own once sat under a mile thick sheet of ice, and today is ice free. Ice melts idiot. It always has and always will, man did not invent this process.

      • cfgj says:

        Greenland has been losing ice mass since about 1990 and Arctic sea ice mass is down considerably since that date too – these are the facts. The arctic has warmed and ice loss is a symptom. We can debate the causes of course.

        • gator69 says:

          So the Earth is only 25 years old, and ice does not melt during interglacials? Got it! 😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          The Arctic was subject to only seasonal ice during the first 5000 years of the Holocene,
          About 3500 years ago, an era called the Late Holocene Neoglaciation started, which lead ultimately with a couple of minor warmer period like the RWP and MWP to the massive sea ice levels of the LIA. (MWP was only a minor warm blip in a rapidly cooling Holocene)

          The Arctic has staged a very minor recovery from the unprecedented LIA high levels of Arctic sea ice, only just opening up a small navigable area , using ice breakers in the last couple of years. (following the route that was open for a short while in 1903 for a small wooden ship).

          Unfortunately , this recovery from extreme high levels of Arctic sea ice levels of the LIA has now started to reversed.

          Arctic sea ice levels are still anomalously high for the last 10,000 years.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “MWP was only a minor warm blip in a rapidly cooling Holocene”

          And the current slightly warmer period is an even smaller blip, right at the end of the 3500 year cooling trend since the mid Holocene.

        • AndyG55 says:

          See that little bump on the right hand end.. That’s now.

        • cfgj, are you aware that the earth has 2 poles? You say Arctic sea ice decreases, so what? Antarctic sea ice increases. Are we talking about global warming, or are we talking about cfgj’s favorite hemispheric warming.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “are we talking about cfgj’s favorite hemispheric warming”


          only until it switches back the other way.. 🙂

          Global sea ice is still tracking well above the 1981-2010 mean

  8. gator69 says:

    Hey Gail! We had had no ice loss in Greenland until 1990! 😆

    • Gail Combs says:

      Then how come Chicago, Boston and NYC are not sitting under ice?

      • gator69 says:

        Better ask Dr Mouth, he knows everything.

        • Gail Combs says:


        • AndyG55 says:

          You can see that he is getting very frustrated at getting shot down with facts and data at every ranting religious regurgitation. 🙂

          They know they have nothing to back their BS.. but they just keep on ranting meaninglessly.

          Like a worm on a hook… they cannot escape. 🙂

  9. cfgj says:

    Sea levels are rising without any hiatus in the past 18 years. Small wonder considering the amount of lost Greenland ice mass (+ mountain glacier, Antarctic and ice caps mass loss) and the ocean warming at 0-2000m depth. Shit, weren’t some gullible people claiming the planet hasn’t been warming up? 😀

    • gator69 says:

      Yes, these people…

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
      “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
      ‘Bottom line: the ‘ no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
      Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
      “… This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
      Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
      “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
      Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
      “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
      Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
      “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….” We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
      Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
      “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
      Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
      [Q] B – “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
      [A] “ Yes, but only just”.
      Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
      “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
      Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
      “Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
      Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
      “… has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
      Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
      “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
      Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
      “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
      Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
      “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
      Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
      “The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
      [Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
      Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
      “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
      Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
      ” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
      Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
      “… the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
      Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
      “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
      Met Office – July 2013
      “ The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
      Executive summary
      The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
      Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
      “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
      Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
      “ They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
      Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
      “ Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
      Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
      Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
      “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
      Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
      “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
      Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
      “A few years ago you saw the hiatus , but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
      Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
      “Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires… shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”
      Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
      Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
      “This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”
      Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
      “…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”
      Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
      Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
      Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….
      Shuai-Lei Yao et al – Theoretical and Applied Climatology – 9 January 2015
      The global warming hiatus—a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation
      ….We provide compelling evidence that the global warming hiatus is a natural product of the interplays between a secular warming tendency…..
      H. Douville et al – 2015
      The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
      The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….
      Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth 11 July 2014
      Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
      Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific…….atmospheric circulation anomalies observed globally during the hiatus.

      But you know better. You know that the Earth iis only 25 years old, and that ice does not melt during an interglacial.

      • cfgj says:

        That is about the atmospheric temperature, which has probably stalled, as it has done in the past.

        Fine, just remember that THE PLANET also encompasses the oceans, which have been warming up. There is no pause in planetary warming. Someone should blog about this in the denialosphere.

        • gator69 says:

          Speaking denial. How is it that you deny all other data sets, and cherry pick one dubious set?

          “The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.” “They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.” “Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.” “The extend of [sic; They extend?] the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.” Then they expand on those in eight numbered points and conclude: “This is a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry-picking time intervals, resulting in a global temperature graph that is at odds with those produced by the UK Met Office and NASA. Caution and suitable caveats should be used in using this paper as evidence that the global annual average surface temperature ‘hiatus’ of the past 18 years has been explained.

          Keep the faith idiot.

        • Ted says:

          How do the oceans get warmer, if the air stays the same? If CO2 is warming the water, it would also have to warm the air. The assertion that the oceans are sucking the extra heat out of the air would require that the surface temperature of the water is DECREASING. The ocean surface and the air are, by necessity, in dynamic thermal equilibrium. Increased energy transfer requires increased delta T. You can only increase delta T in that direction by raising air temperature, or lowering sea surface temperature. (or both, of course)

    • Moron. Sea levels are rising without any acceleration in 125 years:

      Must have nothing to do with humans or CO2.

