NASA Recycling The 1970’s Ice Age Scare

Gavin has a new paper out explaining the cause of the hiatus (which he also just erased.) He says that burning fossil fuels is generating aerosols which are suppressing global warming.

2015-12-22-03-31-01

“TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilised.

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

This is the identical argument which climate scientists used in their last ice age scare of the 1970’s – during Watergate.

2015-12-22-03-05-50

14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – at Newspapers.com

NASA’s top climatologists reported the same thing in 1971, and made it clear that the effects of CO2 are not dangerous, and never will be dangerous.

2015-12-22-03-16-15

http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf

Obama’s science adviser John Holdren reported the same thing in 1971, and predicted a new ice age in a joint paper with Paul Ehrlich.

Global_Ec_titlefull

John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely · zomblog

Ehrlich also reported that the US would have food and water rationing by 1980.

2015-12-14-20-34-27

6 Oct 1970, Page 3 – at Newspapers.com

NOAA shot this theory down by the year 1977, so it is pretty remarkable that Gavin is trying to resurrect it in 2015.

2015-12-22-04-12-31

27 Feb 1977, Page 1 – at Newspapers.com

This endless cycle of mindless climate insanity and lies is what President Obama calls “settled science” – and wants to silence anyone who disagrees.

About stevengoddard

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

187 Responses to NASA Recycling The 1970’s Ice Age Scare

  1. Steve Case says:

    The claims about the so-called “Global Cooling” of the ’70s has been thoroughly debunked. Get with the program already!

    • Martin Smith says:

      You are wrong, Steve. I think you know that, so why play the idiot? The cooling effect of aerosols is real. It was real in the 1970’s, but the EPA enforced the Clean Air Act and we and Europe eliminated most of it. Now China and India are the causes, as well as some increased volcanic activity, but once again, the volcanic activity will subside, and China and India will of necessity eliminate their air pollution. Then the cooling effect will diminish again.

      [SG: Now our resident climate clown is claiming that 2% of the Earth’s surface controlled the global climate in the 1970s]

      • Martin Smith says:

        Steven, if you have to lie about what I write, what is the point of the discussion? No, I am not claiming 2% of the earth’s surface controlled the global climate in the 1970s, nor did I say anything like it. The cooling effect of aerosols in the 1970s was real. Air pollution in the US and Europe was heavy. There were about 10 volcanic eruptions contributing a lot of aerosols. The belief and the claim was that these were having a cooling effect, and they were. Gavin Schmidt’s claim is that aerosols are having a cooling effect now, and they are. There never was an ice age scare, and NASA certainly isn’t recycling it or claiming it will happen now. The claim is that the global average temperature is lower than it would be without the aerosols.

        Your blog post is simply wrong.

        [SG : Our resident clown is now claiming that he didn’t say what he said about the Clean Air act ending global cooling. Martin’s Alinsky routine is to kick dust up and then claim there is a cloud. Classic entertainment]

        • There never was an ice age scare, and there never was a warming scare. And the emperor was wearing clothes all along.

        • Andy DC says:

          I don’t know how you want to define a “scare”, but whether there was a scare or not, there was well documented global cooling between 1940 and 1980. The three consecutive winters, 1977, 1978 and 1979 were the three consecutive coldest winters in US history. I lived through that and I can assure you that after massive paralysis from blizzards in many major cities, no one felt very sure that we were not going into a Ice Age.

        • Andy DC says:

          Tony,

          When are you pulling the plug on this guy? All he can do is make obnoxious snide remarks and regurgitate alarmist talking points that you have repeatedly discredited. It is getting tiresome.

          Andy

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy DC

          I consider him the resident village idiot. He keeps pitching Alarmist Lies and we keep hitting them out of the ball park.

        • Ted says:

          Not that I get a vote, but my vote would be to keep him. I think banning anyone sets a bad precedent. The step from completely open to the first ban is much bigger than the step from one ban to banning anyone who disagrees. Martin’s favorite cartoonist runs his site that way, and both the discussion and the credibility suffer for it.

          Also, when you read through the comments, the actual science presented (I can’t say discussed, since it’s entirely one sided) is much stronger when Martin and cfgjd pull their John Cleese Argument Clinic routine. The responses to those two have greatly increased my own understanding of climate science. It would be nice if either of them could also provide some sort of scientific argument, but we can’t get everything. On the whole, Tony’s arguments have been greatly strengthened by their presence.

        • I think it would be a mistake pulling a plug on an accomplished entertainer who can do it to himself every time he comments.

          Martin Smith is this blog’s only known humanist Buddhist Christian individualist libertarian*) who wows to overthrow oppressive governments by force**) when he gets exhausted overthrowing them peacefully.

          Martin Smith also denies having said many things he’d said but there is an open inquiry if he’s ever said:

          “I never said most of the things I said.”

          ***)

          There is no controversy surrounding his quest for the right graph. The wrong graph gives him the heebeedee-geebees.

          ——————–
          *) He’s not, however, a “rugged individualist libertarian”. He’s more relaxed and nuanced about the darn thing.

          **) He’s also not a “part-time revolutionary militiaman”. It’s assumed he favors doing all that overthrowing in a more individualist ad-hoc way.

          ***) Some investigators assign this quote to Yogi Berra.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Your blog post is simply wrong.”

          BULLSHIT..

          Even when the evidence is laid out in front of you.. for ALL to see.. you still DENY, DENY, DENY.

          You are a very sad piece of human excrement, little goreboy.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Please keep him.. at least until the current El Nino subsides and global temps start to drop.

          I so want to see him run and scurry like the cockroach he is.

        • sam says:

          ..and here we go again with the AGW industry ‘science bloggers’ who insist on blaming the current cooling on anything BUT the waning sun, we just had had the weakest solar cycle in 100s of years and they just can’t let the argument go i that diresction; since the sun and ocean currents so obviously dominate the Earths climate..we just can’t talk about it.. they have to insist that its always ‘something we’re doing’ (burning stuff) and we have to stop doing it (not burning stuff) so that more money goes to AGW industry toys like windmills and solar panels that are so inadequate for modern energy needs that they are futile.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The Marty Gorebot forgets the slash and burn primitive agriculture used in Africa and South America and the pollution belching of coal, dung and wood fires in the second and third world where pollution control devices were never used. China did not turn on some of the pollution control technology that was already built until recent air pollution protests. It adds over $16 billion/year to electricity prices

        Today, China with the largest population and economy is belching out real pollution
        From Mother Jones:
        http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/06/china-coal-carbon-climate-guardian

        Up until the 1850′s dung and wood were the major source of energy. It is the brown line (snicker) called ‘Traditional Renewables’

        Figure 1: Percentage of Total Calculated Consumption Contributed by each Energy Source

        Sources: Jenkins (1989), WEC (1995), BP (2000)
        The sum-of-energies model assumes that different energy sources dominate during different periods of history. For example, traditional renewables (wood, dung, etc.) were the world’s dominant sources of energy until almost 1900. Coal then was the dominant source of energy until the middle of the twentieth century, after which crude oil began to dominate. Oil remains the dominant source of energy to this day, but its share in the energy mix peaked in 1973 and has been declining since. The natural gas share of the energy mix has been steadily increasing and looks set to take over the number one position sometime early this century. Population and Energy

        Interesting that a switch is made to cleaner energy and away from dung, wood and coal in the 1970s

        The USA from same source

      • AndyG55 says:

        “so why play the idiot?”

        Look deep inside yourself , and ask that question, Worthless little gorebot.

        Are you play acting the idiot.. or are you really an idiot.?

        • Billy Liar says:

          Marty gets his kicks from all you people above wasting your time responding to his inane posts and, I am afraid, that includes Steven.

          Once the troll gets no bites he tends to find another pond in which to fish.

        • Gail Combs says:

          True, but we do not write for the trolls we write for the fence sitters. At least I do and Marty the Gorebot does a great job of exposing the ClimAstrologists as con men hiding behind a very tattered curtain.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I agree with Gail.

          These trolls are always putting forward AGW mis-information.

          It needs to be corrected so other visitors to the forum can see just how mis-informed the trolls are.