  10. cfgj says:

    The warming of the oceans has been measured by thermometers (ARGO and others) as well as satellite altimetry (as warming makes the water-column grow taller). These datasets are totally independent and the show the same thing. Isn’t that curious?

    ps. I don’t give a shit about SST, this is about temperature of the water-column.

    • gator69 says:

      Residual = GMSL − Ocean mass − Steric sea level (0–2000 m) = Steric sea level (> 2000m) + data errors (2)

      Attempts to estimate the deep ocean contribution from the sea level budget approach were performed in two recent studies (Llovel et al., 2014; Dieng et al., 2015). Dieng et al. (2015) considered two periods (2005–2012 and 2003–2012) which correspond to the availability of new observing systems for estimating thermal expansion and ocean mass (nearly full ocean temperature and salinity coverage down to 2000 m from Argo floats and direct ocean mass measurements from GRACE space gravimetry). Time 15 series of satellite altimetry-based sea level (5 different data sets), thermal expansion (8 different products; integration down to 1500 m) and ocean mass (3 products) components were analyzed in order to estimate the residual term of Eq. (2). Llovel et al. (2014) performed a similar study over the 2005–2013 time span but with less data sets. Another attempt concerning this issue is by von Schuckmann et al. (2014). These studies came up to the same conclusion, i.e., the residual term is contaminated by too large data errors to provide any robust deep ocean contribution estimate.

      Sea level budget over 2005–2013: missing contributions and data errors

      H. B. Dieng1, A. Cazenave1, K. von Schuckmann2, M. Ablain3, and B. Meyssignac1
      1Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales – Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (LEGOS – CNES), Toulouse, France
      2Mediterranean Institute of Oceanography (MIO), Université de Toulon, Toulon, France
      3Collecte Localisation Satellites (CLS), Ramonville, France

      Abstract. Based on the sea level budget closure approach, this study investigates the residuals between observed global mean sea level (GMSL) and the sum of components (steric sea level and ocean mass) for the period January 2005 to December 2013. The objective is to identify the impact of errors in one or several components of the sea level budget on the residual time series. This is a key issue if we want to constrain missing contributions such as the contribution to sea level rise from the deep ocean (> 2000m). For that purpose, we use several data sets as processed by different groups: six altimetry products for the GMSL, four Argo products plus the ORAS4 ocean reanalysis for the steric sea level and three GRACE-based ocean mass products. We find that over the study time span, the observed trend differences in the residuals of the sea level budget can be as large as ~0.55mm yr−1. These trend differences essentially result from the processing of the altimetry data (e.g., choice the geophysical corrections and method of averaging the along-track altimetry data). At short time scale (from sub-seasonal to multi-annual), residual anomalies are significantly correlated with ocean mass and steric sea level anomalies (depending on the time span), indicating that the residual anomalies are related to errors in both GRACE-based ocean mass and Argo-based steric data. Efforts are needed to reduce these various sources of errors before using the sea level budget approach to estimate missing contributions such as the deep ocean heat content.

      Once again, no warming can be detected.

      You are all mouth.

      • cfgj says:

        They cannot estimate what the deep oceans are doing, big deal. The fact remains that the global sea level is rising and that the 0-2000m water column has been warming and expanding. It would be better to look at a longer time-series, like 18 years which is the duration of the pseudo-hiatus.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Peer-reviewed paper in J. Geophys. Res. HERE (That means cfgj has to believe it.)

        Article by author explaining the paper: The oceans as a calorimeter

        … is there a direct record which measures the heat flux going into the climate system? The answer is that over the 11-year solar cycle, a large fraction of the flux entering the climate system goes into the oceans. However, because of the high heat capacity of the oceans, this heat content doesn’t change the ocean temperature by much. And as a consequence, the oceans can be used as a “calorimeter” to measure the solar radiative forcing. Of course, the full calculation has to include the “calorimetric efficiency” and the fact that the oceans do change their temperature a little (such that some of the heat is radiated away, thereby reducing the calorimetric efficiency).

        It turns out that there are three different types of data sets from which the ocean heat content can derived. [Therefore can be cross validated] The first data is is that of direct measurements using buoys. The second is the ocean surface temperature, while the third is that of the tide gauge record which reveals the thermal expansion of the oceans. Each one of the data sets has different advantages and disadvantages…. [Discription of disadvantages for each data set follows.]

        Nevertheless, the beautiful thing is that within the errors in the data sets (and estimate for the systematics), all three sets give consistently the same answer, that a large heat flux periodically enters and leaves the oceans with the solar cycle, and this heat flux is about 6 to 8 times larger than can be expected from changes in the solar irradiance only. This implies that an amplification mechanism necessarily exists. Interestingly, the size is consistent with what would be expected from the observed low altitude cloud cover variations.