  2. Blame it on Ford.
    Nis family gave a 30,000 cubic foot computer to Harvard GSD …biggest fastest, best. in 1975 when it opened with Graduate School of Design (GSD) building above it.
    Now your cell phone is superior to GSD buzzer.
    Harvidiots jumped to conclusions as they put in data.
    Afiirmatives, Harvidiots, SocioComs, Bitters of all shapes & colors still seek revenge for old policies including those at both Cambridges..
    DDT is poster Monster Child that has been replaced by CO2.
    Obama actually mentioned “acid rain” & our success at scrubbing so efficiently that coal power plants sell sulfur as fertilizer.What he did not mention is politics punished common sense & desire of plant guys by changing the rules by political whim not looking for winners.
    Cleaning our air & water is a nightmare for fear fraud industry….
    High unemployment of fear feasters would be affirmative to climate and finally destroy an industry worthy of destruction.

  3. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, if you are claiming that Gavin Schmidt is trying to raise fear of a looming ice age, then you can’t be serious. It appears that you are deliberately misrepresenting what Schmidt is talking about. Both sulfate and non-sulfate aerosol effects were added to the global climate models in the 1990s. Gavin Schmidt is drawing attention to the fact that aerosols are right now preventing some of the global warming that would be seen if the aerosols weren’t there. So that when China in particular deals with its huge pollution problem, that cooling effect will be removed.

    You simply can not fault that argument without making yourself look like an ass.

    [SG: Martin is getting increasingly desperate, and creating his usual brainless straw man arguments to fight against]

  4. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, you appear to have deliberately misrepresented your 1977 newspaper article. The scientist does not claim that increasing aerosols in the atmosphere don’t cause cooling. The scientist claims aerosols are not increasing in the atmosphere. You neglected to highlight that statement. It makes a big difference and invalidates your claim that “NOAA shot this theory down by the year 1977…” NOAA made no such claim, and you know that.

    [SG: Martin continues to spout his desperate lies. The NOAA study said quite explicitly that there was no long term increase in particulates and that they were not responsible for the trend]

    • Marsh says:

      Martin:: the NOAA for years, have made various claims of increasing aerosols:
      http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html
      ………….
      NASA also make similar such claims that get regurgitated over & over:
      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page4.php
      …………..
      Of course there is a World of difference ; the effect of Aerosols is better understood and
      has credibility ; whereas the CO2 “hypothesis” for AGW, is just Junk Science..!
      …………..

      • Martin Smith says:

        I don’t get your point, Marsh. As far as I know, neither NOAA nor NASA has never claimed aerosol pollution would increase global warming. The claim is that aerosol pollution has a cooling effect. The CO2 hypothesis is much older than the aerosol one, and it’s basis in physics has been well understood for over a century, I think. In fact, heat seeking missile technology is based on it, so it definitely is settled. What isn’t settled is the sensitivity to increasing CO2, but there is very high confidence that even the minimum will cause a lot of damage. In any case, Steven’s blog post is wrong.

        [SG : Our resident Alinskyite continues to kick dust up – and then screams “cloud”]

        • wizzum says:

          You know very well that the effects of CO2 on temperature are a log function and that there is extremely small increases in temperature attributable to it going forward no matter how much it increases.
          You also know that increasing CO2 has a very beneficial effect on farming, especially in the more arid regions.

          You are a liar.

        • pinroot says:

          The CO2 hypothesis is much older than the aerosol one, and it’s basis in physics has been well understood for over a century, I think. In fact, heat seeking missile technology is based on it, so it definitely is settled.

          You seem to be saying that heat seeking missile tech is based on the CO2 hypothesis (suggested explanation for an observable phenomena), and then claim that because heat seeking missles work, that proves “the CO2 hypothesis”. You can’t be serious.

        • Gail Combs says:

          It takes 5.44 W/sq.m to raise the temperature 1 degree C according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming the average surface temperature is 288K (15°C or 59°F.) The entire CO2 forcing is 32 to 44 W m–2 [cf., Reid, 1997]. and all but 5 to 6 W m–2 of that forcing occurs in the first 200 ppm CO2 (modtran) At 200 ppm CO2 plants barely survive.

          The paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? gives the calculated solar insolation values @ 65N on June 22 for several glacial inceptions. (It is one of several recent peer-reviewed papers indicating high levels of CO2 are the only thing keeping the earth out of glacial inception)

          Current value – insolation = 479W m−2 (from that paper)

          MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
          MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
          MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
          MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
          MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2

          So the earth is in the correct ballpark for the start of a BIG ice age.

          NOAA lists the Berger calculations for June solar insolation values @ 60°N (not 65°N)
          http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun

          Holocene peak insolation: 523 Wm-2
          …………………..decreased = 47 Wm-2
          to NOW (modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
          ………………….. decrease another = 12 Wm-2
          to get to the Depth of the last ice age – around 464 Wm−2

          Look at the amount of solar insolation it took to get out of the Wisconsin Ice Age and do not forget the Younger Dryas Cold Event aka The Big Freeze (ca. 12.9–11.6 ka) that flipped the earth back into the Ice Box despite the high insolation values.
          11,000 years ago…………… 523.16 Wm-2 peak insolation
          Wisconsin Ice age- Holocene transition
          12,000 years ago…………… 522.50 Wm-2

          In other words the earth barely made it out of the Ice Box at peak insolation and the earth has dropped an additional 47 Wm-2 since that peak and is now ONLY 12 Wm-2 above the bottom value for the Wisconsin Ice Age.

          The Holocene interglacial is now 11,717 years old. That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle (or 23,000/2=11,500). So the little Ice Age was about the right time for glacial inception. However we had the Modern Grand Solar Minimum starting in 1850 that dragged the earth into the modern warm period. That has now ended.- A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

          Politicians and fools like Marty want to REDUCE the CO2 that might just keep us out of the Ice Box? Are they crazy or do they have a death wish!?

        • Martin Smith says:

          pinroot, you wouldn’t have to guess what I am saying if you just investigate the physics we are talking about. The physics of the greenhouse effect are settled science. It has been settled science for a very long time. Heat seeking missile sensors are based on those same laws of physics.

        • Martin Smith says:

          wizz, you are deliberately ignoring the positive feedbacks.

        • Latitude says:

          Martin…global warming theory (physics) was that CO2 had very little effect…
          CO2 was supposed to increase temps a little…which was supposed to increase humidity
          It was always water vapor……run away humidity

          Since when did CO2 become the primary driver?

        • wizzum says:

          As the effect of CO2 on temperature decreases so too will the amount of any feedback. Unless you are going to start sprouting off about tipping points.

        • Ted says:

          Ahhhh, yes. The magical feedbacks. So you’re finally admitting that this “settled science” you keep harping on is NOT the primary cause of the warming you claim. Those feedbacks, one of which this post is about, are NOT based on “settled science.” They’re based on constantly changing guesses, but they’re claimed to have an effect totaling 300-600% more than that of CO2. Even if your “settled science” is entirely correct, there’s 100% agreement (not 97%) in the scientific community that CO2 doesn’t have nearly enough effect, by itself, to cause the predicted changes.

          Your entire argument is based on those completely hypothetical feedbacks. But you waive your hands, point to CO2, and scream, “SETTLED SCIENCE!” This proves it. You’re not just a misinformed pawn. You’re a politically motivated liar.

        • R Shearer says:

          MS aka WS, why don’t you research your statements so that you don’t make so many obvious errors? And please quit lying.

          On aerosols, they can have either warming or cooling effects depending on the type of aerosols, where and how they are emitted. ” The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience.” http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

          Heat seeking missiles rely on the detection of IR emissions against a cooler background, global warming hypothesis is quite different, warming of entire background from IR absorption followed by IR emission.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “you are deliberately ignoring the positive feedbacks.”

          List them all…… and all the negative feedbacks

          You are a brainless ignorant twit, goreboy, and getting more and more ignorant by each post.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “warming of entire background from IR absorption followed by IR emission.”

          And its been shown that CO2 does not emit in the troposphere.

        • Henry P says:

          but….
          it [CO2] does emit outwards (cooling)
          e.g
          various investigations into the earthshine spectrum
          via the moon

          The Earthshine spectrum, from 0.3 to 2.5 microns, is presented and used to illustrate the spatially unresolved spectrum of a planet with abundant water and life. Water vapor, oxygen, ozone, methane, and carbon dioxide are unambiguously detected, while the vegetation signature is less certain. Chapter 6 explores possibilities for extending the earthshine work and submits recommendations for improving the TPF database content and etc

        • Allan says:

          ——-The CO2 hypothesis is much older than the aerosol one, and it’s basis in physics has been well understood for over a century, I think.——-

          You?? ……… think?