        Here are some figures from the paper:

        fig. 1: Sea Surface Temperature anomaly, Sea Level Rate, Net Oceanic Heat Flux, the TSI anomaly and Cosmic Ray flux variations. In the top panel are the inverted Haleakala/Huancayo neutron monitor data (heavy line, dominated by cosmic rays with a primary rigidity cutoff of 12.9 GeV), and the TSI anomaly (TSI – 1366 W/m2 , thin line, and based on Lean [2000]). The next panel depicts the net oceanic heat flux, averaged over all the oceans (thin line) and the more complete average heat flux in the Atlantic region (Lon 80°W to 30°E, thick line), based on Ishii et al. [2006]. The next two panels plot the SLR and SST anomaly. The thin lines are the two variables with their linear trends removed. In the thick lines, the ENSO component is removed as well (such that the cross-correlation with the ENSO signal will vanish).

        fig 2: Sea Level vs. Solar Activity. Sea level change rate over the 20th century is based on 24 tide gauges previously chosen by Douglas [1997] for the stringent criteria they satisfy (solid line, with 1-σ statistical error range denoted with the shaded region). The rates are compared with the total solar irradiance variations Lean [2000] (dashed line, with the secular trends removed). Note that unlike other calculations of the sea level change rate, this analysis was done by first differentiating individual station data and then adding the different stations. This can give rise to spurious long term trends (which are not important here), but ensure that there are no spurious jumps from gaps in station data. The data is then 1-2-1 averaged to remove annual noise. Note also that before 1920 or after 1995, there are about 10 stations or less such that the uncertainties increase.

        More of the article follows….

    • Ted says:

      Perhaps you should give a shit about SST, as it’s the only interaction between air and water, thereby fully controlling the direction of energy flow between the two. See my comment above.

  11. cfgj says:

    So let’s recap:

    – Arctic had been warming (fact)
    – Sea levels are rising (fact)
    – Oceans are warming (fact)
    – Greenland has been losing quite a bit of mass since 1990s, as has the Arctic sea ice (fact)

    Is all of this due to natural causes? Evidence?

    • gator69 says:

      So let’s recap:

      – Arctic had been warming, perfectly natural during an interglacial (fact)
      – Sea levels are rising, perfectly natural during an interglacial (fact)
      – Oceans are not warming, undetectable change for over 18 years (fact)
      – Greenland has been losing quite a bit of mass since the beginning of the interglacial, as has the Arctic sea ice (fact)

      Is all of this due to natural causes? Most likely.

      Do the alarmists have proof it is not natural? No.

      • cfgj says:

        Alright, good to see you do not deny all observations. So why are the oceans rising? Melting ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers do not explain all of it. Warming does explain it though.

        • gator69 says:

          Tyhe world’s leading expert on sea level says they are not rising.

          Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for

          I would like to start with a little bit about your background, and some of the commissions and research groups you’ve worked on.

          I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let’s put it this way: There’s no one who’s beaten me. I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level problem. From then on, I have launched most of the new theories, in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s. I was the one who understood the problem of the gravitational potential surface, the theory that it changes with time. I’m the one who studied the rotation of the Earth, how it affected the redistribution of the oceans’ masses. And so on. And then I was president of INQUA, an international fraternal association, their Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, from 1999 to 2003. And in order to do something intelligent there, we launched a special international sea-level research project in the Maldives, because that’s the hottest spot on Earth for—there are so many variables interacting there, so it was interesting, and also people had claimed that the Maldives—about 1,200 small islands—were doomed to disappear in 50 years, or at most, 100 years. So that was a very important target. Then I have had my own research institute at Stockholm University, which was devoted to something called paleogeophysics and geodynamics. It’s primarily a research institute, but lots of students came, and I have several PhD theses at my institute, and lots of visiting professors and research scientists came to learn about sea level. Working in this field, I don’t think there’s a spot on the Earth I haven’t been in! In the northmost, Greenland; and in Antarctica; and all around the Earth, and very much at the coasts. So I have primary data from so many places, that when I’m speaking, I don’t do it out of ignorance,
          but on the contrary, I know what I’m talking about. And I have interaction with other scientific branches, because it’s very important to see the problems not just from one eye, but from many different aspects. Sometimes you dig up some very important thing in some geodesic paper which no other geologist would read. And you must have the time and the courage to go into the big questions, and I think I have done that. The last ten years or so, of course, everything has been the discussion on sea level, which they say is drowning us; in the early ’90s, I was in Washington giving a paper on how the sea level is
          not rising, as they said. That had some echoes around the world.

          What is the real state of the sea-level rising?