          The emissivity of Gas’s drops as a function of a fourth power temp increase…. Stefans Law …. NOT Universal as claimed by “basic” Physics . Thanks though for your contributions to SG’s Happy Hour , more fun poking trolls than feeding them🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          “In fact, heat seeking missile technology is based on it, so it definitely is settled.”

          Let’s see what the CO2 laser guys say about it shall we……

          http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

          And then remember that CO2 does not re-emit below about 15km

          That is because that tiny absorption in the lower atmosphere is immediately passed to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere and dealt with as any other energy, by conduction and convection and changes in radiation frequency.

          And we KNOW from direct measurement that the LWOR has increased as the Earth has warmed from the series of strong solar cycles in the latter half of last century.

          THERE IS NO PHYSICAL MECHANISM THAT ALLOWS CO2 TO TRAP HEAT IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

        • catweazle666 says:

          Martin Smith says:
          “pinroot, you wouldn’t have to guess what I am saying if you just investigate the physics we are talking about. The physics of the greenhouse effect are settled science. “

          Utter bollocks.

          You haven’t the first idea, you scientifically illiterate little buffoon.

          Do you get some sort of perverse kick about being an object of ridicule?

          Have you considered seeking psychiatric assistance?

        • Marsh says:

          catweazle666 : has Martin considered seeking psychiatric assistance? Obviously not!
          A wrong sense of reality & not realizing it from ridicule; indicates a form of psychosis.
          I don’t believe Martin is a Troll either ; he honestly believes his own nonsense…

        • catweazle666 says:

          Marsh says: “I don’t believe Martin is a Troll either ; he honestly believes his own nonsense…”

          Oh dear!

          Clearly, it’s worse than we thought™!

    • Martin Smith says:

      Steven, for crying out loud. You claim the study said “The NOAA study said quite explicitly that there was no long term increase in particulates and that they were not responsible for the trend,” but you did not prove that. You posted a newspaper article in which a scientist claims there was no increase in aerosols. Nowhere does anyone claim that aerosols don’t have a cooling effect. If “the study” proved aerosols… wait… WHAT TREND? The news article talks about an unusually cold winter in the easter US. NO TREND.

      You have been caught out again. Your blog post is wrong.

      • Ted says:

        Martin-

        YOU STUPID, F**KING IMBECILE.
        No change in particulate levels means their effect is stable. Flat line. NO TREND. They can’t possibly be masking any more of this mythical warming today than they did 40 years ago. Your excuses are as full of shit as you are.

        • Latitude says:

          Ted, Martin is saying that global temperatures are so sensitive to particulates……that we should be in an ice age any minute

          CO2 levels have increased….particulate levels are stable

          Then obviously CO2 effects are very weak….compared to particulates

          ….according to Martin😉

        • Ted, I guess you are holding back but one day you’ll tell us what you really think of him.

        • Ted says:

          Martin-

          Sorry. I lose my temper on occasion, because you refuse to discuss actual science, while calling anyone who does a liar. I apologize for my language, but I stand by the sentiment.

      • catweazle666 says:

        Yet more evidence you never even bother to read the posts you comment on, you just spout complete mendacious tripe in the hope that someone as scientifically illiterate as you are will believe your BS.

        You are a complete moron, Smith.

        • catweazle666 says:

          Oops, I must apologise for that post.

          I entirely overlooked the feelings of complete morons, who would justifiably feel deeply offended by being likened to MS.

  5. RealOldOne2 says:

    The problem with peddling a scam/hoax like the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 religion is that eventually the chickens come home to roost and reality exposes the scam/hoax/fraud for what it is. The reality-denying global warming fraudsters get all tangled up in their lies, desperately trying to keep the scam alive.
    The climate alarmists dismissed the most significant ghg, water vapor, as being a significant factor that controls global temperature because they said it was was very short-lived, condensed/precipitated out of the atmosphere.

    Well, they also said: “Most aerosols from anthropogenic sources are found in the lower troposphere (below 2km). Aerosols undergo chemical and physical transformations in the atmosphere, especially within clouds, and are removed largely by precipitation. Consequently aerosols in the lower troposphere typically have residence times of a few days.” – IPCC, SAR, WG1, p.20

    So that means they have no long term impact like aerosols from major volcanoes which reach the stratosphere and remain for up to a couple years because they don’t precipitate out.
    Marvel/Schmidt are merely making another ‘dog-ate-my-homework’ excuse to deny the reality that global temperatures haven’t been rising because their ‘CO2-is-the-Earth’s-thermostat’ hypothesis is false as it has failed the real world test. In the last ~19 years humans have added more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other 19 year period in history, 570 billion tons worth, which is 1/3 of all the human CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750, and it has caused no increase in the temperature of the atmosphere. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.2/to:2015.95/plot/rss/from:1997.2/to:2015.95/trend

    • Martin Smith says:

      Real, get real. We are now in the warmest year in recorded history, and 14 of the 15 hottest years have occurred since the year 2000. It is now 2015.

      • Yes that’s true. And next year will be even warmer, but only until Schmidt is fired in January 2017 and the new staff at GISS reverts all the data to the actual data, and we find out again that 1934 was the warmest year all along.

        • Martin Smith says:

          That’s real dumb, Morgan. Real dumb.

        • David A says:

          Sorry Martin, but CAGW theory say the global troposphere is supposed to warm at 1.2 times the surface rate. The tropical troposphere is suppose to warm even faster.

          Neither has happened. CAGW is failed. The ajustments are wrong.

          Even if an imbecil assumes that hundreds of billions of political funds do not corrupt, and the adjustments are perfect, then CO2 has ZERO to do with the surface warming!

      • mpcraig says:

        I feel for you Martin. You may have to let go of something you very clearly hold close to your heart.

        • Jason Calley says:

          mpcraig, you make an important point. The average CAGW enthusiast does not get thoughtful when contradicted; he gets angry. Though I will say, that Martin Smith has, for the most part, been polite — even more polite than many of the responding sceptics. Maddening, yes, I would even say highly illogical, but mostly polite, and for that I think he deserves some credit. Still, my experience with most CAGW supporters is that they get angry. This leads me to think that they have an emotional attachment to the belief, more-so than rational. My unverified opinion is that the CAGW anger is used to mask some more personal issue for them. Maybe an unhappy marriage, maybe a job that is unfulfilling, maybe a dying parent — the issues are personal and varied. What CAGW does is to give them a good reason to feel anger without having to face what is actually bothering them. Take away their CAGW and they will have to face their own personal issues.

        • Marsh says:

          Jason ; I agree with your psycho analysis of most CAGW followers. There appears to be some substitution that masks their own “personal dramas” in life. These people can present, not unlike religious extremists ; beyond logic or any rational argument.
          ……………….
          We know, Martin is not in the substitution guise… but did you notice that many of the responses are robotic? Most of those that are on the spectrum, are intelligent but with a low emotional IQ ; they are also prone to miss the nuances in a debate & get the translations wrong… all the evidence is there.
          ……………….
          Yeah, they can be maddening & polite at the same time ; interesting world it is…

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Marsh, that robotic quality is something that I find creepy at times. I have actually wondered whether at least some of the CAGW supporters are just bots. Not all the responses, but certainly some of them have that same feel that the old Eliza psychologist program had way back when; almost huamn but not really sentient, not actually thinking. It is odd.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Jason, there are bots and sockpuppets.

          I do not have the links handy.

        • Marsh says:

          Yes Gail, there are bots and sockpuppets but of course, there is a third group that have strings attached and with long noses…

        • Gail Combs says:

          Marsh,
          you forgot the pockets full of blood money.

      • RealOldOne2 says:

        “We are now in the warmest year in recorded history”
        Wrong. They are not comparing to recorded temperatures, but corrupt-by-adjustment fake numbers.
        The satellites show that 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2010 were all hotter than the last full year of data we have in 2014. And 2015 will be no more than the 3rd highest: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/

        • Martin Smith says:

          That’s real dumb, Real. Real dumb. Get real, Real.

        • Ted says:

          Martin-

          Do you have any evidence proving that the satellite measurements are wrong? We have increasingly divergent data sets. In science, that’s generally considered a serious problem. Why do you feel that it not only doesn’t warrant an explanation, but anyone noticing it deserves to be mocked?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yes Martin.. you are REALLY REALLY DUMB

          The data from ROO2 is totally correct.

          Gees, even you could access RSS data (from a group of warmista who have remained scientists) and calculate the values.. IF you had the capability.. as if !!

          Here are the RSS average yearly anomalies on degrees C.

          1998 — 0.550
          2010 — 0.469
          2005 — 0.330
          2003 — 0.320
          2002 — 0.315
          2014 — 0.255

          2015 will almost certainly slot into 3rd place, could be 4th, but 2nd is not possible.

          Even the El Ninos are have less effect each time, it seems.

          So AGAIN you have proven your ABJECT FEAR of accepting any REAL DATA.

          Speaking of El Ninos, the current one may be starting to collapse earlier than expected

          http://notrickszone.com/2015/12/21/the-super-collapsing-el-nino-ncep-cfsv2-n-hemisphere-temps-plummet-1c-in-a-single-week/#sthash.93klHPFt.dpbs

        • AndyG55 says:

          And if we combine RSS and UAH, this is how things will pan out (deg C anomaly)

          1998 — 0.516
          2010 — 0.405
          2015 — 0.296 **
          2005 — 0.265
          2002 — 0.264
          2003 — 0.252
          2014 — 0.220
          2007 — 0.207
          2001 — 0.181
          2013 — 0.178

          ** 2015 value is average as end of November. It will change slightly
          It cannot jump above 2010, and is highly unlikely to drop below 2005, 2002

          What happens next year will depend on what happens with the current El Nino.

          If it drops off soon, 2016 will be somewhere down the bottom or off the list, like 1999, and 2011

          If it hangs around, 2016 could be somewhere towards the top.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Marty the Gorebot again proves he twists the English language. A favorite technique in Progressive Propaganda.

          RECORD

          1. to set down in writing or the like, as for the purpose of preserving evidence.
          [Did you catch that Marty? A written record is for the purpose of preserving evidence. NOAA is tampering with EVIDENCE. This is considered a crime in the court of law and by real scientists.]

          2. to cause to be set down or registered:
          to record one’s vote.

          3. to state or indicate:
          He recorded his protest, but it was disregarded.

          4. to serve to relate or to tell of:
          The document records that the battle took place six years earlier.

          5. to set down or register in some permanent form, as on a seismograph.

          6. to set down, register, or fix by characteristic marks, incisions, magnetism, etc., for the purpose of reproduction by a phonograph or magnetic reproducer.

          7. to make a recording of:
          The orchestra recorded the 6th Symphony.
          verb (used without object)

          8. to record something; make a record.
          noun, record

          9. an act of recording.

          10. the state of being recorded, as in writing.

          11. an account in writing or the like preserving the memory or knowledge of facts or events.

          12. information or knowledge preserved in writing or the like.

          13. a report, list, or aggregate of actions or achievements:
          He made a good record in college. The ship has a fine sailing record.

          14. a legally documented history of criminal activity:
          They discovered that the suspect had a record.

          15. something or someone serving as a remembrance; memorial:
          Keep this souvenir as a record of your visit.
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/record

        • climatefraud says:

          Bureau of Meteorology officials, meanwhile, told Senate estimates on Monday that Australia was on a clear warming path, with temperatures rising between 0.71 and 0.76 degrees since 1960, depending on the methods used.

          Threat of air pollution to worsen along with global warming, warns Climate Council

          http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/threat-of-air-pollution-to-worsen-along-with-global-warming-warns-climate-council-20141020-118u3k.html

          Melbourne changes monitoring site from city to park, new max temperature averages 1.2C cooler
          http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-weather-summer-2015-still-hot-just-last-year-was-hotter-20150119-12tbhi.html

      • Latitude says:

        and 14 of the 15 hottest years have occurred since the year 2000. It is now 2015.
        ====
        Which makes perfect sense when you realize temps have been stable for the past ~2 decades………might as well claim the past 20 years as the hottest in recorded history

      • Ted says:

        It’s amazing how many new records you can set when you continually increase the amount you “adjust” the data.

      • lorne50 says:

        Martian I am now 5’10” tall have been since I was 17 years old so I have been the tallest I will ever get for 39 years your point is ???????

        • Ted says:

          But the trend is up. You’re taller today than you were when you were born. Therefore, if we linearly interpolate your height out another 56 years, you’ll be somewhere around 10 feet tall. You’re just in a “pause” right now. Start buying those 61″ inseam pants right now, before the rush. With most of the world currently experiencing a similar pause, the growth already in the pipeline is astronomical. By 2100, everyone will be 10 feet tall. It’ll be the new normal.

        • Doug says:

          I’m about the same age and height. Not only are the last 40 years the tallest I’ve ever been, according to the long term trend I’ll be 7’7″ at age 80. Hoping to keep my knees in good shape and supplement my SS check with basketball.

        • DD More says:

          Lorne & Ted the correct GISS method / scenario on record height is to 1st – get a pair of KISS band platform boots. 2nd – measure yourself. 3rd – claim your height is still going up.

          Your not really, but do appear that way on MTV.

        • David A says:

          Indeed, I have noticed I am getting taller then my hair.

        • AndyG55 says:

          When you start from the coldest period in the whole 10,000 of the current interglacial, you should be darn thankful of the small amount of warming we have had.

          The LIA was bleak and full of pestilence.

          This is where Martin comes from, and he has adopted that character.

        • You all seem very giddy about your growth but nobody mentioned the alarming relationship to rising CO2 concentrations. Not only does the trend show your growth will resume after the hiatus but it is obviously caused by anthropogenic CO2. As you get bigger you will emit even more CO2 and I’m afraid you will reach a tipping point when you start growing out of control. It’s a frightening thought.

        • rah says:

          I’m 5′ 11 and 1/2″ tall. Down from the touch over 6′ I was 15 years ago. Age, years of heavy rucksacks and stuff like that does make a difference. Gravity is forever. Since I have been declining in height with age as most folks do once they pass middle age, the trend line would slope down from some point 15 to 20 years ago. An offensive lineman in the NFL will lose on average 1/4″ of height during a season. They regain it in the off season and their cartilage decompresses from the repeated heavy impacts.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Sighhhh, I have lost a full two inches in height. 5ft 6 to 5 ft 4

      • AndyG55 says:

        Only in the massively CORRUPTED and FABRICATED junk from NOAA and its stable.

        But you know that… Its one of the MANY LIES you continue to hang onto.

        2015 cannot be more than 3rd warmest in the short term record, and is far colder than the MWP, RWP and far far colder than the first 3/4 of the current interglacial

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/21/the-holocene-thermal-optimum/

        If we had any uncorrupted data left, the late 1930’s would also be warmer.

      • Leo Wiser says:

        Prof. Phil Jones, Leader of CRU East Anglia stated in an interview in 2010 that there has been no statistically significant increase in average global temperature since 1997.
        How does that square with “14 of the 15 hottest years have occurred since the year 2000. It is now 2015.”…?

  6. Henry P says:

    Following my various investigations, I have never excluded the possibility that the net effect of more CO2 in the air is that of cooling rather than warming. The problem is that, as far as I know, nobody has actually done a large scale experiment to determine the net effect…..
    Namely, like H2O, absorption by CO2 in the 4-5 um range is very high.
    So as we stand in the hot sun, a lot of the hot IR is being back radiated to space by the CO2 in the air.
    I actually tested the effect of high humidity/ (note: no clouds)
    you will find that as the humidity in the air goes up, the heat effected by the sun on a standard metal plate for a certain time at a particular time of day is lower.
    Go figure. [more] CO2 does the same as [more] humidity.
    So, who says the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming?

    Luckily it appears from my results that there is no man made warming:

    or man made cooling.