          You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure. That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it’s a matter of physics. So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend. Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend. Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow— I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it! I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none —were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The metereological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don’t do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it’s not the first thing. So there we are. Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a drop in sea level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, “Yes, you are correct, because we remember”—things in their sailing routes have changed, things in their harbor have changed. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the sea, I drilled in lakes, I looked at the shore morphology—so many different environments. Always the same thing: In about 1970, the sea fell about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or something. Not a change in volume or something like that—it was a rapid thing. The new level, which has been stable, has not changed in the last 35 years. You can trace it so very, very carefully. No rise at all is the answer there. Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon disappear because they’ve put out too much carbon dioxide. There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from 1978, so it’s 30 years. And again, if you look there, absolutely no trend , no rise. So, from where do they get this rise in the Tuvalu Islands? Then we know that there was a Japanese Then we know that there was a Japanese
          pineapple industry which subtracted too much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available from precipitation, rain. So, if you take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring sea water into the magazine, which is not nice. So they took out too much fresh water and in came salt water. And of course the local people were upset. But then it was much easier to say, “No, no! It’s the global sea level rising! It has nothing to do with our subtraction of fresh water.” So there you have it. This is a local industry which doesn’t pay. You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji— there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising. But again, you look at the
          tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising. And again, where do they get it from? They get it from their inspiration, their hopes, their computer models, but not from observation. Which is terrible. We have Venice. Venice is well known, because that area is techtonically, because of the delta, slowly subsiding. The rate has been constant over time. A rising sea level would immediately accelerate the flooding. And it would be so simple to record it. And if you look at that 300-year record: In the 20th Century it was going up and down, around the subsidence rate. In 1970, you should have an acceleration, but instead, the rise almost finished. So it was the opposite. If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a
          sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it’s a problem in one area, it’s beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real “bad guy,” and therefore
          they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that it doesn’t exist in observational data, only in computer modeling.

          EIR: I watched the documentary, “Doomsday Called Off,” that you were part of. And you were showing the physical tides in the Maldives, the tree that was there; and if there had been a sea-level rise, that tree would have been gone. And how the coral was built up on the beach in two different levels, showing two different levels of rise. The way you presented it was how geologists do a site survey to put their findings into context.

          I’ll tell you another thing: When I came to the Maldives, to our enormous surprise, one morning we were on an island, and I said, “This is something strange, the storm level has gone down; it has not gone up, it has gone down .” And then I started to check the level all around, and I asked the others in the group, “Do you see anything here on the beach?” And after awhile they found it too. And we had investigated, and we were sure, I said we cannot leave the Maldives and go home and say the sea level is not rising, it’s not respectful to the people. I have to say it to Maldive television. So we made a very nice program for Maldive television, but it was forbidden by the government! Because they thought that they would lose money. They accuse the West for putting out carbon dioxide, and therefore we have to pay for our damage and the flooding. So they wanted the flooding scenario to go on. This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is a prison island, and when people left the island, from the ’50s, it was a marker for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, “Ah, freedom!” They were allowed
          back. And there have been writings and talks about this. I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television. You know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled
          down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film, “Doomsday Called Off,” right after, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program. I haven’t told anybody else, but this was the story. They call themselves scientists, and they’re destroying evidence! A scientist should always be open for reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched , thinking they were clever.

          EIR: How does the IPCC get these small island nations so worked up about worrying that they’re going to be flooded tomorrow?

          Because they get support, they get money, so their idea is to attract money from the industrial countries. And they believe that if the story is not sustained, they will lose it. So, they love this story. But the local people in the Maldives— it would be terrible to raise children—why should they go to school, if in 50 years everything will be gone? The only thing you should do, is learn how to swim.

          To take your example of Tuvalu, it seems to be more of a case of how the water management is going on, rather than the sea level rising.

          Yes, and it’s much better to blame something else. Then they can wash their hands and say, “It’s not our fault. It’s the U.S., they’re putting out too much carbon dioxide.”

          Which is laughable, this idea that CO 2 is driving global warming.

          Precisely, that’s another thing. And like this State of Fear , by Michael Crichton, when he talks about ice. Where is ice melting? Some Alpine glaciers are melting, others are advancing. Antarctic ice is certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion of ice. Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re already floating, and it has no effect. A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because of deforestation. At the foot of the Kilimanjaro, there was a rain forest; from the rain forest came moisture, from that came snow, and snow became ice. Now, they have cut down the rain forest, and instead of moisture, there comes heat; heat melts the ice, and there’s no more snow to generate the ice. So it’s a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature. It’s the misbehavior of the people around the mountain. So again, it’s like Tuvalu: We should say this deforestation, that’s the thing. But instead they say, “No, no, it’s the global warming!”

          Here, over the last few days, there was a grouping that sent out a power-point presentation on melting glaciers, and how this is going to raise sea level and create all kinds of problems.

          The only place that has that potential is Greenland, and Greenland east is not melting; Greenland west, the Disco Bay is melting, but it has been melting for 200 years, at least, and the rate of melting decreased in the last 50-100 years. So, that’s another falsification. But more important, in 5,000 years, the whole of the Northern Hemisphere experienced warming, the Holocene
          Warm Optimum, and it was 2.5 degrees warmer than today. And still, no problem with Antarctica, or with Greenland; still, no higher sea level.

          These scare stories are being used for political purposes.

          Yes. Again, this is for me, the line of demarcation between the meteorological community and us: They work with computers; we geologists work with observations, and the observations do not fit with these scenarios. So what should you change? We cannot change observations, so we have to change the scenarios! Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money
          to the side which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there
          must be a focus on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really bad, because then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That’s what dictatorships did, autocracies. They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted.

          Increasingly science is going in this direction, including in the nuclear industry—it’s like playing computer games. It’s like the design of the Audi, which was done by computer, but not tested in reality, and it flipped over. They didn’t care about physical principles.

          You frighten a lot of scientists. If they say that climate is not changing, they lose their research grants. And some people cannot afford that; they become silent, or a few of us speak up, because we think that it’s for the honesty of science, that we have to do it.

          In one of your papers, you mentioned how the expansion of sea level changed the Earth’s rotation into different modes—that was quite an eye-opener.

          Yes, but it is exceptionally hard to get these papers published also. The publishers compare it to IPCC’s modeling, and say, “Oh, this isn’t the IPCC.” Well, luckily it’s not! But you cannot say that.

          What were you telling me the other day, about 22 authors being from Austria?

          Three of them were from Austria, where there is not even a coast! The others were not specialists. So that’s why, when I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Change and Coastal Evolution, we made a research project, and we had this up for discussion at five international meetings. And all the true sea level specialists agreed on this figure, that in 100 years, we might have a rise of 10 cm, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm—that’s not very much. And in recent years, I even improved it, by considering also that we’re going into a cold phase in 40 years. That gives 5 cm rise, plus or minus a few centimeters. That’s our best estimate. But that’s very, very different from the IPCC statement. Ours is just a continuation of the pattern of sea level going back in time. Then you have absolutely maximum figures, like when we had all the ice in the vanishing ice caps that happened to be too far south in latitude after the Ice Age.
          You couldn’t have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10 mm per year—that was the
          super -maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It’s not feasible! These are figures which are so large, that only when the ice caps were vanishing, did we have those types of rates. They are absolutely extreme. This frame is set by the maximum-maximum rate, and we have to be far, far lower. We are basing ourselves on the observations—in the past, in the present, and then predicting it into the future, with the best of the “feet on the ground” data that we can get, not from the computer.

          Isn’t some of what people are talking about just shoreline erosion, as opposed to sea-level rise?

          Yes, and I have very nice pictures of it. If you have a coast, with some stability of the sea level, the waves make a kind of equilibrium profile—what they are transporting into the sea and what they are transporting onshore. If the sea rises a little, yes, it attacks, but the attack is not so vigorous. On the other hand, if the sea goes down, it is eating away at the old equilibrium level. There is a much larger redistribution of sand. We had an island, where there was heavy erosion, everything was falling into the sea, trees and so on. But if you looked at what happened: The sand which disappeared there, if the sea level had gone up, that sand would have been placed higher, on top of the previous land. But it is being placed below the previous beach. We can see the previous beach, and it is 20-30 cm above the current beach. So this is erosion because the sea level fell , not because the sea level rose . And it is more common that erosion is caused by falling sea level, than by rising sea level.

          So much for settled science, and recent sea level rise.

          You are all mouth

        • gator69 says:

          Why are you a denier of nature and history? Natural variabilty deniers are true mouth breathing troglodytes.

        • Ted says:


          Sorry, had to be said. I don’t know how you keep your temper sometimes, Gator.

          Mammoth Mountain, in California, usually still has snow on the ground in early July. They occasionally stay open for skiing through the fourth. If you go back in early October, you’ll almost always see much less snow. By your pathetic attempt at logic, July must be colder than October. In actual fact, ice has enormous thermal momentum. Mammoth routinely gets into the 90’s in the summer, with 60 or so nights above freezing. An average year for them is about 25 feet of snow. Under those conditions, a little snow usually makes it through the summer.

          Coming out of the last ice age, we had compacted ice that was MILES thick. The Greenland ice sheet is a remnant of that, which still survives because temperatures there only rarely rise above freezing, even during an interglacial. Right now, just like the entirety of the Holocene, Greenland remains too warm for such extensive glaciers to form. That leaves them in slow retreat, causing a slow sea level rise. This rise is, as Gator keeps telling you, an artifact of the thermal equilibrium of the ice, and caused by millennia old warming.

          If you want to argue that current conditions are causing ADDITIONAL melting, you need to show that there is, in fact, ADDITIONAL melting. A steady rate of sea level rise shows a steady level of melting. To use sea level rise as evidence for ADDITIONAL melting, you need to show that the RATE of the rise is increasing. The rise itself was set into the system thousands of years ago, and will continue until temperatures drop, or all the ice has melted. It’s only changes in the rate that matter.

        • gator69 says:

          This is the valley that cemented my life long interest in geology, and Earth’s history. It was on a trip here in the mid seventies that I heard villagers speak of their fears of the looming ice age that was well publicised back then. They were afraid they would lose their historic villages to advancing glaciers, because scientists said it was a foregone conclusion. It is impossible to to stand in that valley, and not be awed by the power of time and ice, and the variety of climates.

    • Let me fix that for you:

      – Antarctic has been cooling (fact)
      – Sea level rise is not accelerating (fact)
      – Atmosphere is not warming (fact)
      – Greenland ice has gained quite a bit of mass since the MWP, as has the Arctic sea ice (fact)

      Is all of this due to natural causes? Obviously.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Let’s add another couple of facts from R.A. Cook PE

        Excerpts from sever of his comments at WUWT.

        October, 2013, the Antarctic sea ice extents was at a record high maximum at right at 19.5 Million square kilometers. over 1.5 Mkm^2 of “excess” southern sea ice extents. ALL of this “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south. ALL of this “excess” southern sea ice extents covered an area LARGER than the entire area of Hudson Bay (also centered at latitude 60), and this EXCESS southern sea covered an area about HALF the size of Greenland (a region centered between 60 north and 80 north latitude)….