    The sun [God] rules everything.
    Just so you know/

    • Gail Combs says:

      HenryP, Sleepalot looked at the same thing a different way and I took the idea further.
      This data is from May (2012)

      Barcelos, Brazil
      ….monthly min 20C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
      Average humidity 90%

      Adrar, Algeria
      …..monthly min 9C monthly max 44C, monthly average 30C
      Average humidity around 0%

      The effect of the addition of water vapor (~ 4%) is not to raise the temperature but to even the temperature out. The monthly high is 10C lower and the monthly low is ~ 10C higher when the GHG H2O is added to the atmosphere in this example. The average temperature is about 4C lower in Brazil despite the fact Algeria is further north above the tropic of Cancer. Some of the difference is from the effect of clouds/albedo but the dramatic effect on the temperature extremes is also from the humidity.

      I took a rough look at the data from Brazil. Twelve days were sunny. I had to toss the data for two days because it was bogus. The average humidity was 80% for those ten days. The high was 32 with a range of 1.7C and the low was 22.7C with a range of 2.8C. Given the small range in values over the month the data is probably a pretty good estimate for the effects of humidity only.

      You still get the day-night variation of ~ 10C with a high humidity vs a day-night variation of 35C without and the average temp is STILL going to be lower when the humidity is high and the effect of clouds is removed.
      DATA from: classic(DOT)wunderground.com/history/station/82113/2012/5/22/MonthlyHistory.html

      This data would indicate GHGs have two effects. One is to even out the temperature and the second is to act as a “coolant” at least if the GHG is H2O, the most significant GHG.

      The latent heat of evaporation could be why the average is 4C lower when in Brazil vs Algeria. As one commenter mentioned, using temperature without humidity to estimate the global heat content is just plain bad physics. Also Barcelos is much near the ocean than Adrar so there may be a ‘Lake effect’ with the large body of water moderating the temperature.
      apollo(DOT)lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/lat_heat2.html

      ALTITUDE:
      Barcelos, Brazil elevation ~ 30 meters (100 ft)
      Adrar, Algeria ~ Elevation: 280 metres (920 feet)

      One would expect a drop in temperature of ~ 4C due to altitude for Adrar, Algeria so the difference between locations, taking into account altitude is ~ 8C higher in Adrar which is further north but with much lower humidity. – (wwwDOT)engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

    • Gail Combs says:

      RACookPE1978 was kind enough to

      ….duplicate below a “spreadsheet copy” of a spreadsheet I have for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 on that “average” 342 watts/meter^2 day. Remember, top-of-atmosphere radiation is going to vary over the year from 1410 (high, on January 3) to the 1320 (the “low” value on July 3 each year). This is for a day in mid-September, near that “average” value on the equinox at time of minimum Arctic sea ice extents….

      So lets add Solar energy into the picture.

      Barcelos – 0.9750° S, “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface” @ noon for 0S= 1150 watts/meter^2

      Adrar – 27.8667° N, “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface” @ noon for 30S= 970 watts/meter^2

      Adrar, Algeria for September 2012:
      monthly min 24C, monthly max 40C, monthly average 33C
      Average humidity 22% (Humidity increased through the month)
      classic(dot)wunderground.com/history/airport/DAUA/2012/9/29/MonthlyHistory.html

      Barcelos, Brazil for September 2012:
      monthly min 22C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
      Average humidity 81%
      classicDot)wunderground.com/history/station/82113/2012/9/29/MonthlyHistory.html

      There were 11 sunny days in
      Barcelos…………… Adrar
      min 22 °C………… min 24°C
      max 34 °C……………max 40 °C
      Avg 29 °C…………… Avg 33 °C
      humidity 76%……….. 22 %

      So Barcelos, with 180 watts/meter^2 extra solar energy is still ‘cooler’ than Adar by the same 4 °C.

      I wonder just how much of the GHG effect is actually the effect of latent heat of evaporation or sublimation?

    • Gail Combs says:

      What is really funny is thanks to the energy bound in the heat of vaporization, if the water vapor goes up, as demanded by the CO2 global warming conjecture, the world temperature should actually be go DOWN!!!! (And the deserts should be contracting as shown by reconstructions.)

      Africa under full glacial conditions (COLD) was over half desert or semi-desert:

      During the Holocene when the temperature was higher than today Africa was wetter and the deserts shrank. .
      8,000-7,000 14C y.a. (about 9,000-8,000 ‘real’ years ago).

      At that time it was about 2C warmer in Greenland than it is today. 9,000-8,000 ‘real’ years ago is the first temp increase at the beginning of the graph.

      So much for ‘CAGW’ causing droughts. All it would do is shift the monsoons across the Sahara region, the Arabian Peninsula, India and China but the net effect is warmer = more evaporation = more rain.

      • Henry P says:

        Hi Gail

        Actually, I figure that a large part of the current global cooling is caused/enhanced by increased clouds and clouds formation at the lower latitudes.
        As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier. .

        All of that because since 1995 the sun is getting hotter i.e. brighter [less spots] i.e less solar polar magnetic field strength i.e more of the most energetic particles released, i.e. more ozone, more N-oxides, more peroxides formed TOA, i.e. more UV, A + B, deflected off from earth.

        Note that I [had] said in my comment: “I actually tested the effect of high humidity/ (note: no clouds)”.
        You can do this experiment for yourself.
        It is important to note that I was testing the effect of the H2O gas, not the effect of H2O liquid (e.g. clouds)
        [as there is no “cloud” stage with CO2 – or is there? perhaps bonded to H2O?]

        By choosing certain places on earth and adding in clouds and cloud formation you are changing the whole scenario. Obviously you cannot compare a desert area with no clouds with an area in the tropics that has a lot of clouds.

        Interestingly enough, I have noted that minima increased considerably in Las Vegas, over the past 4 decades, where they turned a desert into an oasis. In Tandil, Argentine, where they chopped all the trees, minima dropped considerably.

        So what does that tell you?

        The increased crops and the increased greening of earth causes….?

        AGW?

        • Gail Combs says:

          “[as there is no “cloud” stage with CO2 – or is there? perhaps bonded to H2O?]”

          Actually CO2 loves water, the colder the better. Caves are formed by H2O + CO2 –> H2CO3 (carbonic acid)

          The weak acid reacts with limestone (or marble)

          CaCO3 + H2CO3 –> Ca+2 + 2(HCO3-) (calcium bicarbonate solution)

          That is a major way that CO2 high in the troposphere gets washed back to earth and recycled.

        • Henry P says:

          [at least some?] AGW
          but not measurable if you look at a large sample

        • Gail Combs says:

          I figure the Sun (variability plus Milankovitch cycle) plus water (oceans, snow, water vapor rain) with a healthy push from the moon explains most of our weather/climate.

          Another interesting idea was Willis’s The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis (It ended up as a peer-reviewed paper and not just a blog post)

          based on that I did a quicky look at afternoon rain along the east coast (USA) in the summer.

          Florida had about 20 -25 days of rain per month. Georgia, South Carolina and southern North Carolina had 20 days of rain per month. In the middle of North Carolina – between Fayetteville and Sanford east to Rocky Mount a distance of fifty miles further north, the number of rain days changed from 20/month to 10/month.

          The Sanford area to Rocky Mount is also the present “snowline” It snows regularly further north such as Raleigh or Durham and rarely further south.

        • Henry P says:

          At some stage I did check the composition of rain water because it was important to me to know. I found out that the quality of rainwater was better than that of pure de-ionsed water because of the absence of Silica.
          I remember, on average the conductivity of rainwater was about 40 uS.
          I cannot remember now exactly, but I am pretty sure that Calcium was one of the main components.

        • Bartleby says:

          “The increased crops and the increased greening of earth causes….?
          AGW?”

          It would make as much sense as CO2 causing warming. Irrigating a desert, for example the Columbia Basin of Washington, adds water to the atmosphere and that should result in warming it. I can’t see any reason to believe irrigation wouldn’t have a significantly larger impact on global temperature when compared with CO2, given it’s ability to absorb in multiple spectra?

          Good point I think?

      • Henry P says:

        Sorry
        my last comment was incoherent as calcium is not relevant to the discussion
        I remember now that I could not do the anions in the rainwater, at that lab.
        [the silica question is relevant to the final stage of the Al.anodising process]

  7. John Brehm says:

    The last newspaper article extracted for this post starts of with “Measurements taken…”. I could have sworn it read “Measurements faken….”

  8. scott says:

    The Paris accord was signed just in time to save the global warming advocates.