        Just remember, at today’s sea ice extents, the “edge” of the Arctic sea is a tiny ring about latitude 78 -82 north in mid-September. The “edge” of Antarctic’s sea ice minimum is also a “ring” – but that ring is about latitude 66 south. Much closer to the equator, much more energy reflected from the Antarctic sea ice, right? Now, at maximum extents, the “edge” Arctic sea ice is at its closest point to the equator is only down to 72 north, not even as close to the equator as the minimum Antarctic sea ice! But at its maximum, Antarctic sea ice extents is much, much higher at 59.2 to 59.0 latitude. Closer to the equator than even the most southern tip of Greenland!….

        The Antarctic continental ice (14.0 Mkm^2) + Antarctic permanent ice shelves (3.5 Mkm^2) + the variable Antarctic sea ice itself (3.5 Mkm^2 to 19.5 Mkm^2) all combine to cover an area larger than the entire southern hemisphere continental land area combined!

        This Antarctic total ice cap covers the region from the south pole “up” latitude 59.2 south in September – a latitude closer to the equator than even Greenland southern tip. But, on the common Mercator maps, it is not even plotted! But, it reflects much more energy on a square-meter-by-square meter basis, than the Arctic sea ice “beanie” – which is limited to the little area between the north pole and latitude 72 north at most southern points near the Alaskan and Siberian coasts. So, the impact of the Antarctic sea ice is much greater than that of the arctic sea ice on any given comparable date across the solar year.
        Worse, the Antarctic sea ice minimum is exposed to significantly MORE solar radiation at the peak of the yearly solar cycle in January-February than the arctic sea ice minimum in August September, when the solar energy production is lower.
        (Solar minimum is 5 July each year, when the Arctic ice is exposed. But Antarctic sea ice – even at its minimum extents, is much more exposed in January.)

        Now, at the equinoxes, when both Arctic and Antarctic are both hit by the same solar intensity, the Antarctic Sea Ice receives between 2x (Feb-March) to 5x (September-October) the energy that the Arctic sea ice receives. Thus, to reflect equal energy into space, the “gain” of even 1.0 Mkm^2 of southern sea ice extents needs to be balanced by a loss 2 to 5 LARGER in the Arctic. ….

        But it gets WORSE!! Remember all that open water the Alarmist are always whining about. The water that shows late in summer?

        Overall, increased heat losses from open ocean in the Arctic (when Arctic sea ice is at a minimum in late August-September) are much greater than increased heat absorbed into that open water. More sea ice loss in the Arctic => More heat loss from the planet and a net cooler planet.

        • Gail Combs says:

          What is the take home from Cook’s comments?
          When the Artic loses sea ice while the Antarctic is gaining sea ice the earth is losing the most heat and the Antarctic sea ice, the subject the warmist ignor, is the most important.

          The big question is what hapens when Drake Passage becomes clogged with ice? At the rate at which Antarctic sea ice is increasing we may find out in 8 to 10 years.

          If you clog Drake Passage you send more cold water up the side of South America and that will have a major influence on the formation of El Nino/La Nina.

          If you look at this Sea Surface Temperature map it has a good image of the tongue of cold water from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current just before Drake Passage, headed up the coast of South America to Galapagos where El Nino forms.

  12. cfgj says:

    LOL, Mörner is pretty fcuking far from being a leading expert in sea level measurement with altimetry (the only global method). Again, instead of talking to the scientists or reading research you must have been spending time on some dubious blogs (like this one).

    ps. In the quoted text Mörner also is talking BS about west Greenland melting – not a surprise.

    • gator69 says:

      More claims with zero proof, and as I stated before, satellites must be calibrated against in situ measurements.

      Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner got his Ph.D in geology in 1969, and has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe. As the head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, he worked with many different geological & geophysical problems. He organized two major international conferences: one on Earth Rheology, Isostasy and Eustasy in 1977 and one on Climate Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis in 1983. He has run several international field excursions through Sweedon and was President of the INQUA Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989). He was President of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999-2003.

      He headed the INTAS Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003). In 2000, he launched an international sea level research project in the Maldives. Among his numerous publications, one may note the studies on: the interaction among isostasy and eustasy, the oscillating regional eustatic curve of NW Europe, the changing geoid concept, the redefinition of the concept of eustasy, the dynamic-rotational redistribution of oceanic water masses, the interchange of angular momentum between the hydrosphere and solid Earth, and finally the new sea level curve of the Maldives with an absence of signs of any on-going sea level rise.

      In 2008 he was awarded The Golden Condrite of Merit from University of Algarve (at an international sea level meeting in Portugal).

      Can you find a more qualified sea level expert?

      You are all mouth.

      • D. Self says:

        He is foul mouthed to be exact.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Gator, Gator, Gator, you do not under stand. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has not ben anointed by the CAGW High Priest Al the Oracle and therefore can not ever be consideres a qualified sea level expert.

        • gator69 says:

          Like any religion, those who oppose the doctrine are not considered experts by the faithful. Atheists are not considered experts on matters of God by Christians, and likewise awarmists are not considered experts on matters of Gaia by Branch Carbonians.