    In a study released in July by Valentina Aharkova shows that the sun is going into a hibernation mode and by the year 2020 earth will start to see the effects of this shut down.
    http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

    The parties who signed the Paris accord will proclaim victory for their way of thinking and want even more power to regulate things because they will claim they were proven right and have lowered the temperature of the earth, even though they will have done no such thing.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Unfortunately they will have GOTTEN the power. Worse they will have essentially ended US sovereignty if the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is ratified. Obama signed it but final ratification from Congress is next year.

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
      STEVEN NOTE this take on the Trojan Horse Trade Treaty by Ted Cruz. First he voted for fast-track, then he voted against and then after an article opposing in Breitbart, Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler told us, “Sen. Cruz remains a strong supporter of free trade and fast-track.” I sure wonder where his heart actually is on this given his wife is a member of the CFR and a VP for Goldman Sachs. http://www.cfr.org/trade/case-ttip/p36616
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      E. M. Smith has a good essay on that aspect. Paris, COP21, Obama Declares Victory, the TPP Likely Gives It To Him.

      Obama will use TPP to Enforce his Climate Agreement

      By Howard Richman, Jesse Richman and Raymond Richman

      Little appreciated in the current debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the dramatic way the TPP will abrogate legislative authority permanently from the U.S. Congress to the president. TPP creates a commission with full power to amend the agreement, and an arbitration mechanism with the strength to enforce such amendments….

      Consequently, in a post-TPP world, U.S. presidents could force almost any alteration in U.S. law simply by achieving support in the TPP commission for a U.S. specific modification to the TPP. Case in point today, Obama’s climate ambitions.

      I also looked at different aspects of this Trojan Horse trade deal. I found a Synopsis FROM THE US GOVERNMENT
      It had this nasty surprise:

      ENVIRONMENT
      As home to a significant portion of the world’s people, wildlife, plants and marine species, TPP Parties share a strong commitment to protecting and conserving the environment, including by working together to address environmental challenges, such as pollution, illegal wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, illegal fishing, and protection of the marine environment….
      They reaffirm their commitment to implement the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) they have joined. The Parties commit to provide transparency in environmental decision-making, implementation and enforcement….. Finally, the Parties commit to cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest, including in the areas of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and transition to low-emissions and resilient economies.

      THE TEETH!
      Unlike some other treaties the TPP has enforcement. Worse, as can be seen if you read between the lines it has ENFORCEMENT FOR OTHER TREATIES! The Groniad says this about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement:

      Leading arbitration lawyer, George Kahale (chairman of Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt & Mosie LLP, an international law firm) says there are critical loopholes in the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s investment chapter that leave Australia wide open:

      ….an MFN clause is tantamount to a classic wipeout move. It would enable foreign corporations from TPP states to make a claim against Australia based on the ISDS provisions in any other trade deal Australia has signed, no matter which country it was signed with. That means it does not matter how carefully the TPP is drafted: foreign investors can cherrypick another treaty Australia has signed, and sue the Australian government based on the provisions included in that treaty…..”
      http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/10/tpps-clauses-that-let-australia-be-sued-are-weapons-of-legal-destruction-says-lawyer

      Back to the US Government synopsis we find:

      DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
      The Dispute Settlement chapter is intended to allow Parties to expeditiously address disputes between them over implementation of the TPP. ….TPP Parties aim to have these disputes resolved through impartial, unbiased panels. … hearings will be open to the public unless the disputing Parties otherwise agree, and the final report presented by panels will also be made available to the public. Panels will consider requests from non-governmental entities located in the territory of any disputing Party to provide written views regarding the dispute to panels during dispute settlement proceedings.

      Should consultations fail to resolve an issue, Parties may request establishment of a panel, which would be established within 60 days after the date of receipt of a request for consultations or 30 days after the date of receipt of a request related to perishable goods. Panels will be composed of three international trade and subject matter experts independent of the disputing Parties, with procedures available to ensure that a panel can be composed even if a Party fails to appoint a panelist within a set period of time. These panelists will be subject to a code of conduct to ensure the integrity of the dispute settlement mechanism. … The final report must be presented no later than 30 days after the presentation of the initial report and must be made public within 15 days, subject to the protection of any confidential information in the report.

      To maximize compliance, the Dispute Settlement chapter allows for the use of trade retaliation (e.g., suspension of benefits), if a Party found not to have complied with its obligations fails to bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Before use of trade retaliation, a Party found in violation can negotiate or arbitrate a reasonable period of time in which to remedy the breach….

      TPP is just as bad on immigration. It sets up an EU open border type policy.

      From The Hill by former Bill Clinton advisor Dick Morris

      The TPP, generally supported by pro-free-trade Republicans but opposed by labor-union Democrats, reportedly contains a barely noticed provision that allows for the free migration of labor among the signatory nations. Patterned after similar provisions in the treaties establishing the European Union, it would override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating the free flow of labor.

      The draft treaty, now under discussion among 12 Pacific Rim nations, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and Japan, makes provision for needed labor to move across national boundaries without restraint. While much of the commentary on the deal has been focused on high-skill, white-collar migration, it could easily be interpreted as allowing farm workers and others to flow back and forth without legal regulation…..

      Curtis Ellis, executive director of the American Jobs Alliance, calls the trade deal “a Trojan horse for Obama’s immigration agenda” on The Hill’s Contributor’s blog. He notes that “one corporate trade association says bluntly that ‘The TPP should remove restrictions on nationality or residency requirements for the selection of personnel.’ ” http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/239633-dick-morris-tpp-mass-immigration

      I really hate sleazy traitorous bought and paid for politicians who have zero problem killing off or enslaving their own people.

    • Ted says:

      Ding Ding Ding… We have a winner.

      The adjustments are getting out of hand. They’ve adjusted this apparently minor El Nino into the biggest, nastiest, deadliest monster ever to lurk the Pacific, but the weather isn’t cooperating. They’ve adjusted high latitude temperatures to the point of melting both ice caps, but the ice isn’t cooperating. They got lucky with a warm summer for the eastern US. That’ll let them continue to pretend for another year or two. But at some point in the fairly near future, too many people will have noticed that the predictions haven’t panned out. The poles still have ice, the ski slopes are still open, and the crops haven’t failed. The runaway adjustments leading up to this conference strongly suggest that it was planned from the start as the one that would save us all. Over the next 10 years, or so, they’ll ramp down the adjustments, both current and past, and claim victory. But mostly, they’ll just stop talking about it, in the hope that no one digs too deeply into the details.

  9. daveburton says:

    This appears to be another attempt to find an excuse for the “the pause” in warming. NASA is saying that they’ve figured out that Chinese (mainly, I presume) power plants have put so much particulate matter into the air that it’s offset the warming effect of CO2.

    But they’re also saying that because the particulates wash out in fairly short order, and CO2 levels are expected to stay high much longer, we should expect the cooling effect of the particulates to be short term, and the warming effect of the CO2 to be long term. I.e., “It’s Worse Than We Thought.”™

    However, there are at least two problems with that theory.

    The first, which “CMS” on WUWT pointed out, is that China is in the northern hemisphere, and the cooling is happening in the southern hemisphere.

    The other, which you pointed out, is that in the 1960s and 1970s we were told that we had to clean up our particulate emissions for exactly that reason: because they were cooling the planet. We were in danger of entering another ice age, said many scientists, because of air pollution, mostly from power plants. So we put scrubbers on the power plants, and cleaned up the emissions (at great expense).

    Sure enough, the climate got warmer through the 1980s and 1990s. But these days we’re told that warming was because of GHG increases (mainly CO2), rather than particulate reduction.

    However, if the effect of particulates has been underestimated, so that “the pause” in warming is due to particulates, that would also suggest that more of the warming which preceded the pause was actually due to the reduction in particulates. I.e., it suggests that the warming effect of CO2 is overestimated, rather than underestimated.

    A paper last year by MIT’s Ben Santor (with many co-authors, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt) did an interesting exercise. They tried to “subtract out” the effects of ENSO (El Niño / La Niña) and the Pinatubo (1991) and El Chichón (1982) volcanic aerosols from measured (satellite) temperature data, to find the underlying temperature trends. Here’s their paper:

    http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054

    This graph is from his paper (here’s a bigger version):

    Two things stand out:

    1. The models run hot. The CMIP5 models (the black line) show a lot more warming than the satellites. The models show about 0.65°C warming over the 35-year period, and the satellites show about half that. And,

    2. The “pause” is over two decades long. The measured warming is all in the first 14 years. Their 3rd graph (with corrections to compensate for both ENSO and volcanic forcings) shows no noticeable warming in the last 21 years.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    Martin Smith says: “…wizz, you are deliberately ignoring the positive feedbacks….”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No, it is Mother Nature is ignoring the positive feedbacks.
    The conjecture: Water Vapor Feedback

    The actual response by the earth.

    Peer-reviewed paper Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity
    from NCEP reanalysis data

    Background
    The authors write that “water vapor feedback in climate models is large and positive,” and that “the various model representations and parameterizations of convection, turbulent transfer, and deposition of latent heat generally maintain a more-or-less constant relative humidity (i.e., an increasing specific humidity q) at all levels in the troposphere as the planet warms,” and they say that this “increasing q amplifies the response of surface temperature to increasing CO2 by a factor or 2 or more.” Consequently, knowledge of how q responds to atmospheric warming is of paramount importance to the task of correctly predicting how air temperatures respond to increasing CO2 concentrations.

    What was done
    Paltridge et al. explored this important subject by determining trends in relative and specific humidity at various levels in the atmosphere based on reanalysis data of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) for the period 1973-2007.

    What was learned
    The three researchers report that “the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes.”

    What it means
    Paltridge et al. conclude that “negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative – that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.”
    http://co2science.org/articles/V12/N40/C2.php

    Variations in the total column water vapour in the atmosphere since July 1983.

    The upper graph (blue) shows the total amount of water in the atmosphere. The green graph shows the amount of water in the lower troposphere between 1000 and 680 mb, corresponding to altitudes up to about 3 km. The lower red graph shows the amount of water between 680 and 310 mb, corresponding to altitudes from about 3 to 6 km above sea level.

    Relative Humidity

    Scatter diagram showing the total monthly global cloud cover plotted versus the monthly global surface air temperature, since July 1983. As the temperature goes up the cloud cover goes down.

    Monthly variations in total global cloud cover since July 1983

    Mother Nature WINS AGAIN!

  11. Tommy_Grand says:

    It’s inarguable that, under Obama, the US government has REVISED historical temperature data in a manner supporting the global warming (aka climate change) hypothesis. I am willing to entertain the govt’s assertion that these revisions are corrections: changes with a valid scientific basis instead of craven frauds driven by political expedience. But here’s a query for colleagues at the faculty “holiday” party: Assuming Trump or Cruz is elected president and, one year later, NASA officially reverts to 2005-2006 charts of historical temp data, will you cry politics? Will you scream “Fraud! Conspiracy!” or will you accept the “new” data as factual and revise your climate change ideas accordingly? Please be honest.

  12. DD More says:

    Not sure how to take a study who’s author is so clueless.
    Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the “complexity” of estimating future global temperatures.
    She said: “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution.

    The island arc volcanoes in and around Indonesia have been permanently degassing for thousands of years, thereby contributing significantly to the total emissions of sulfur species in that region. The hot and wet tropical weather conditions with high solar irradiation and regular daily precipitation during the wet season lead to efficient removal of oxidised sulfate by wet deposition. This is accumulated in the Indonesian peat areas, which serve as natural sponges, soaking up rain during the wet season and slowly releasing moisture into the atmosphere during the dry season. When peat forests are drained for land clearing purposes, the peat quickly dries out and becomes extremely flammable. When ignited, the composition of the burning peat mainly determines the fire aerosol chemical composition and microphysical properties. In this paper we investigate the contribution of volcanic sulfur emissions to wet deposition of sulfur in Indonesian peat swamp areas based on numerical simulations carried out with a global atmospheric circulation model including the tropospheric sulfur cycle. Our study suggests that the observed hygroscopicity and elevated sulfur content of the Indonesian peat fire aerosols is due to accumulated volcanic sulfur.
    https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_342.pdf

    Table 1: Mean fine aerosol (PM2.5) composition in ng/m3 at Palembang and Sriwijaya,
    Sumatra (November 1997) and in midlatitude industrialized cities (Teplice, Czech Republic,
    in 1993, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA in 1994). The data is taken from Pinto and Grant, 1999

    Palembang .. Sriwijaya .. Teplice.. Philadelphia

    11,000……..6,900…….10,000…….3,300….. Sulfur
    4,500……….4,600……….410………..26….. Chlorine
    1,400……….1,500……….300………..60….. Potassium

    Kate, the last time I looked peat was not considered “Fossilized”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Also peat has been burned by humans for centuries esp. in Scotland and Ireland.

    • Bartleby says:

      My guess, since Indonesia is in the southern hemisphere, is she was attempting to illustrate the “complexities” of modeling sulfate particulates in a universe that assumes they’re mostly generated by industrialized nations of the N. hemisphere? If so, it only exposes a certain chauvinism in her thinking since there are industrialized nations such as almost all of South America, Australia, large portions of India and SE Asia that are also in the S. hemisphere, more or less giving lie to the assertion.

      People who never visit Wyoming are of the impression the entire Northern Hemisphere looks like Philadelphia. I’ve seen this before.

  13. WOW
    Great stuff!!!!
    Timeline…does post represent where post is placed?
    As in last guys posted after 7PM here in Eastern Silly Time it is 3:19.0007
    According to me smarter than GSD computer.
    Have MIT brains & Yale Fails changed cloks for our betterment too/
    Gruber Time new norm?

  14. ristvan says:

    Easiest way to debunk this latest Gavin Nonsense nonscience masterpiece was half noted above. Emissions aerosols remain in the lower troposphere and wash out in a few days to weeks depending on weather. Most are produced in the NH; the short residence time means they do not reach the SH. Which means the NH should be warming LESS than the SH, since the SH doesn’t have anywhere near the NH level of ‘cooling’ aerosols. Except the NH is warming substantially MORE than SH according to both UAH and RSS. So this speculative excuse for the pause fails from first principles.
    How did it ever get through peer review with such an obvious flaw?!? That question is rhetorical, since it only got through pal review.

  15. Don says:

    My take: This paper makes their warming northern hemisphere temperature numbers look made up (which they are). Do they realize that they did this to themselves? LOL Their desperation is pathological.

  16. Latitude says:

    With all this talk about global aerosols, volcanoes, dust…..
    not one person brings up the big one……Saharan dust

    • ristvan says:

      L, a couple of observations. First, Sahara dust has rather poor albedo. Your image shows that nicely. Second, that dust is the major fertilizer of the Atlantic. Iron is a rate limiting ocean nutrient. Which means phytoplankton thrive, which means that dust increases the biological carbon sink. I would suspect carbon sink rather than albedo ‘wot done it’.

    • Latitude says:

      So you guys don’t think that dust is cooling the Atlantic…

      • Gail Combs says:

        Aside from the reflective properties of the dust, you have the iron fertilization ===> more phytoplankton ===> create organic aerosols ===> more droplets in clouds ===> cooler earth.

        Study: Tiny plankton play a big role in keeping the earth cool

        ….Recently, scientists from the University of Washington and the Pacific Northwest National Lab found that phytoplankton help reflect some of the sun’s rays back into space by changing the composition of certain clouds…. The research showed that the presence of aerosols produced by plankton increases the amount of sunlight reflected to back to space by 10 Watts per square meter….

        The researchers explained that in order for clouds to form, individual cloud droplets need to have a particle to surround. The organic aerosols from plankton are the perfect size. Assuming the cloud size and the amount of water vapor in them are the same, clouds formed with aerosols from plankton will have many more droplets, which explains their additional reflective properties.

        Humans and other plants in forests emit aerosols all the time, but the resulting clouds aren’t as reflective as the ones formed with plankton aerosols. The more reflective clouds are, the less the sun’s energy reaches our planet to warm temperatures….

      • Latitude says:

        Gail, you can keep up with how much dust we’re getting by monitoring our red tides..
        …we do

  17. Neal S says:

    The misnamed Christian Science Monitor has an online quiz about climate change. On a whim I thought I might give it a try.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2014/0827/Climate-change-Is-your-opinion-informed-by-science-Take-our-quiz/Gas

    After the third or fourth lie, I just couldn’t take it anymore. (Literally)

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yeah, I took it about a year ago. Knowing it was full of lies I managed to get 100% ‘correct.’ It is useful to know what lies the Propagandists are putting out.