        • Jason Calley says:

          gator, it always amazes me how the CAGW crowd exhibits such blind faith in those who claim authority in “climate science.” For goodness sake, they are even still repeating the “97% of scientists support” whatever warmist meme they happen to have heard last. One moment they tell you that “it is settled science” and “it is basic high school physics!” but when someone like Freeman Dyson disagrees and then explains exactly why it is neither “settled science” nor “high school physics” they claim that since he is not a climate scientist he could not possibly understand the subtleties of global warming.

          Listening to most CAGW enthusiasts is like listening to second grade students explain why they are certain that Daffy Duck and Donald Duck must be cousins.

        • Ted says:

          If the science is settled, how do they explain those huge adjustments in the NOAA paper, just a few weeks ago? Was it settled last year? Is it now, finally, settled? Or will it be settled again next year? Someone please let me know when it stops settling.

      • cfgj says:

        His best publications are from the 1970’s and the 1980’s, nothing on atimetry as far as I can tell.

        • cfgj says:

          …that makes him a so-called “false expert”.

        • gator69 says:

          You are showing you ignorance, immaturity, and status as a denier of facts.

        • Gail Combs says:

          OH, of course a cartoonist and a failed divinity student are much better ClimAstrologists and more knowledgable than the head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University.

        • gator69 says:

          So in other words, you cannot find a more qualified sea level expert.

          Where are the oceans? On Earth, or in space? Are you better able to measure an object in situ, or from miles away?

          You are all mouth.

        • gator69 says:

          Oh, and BTW, I forgot to ask who you are to claim that Dr Morner’s “best” work was from the 1970’s and 1980’s? Another case of all mouth, and zero facts.

          His latest peer reviewed paper on sea level was published less than two years ago.

          This is why more and more people are turning their backs on you alarmists, because you scumbags lie constantly. If you like your religion, you can keep your religion, but enough of the baseless claims.

        • AndyG55 says:

          All mouth, with no linkage to his tiny brain….. washed away !!

        • Ted says:

          Einstein hasn’t published anything new in 60 years. What a hack. I haven’t heard much from Newton lately, either. I guess that means gravity and calculus are now both invalid. Now that I think if it, Archimedes was never once published in a peer reviewed journal. That proves everything he ever said was a lie.

        • gator69 says:

          Svante Arrhenius never wrote a single peer reviewed paper for a scientific journal in his lifetime. Another hack!

        • Ted says:

          That’s different. Arrhenius was a prophet of Gore. His writings merely foretold of the teachings of Saint Mann, who did in fact drink from the sacred Chalice of Peer Review, thereby anointing Arrhenius retroactively.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Your empty frustration at your inability to gain even the slightest traction for your utterly brain-washed BS, against the barrage of FACTS and DATA is getting to be quite hilarious.

      The more you deny reality, the more you hurt your religion.

      Any visitor to the forum can see you floundering like the low IQ 15 year old you are.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Actually his repeated claim that the ocean temperatures are continuing to rise, while even the MET and others acknowledge the 18 year plus PAUSE helps the sceptic side because 70% of the earth is ocean. If you take his claims as true that means the oceans are continuing to absorb sunlight, the only way they can warm, while the land and atmosphere COOLS and cools a lot more than the oceans are warming to add up to a zero trend globally. The atmosphere is the only portion of the earth affected by CO2 and it doesn’t start radiating until 11 kilometers up (barely)

        Also there is quite a bit of lag in the system when you are talking about the oceans. That is why Niv Shaviv used it as a calorimeter.

        If /when the oceans also start cooling in response to the quiet sun, the earth is going to be in a world of hurt since cooling means less rain, more violent weather and crop failures.

        It took close to peak solar insolation at 60°N to force the earth out of the Wisconsin Ice Age and the earth is a heck of a lot closer to the depth of the Wisconsin Ice Age than it is to the Holocene Optimum.

        The Holocene is 11,700 years so the earth came out of the last glaciation when the insolation was 522.5 Wm−2 (12,000 years ago) The depth of the last ice age was 464 Wm−2 (23,000 years ago) so the insolation changed was 58.5Wm−2 (the 60°N June insolation)

        Holocene peak insolation: 522.5 Wm-2
        ……………………………………………..decrease = 46.5 Wm-2
        NOW (modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
        …………………………………………….. decrease = 12 Wm-2
        Depth of the last ice age – around 464 Wm−2

        So at the present time we are a heck of a lot closer to the depth of the Wisconsin Ice Age than we are to the solar insolation needed to switch from glaciation to interglacial and CO2 doesn’t have the kick to do that much. The reduction in solar radiation since the Holocene peak insolation is 46.5 Wm-2, and is equivalent to the entire CO2 forcing [32-44 W m–2] with mankind’s contribution being 1.5 W/m 2 for the forcing of anthropogenic CO2 [cf., Reid, 1997].

        It takes about 5 Watts per square metre to raise the worlds temperature from 15°C to16°C.

  13. A lot of good material from Gail above.

    I have pulled it all together in this article:

  14. Robertv says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if human activity could stop the next 90 000 years of global freeze.

      • AndyG55 says:

        umm.. bright deep green fields and trees… and a huge ice shelf.. DOH !!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy how about these?

          My favorite:

        • AndyG55 says:

          Its the dark green grass.. just seems rather odd

          the yellowish tinge in your first pic makes more sense.

          also note the yellowish tinge in you last pic.

          but ok. I’m not going to argue about it. 🙂

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy, think of all that nice mineral rich melt water. I am not surprised the fields are green.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Cold fields are rarely dark green. I assume ice shelfs means it coldish. 🙂

        • Gail Combs says:

          You can have glacical ice and reasonably warm temperatures at the same time. Remember glaciers flow like rivers do so the snow/ice can form well above where the ice has moved to.

          Also some grasses like colder temperatures. Grazing rye will grow in winter in NC. It can be sown very late – into December – as it will germinate in temperatures as low as 34 degrees. A covering of snow doesn’t bother it in the least and it will be nice and green when the snow melts a day or so later. Barley has a minimum temperature of germination of 1-2C. In winter, winter barley resists temperatures down to -15C and, covered with a layer of snow, down to-30C. Water and nutrients are going to matter alot more to those two grains.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Well, I’m not going to argue with you about the colour of grass !! 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your top picture, is however, much more realistic 😉

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy, of course there are always filters and photoshop. (That picture does have a bit of a blue tinge.) But it has been fun arguing the point.

        • Robertv says:

          Thanks Gail. At least he’s accepting the evidence so any visitor to the forum can see he has a higher IQ then ‘cfgj’ .

        • Gail Combs says:

          Robert the problem is not IQ but intellectual lazyness and public school brainwashing.

          Congress is about to vote on a bill to expand that brainwashing: Shaped and Sculpted Young People Ready to be Governable Participants in a New Future Notice the word GOVERNABLE

          Capable of being governed or subjected to authority; amenable to law or rule; controllable; manageable; obedient.

          The US government (and the UN) does not what independent adults who excercise their rights over those who are in government as our Founding Fathers wished. Instead they want controllable; manageable; obedient mentally stunted childlike serfs who are subjected to authority and amenable to rule. As I keep saying the goal of the Elite is a return to the government of the Middle Ages. A government of lords and serfs. That is why they HATE the middle class who doesn’t know its place and why they hate private property rights and the God given rights of mankind. (The whole Animal Rights Movement is designed to make humans equivalent to animals and therefore having the same rights as slaves, that is no rights only privilages their masters give might them.)

          Personalized Learning as a Molding Mechanism and Prime Instrument for Social and Political Control

          We have discussed some of the implications of the personalized learning language in the Every Child Achieves Act rewrite of the K-12 federal education legislation, but most of what will guide the classroom practices and data being accumulated (“a data warehouse for every student”) lies in documents other than ECAA. Scouring those, as I am prone to do in my research, in turn sent me scurrying back to a Carnegie-funded book from 1952 called The New Man in Soviet Psychology. Similar language, comparable visions, and the same recommended changes to education generally means the same real goals whether that is being acknowledged up front or not. I want to go back to something Stalin told Party members in 1933, since we are highly unlikely to get a comparable confession from members of Congress in 2015, on the need to solve the ‘human problems’ if the desired transformations were to truly take hold in the USSR. “Even though the industrial and social base of the old society had been largely destroyed, the ‘remnants of capitalism’ still lingered in the minds of men.” Quoting Uncle Joe himself:

          “You as Marxists should know that in its development the mentality of man lags behind his actual condition. In status the members of collective farms are no longer individual farmers, but collectivists, but their mentality is still the old one–that of the owner of private property.”

          Stalin and the Soviets made no bones about their intention to “bring all possible facilities of society to bear on the problem of training and controlling its individual citizens.” They were especially fond of using the law in such a binding manner. Methinks they would have liked the language of ECAA and its close sibling, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA) from last summer, a great deal. What these measures share in common is a desire to create an organized society. Now obviously that was not news to any Soviet in the 1930s, but it is news to many Americans in the 21st Century, which is why so much of what is intended to bind and quietly alter the minds of men is hidden and not being discussed openly….

        • AndyG55 says:


          Thanks, but I don’t think that was much of a compliment !!

        • rah says:

          Gail you should be happy to know the brain washers never got to me. My mind is every bit as dirty as it’s ever been!

        • Robertv says:


          Big Brother is much worse than the medieval government of lords and serfs. Under Big Brother we are only useless eaters.


          It is a compliment . We all make mistakes. Everyone who ever had kids knows that. It is the will to learn which makes one a better person.

          He who is without sin cast the first stone.

  15. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    According to those now in power the earth never had any temperature variations prior to CO2 be generated by humans. The little ice NO the medieval warm period NO — I bet the last ice age will soon be gone as well … lol

  16. Gail Combs says:

    Gator, I have not been to Lauterbrunnen but I have been to the Swiss Alps. BEAUTIFUL!

  17. Brian H says:

    Seems those trees which are being revealed by retreating Alpine glaciers all died at the same time, within a year. Mother Gaia has some nasty trump cards she can play at any time. Slaughter your virgins on your BBQ altars, lest She become wroth!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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