      It is really ashame about The Christian Science Monitor. It was one of two papers my newspaper owning Father-in-law respected. (The other was the Wall Street Journal)

      The family is fifth generation newspaper men. Hubby’s great great grand dad probably knew Elijah Parish Lovejoy. Hubby’s great great grand dad was also a Presbyterian minister, journalist, newspaper editor and abolitionist in Alton, Illinois where Lovejoy was murdered. After the murder Hubby’s great great grand dad destroyed all his papers and letters and refused to speak of that time for fear of retaliation on his fellow abolitionists.

  18. kamas716 says:

    AGW is the magic theory. It does EVERYTHING.

    Rising temps? AGW
    Lowering temps? AGW
    Increasing polar ice caps? AGW
    Decreasing polar ice caps? AGW
    Increasing sea ice? AGW
    Decreasing sea ice? AGW
    Too much rain? AGW
    Too little rain? AGW
    More hurricanes? AGW
    Fewer hurricanes? AGW
    Stronger hurricanes? AGW
    Weaker hurricanes? AGW

    The only thing it apparently can’t do is balance the budget.

  19. ntesdorf says:

    Steve, thanks for putting up with the continual drivel pouring out of Martin Smith. It is a good thing not to censor twerps like him as they do an effective job of looking like idiots for all the Warmistas. Thanks also for dredging up all those old and very embarrassing articles to lay on the Warmistas as a reminder of their past insanities, Lastly, Steve, have a very Merry Christmas and look forward to the New Year of Warmista demolition.

  20. Jeff says:

    http://www.wunderground.com/news/christmas-week-forecast-warm-east
    Notice the number of record highs compared to the number of record lows.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Jeff.. did you know that down here in Australia, October 2015 was significantly colder than October 1988 !!

      WOW.. Global cooling !!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Further more, In Australia, November 2015 was cooler than November 1990.

      In fact, In Australia, November 1990 was the HOTTEST November in the satellite record.!

      That’s like, 25 years ago !!!

      • Marsh says:

        That’s right AndyG55 : Remember there was heavy Snow Falls in Tasmania last month coming into the Australian Summer,,, many news outlets avoided this Warming contradiction, ahead of the Paris COP-21 CONference…
        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-27/november-snow-fall-in-tasmania-just-days-ahead-of-summer/6979504
        There seems to be more of a focus on high temperatures than the low temperatures experienced around the Country. It’s almost as though, they jump to reporting such Weather / Climate highs but bias & blind to the balance of many Cooling events..!

        • AndyG55 says:

          I heard that Tassie is in quite of a lot of trouble energy wise.

          Their hydro dams are very low, and the Bass interlink is broken , and may take a month or two to repair.

          They may have to RELY on the wind farms, (Oh-no !!!! ) if they don’t get some decent rain in the west.. !!!

          They do have one old coal fired power station somewhere, but that will be very difficult, if impossible to bring back on line.

  21. Ted says:

    Jeff-

    So you’re saying this month’s unusual warmth is proof of global warming, but the previous two winters, both as anomalously cold as this month has been warm, were just random weather fluctuations. Got it. It must be easy believe in global warming, when you can simply toss out any data that doesn’t fit the theory.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Jeff Masters (Wunderground) is a serial liar.

      First the weather station near me is state of the art and went on line in April of 2001. Since we farm I usually have an Opera window open to the weather station. Over the years I notice that the temperatures for yesterday had changed. And even more interesting the data from the year before changed AGAIN.

      Here are a couple of examples from last year (2014):
      January 30 2014:
      Min Temperature 1 °F 32 °F Record: 7 °F (1977)
      That now is
      Min Temperature 1 °F 37 °F
      ……
      April 28 2014 5:35 AM 54.5 °F
      That now is
      Min Temperature 57 °F
      …………
      Max Temperature was 68 °F (Cold front with rainy weather came through)
      That now is Max Temperature 81 °F
      In other words there was NO GOOD REASON to adjust that 68 °F ===> 81 °F

      This is what I had posted a year ago so I do not call Masters a liar without ample cause!

      I have mentioned several times earlier that Wunderground (Jeff Masters) wiped out freezing temperatures and 4 to 6 inches of snow in my area that happened in the beginning of February 2013 and replaced it with temperatures just above freezing and rain.

      In 2014 I caught more “Fudging” of the data at my nearby weather station. This is a central North Carolina station and I am looking at Monthly temps 90°F and over for years, 2004 & 2010 & 2013.

      First I was keeping track of the days with highs 90°F and above last summer (2014). There was one day at 95°F and 4 days at 91°F as I mentioned several times last fall at WUWT.

      I just looked at the data again in early 2015 and low and behold there are now FIFTEEN DAYS instead of FIVE!!! Ten of those days occurred by the end of July so I would not have missed them. (see below)

      As a Lab manager of a Quality lab for decades I learned the tricks for spotting ‘Flinching’ and other telltales of data fraud. (I got fired for catching the upper level’s pet lab tech who was ‘Adjusting’ numbers so batches would pass and ship. The end result was three plane crashes and a FAA investigation.)

      One method for catching fraud is to look at the last digit and determine the count. If the data set is large enough the numbers should be equal. Since this is high temperature you would expect either equal numbers or a tapering off with more numbers at 0,1,2 3 than at 7,8,9

      There were 105 days 90 and above for the three years I looked at so that is enough data to see a trend. The data is in °F but looked funny so I also included °C.

      Temperature ———- COUNT
      (32.2 °C) 90 °F..——..6 ALL in 2013
      (32.8 °C) 91 °F..——..41
      (33.3 °C) 92 °F..——..4 ALL in 2013
      (33.9 °C) 93 °F..—–..10
      (34.4 °C) 94 °F..——..0
      (35.0 °C) 95 °F..—–..17
      (35.55 °C) 96 °F..—..10
      (36.1 °C) 97 °F..——..0
      (36.67 °C) 98 °F..—..16
      (37.2 °C) 99 °F..-..0
      (37.77 °C) 100.°F-..1

      Now that distribution is weirder than snake shoes. ALL the data for 90 °F and 92 °F is in 2013 and it just so happens to add up to the extra 10 above 90 °F that wasn’t in the same data set last year.

      If you discount the 90 °F and 92 °F from 2013 (since they just mysteriously appeared) you get
      (32.8 °C) 91 °F
      (33.9 °C) 93 °F
      (35.0 °C) 95 °F
      (35.55 °C) 96 °F
      (36.67 °C) 98 °F
      (37.77 °C) 100.°F
      32.2 °C is 90 °F where as 89 °F is 31.67 °C so that might explain the promotion of 89°F to 90°F as numbers got changed back and forth from °C to °F to °C. But it does not explain all the 96 °Fs instead of 97 °F which is 36.11 °C. As I said weird.

      As a lab manager I would be asking some very pointy little questions of anyone who reported these type of numbers over a sixth month interval.

      THIS IS THE DATA:
      April 2004 (6)…April 2010 (1)…April 2013 (0)
      2 days – 91F……..1day – 91F………(high 86F)
      4 days – 93F……………………………………..

      May 2004 (17)…May 2010 (4)….May 2013 (0)
      6 days – 91F…….4day……. – 91….. (2 days 88)
      6 days – 93F…………………………………….
      2 days – 95F…………………………………….
      1 days – 96F……………………………………
      2 days – 98F…………………………………….

      June 2004 (11)…June 2010 (18)…June 2013 (3)
      1 days – 91F…….5 day – 91F………90F – 2
      7 days – 93F……..5 days – 93F……………
      none ……………….2 days – 95F………..95 F – 1
      2 days – 96………2 days – 96F…………….
      1 days – 98F……..4 days – 98F…………….

      Jul 2004 (24)….Jul 2010 (15)…..Jul 2013 (7)
      ……………………………………………….90F – 3
      4 day – 91F 91F – 4…………91F – 1
      11 days – 93F 93F – 4………..92F – 3
      1 days – 95F. 95F – 2
      days – 96F 96F – 2
      7days – 98F 98F – 2
      ………………………….100F – 1

      Aug 2004 (12)…Aug 2010 (13)…Aug 2013 (4)
      ……………………………………………….90F – 1
      1 day – 91F 91F – 4………….91F – 2
      8 days – 93F 93F – 3………….92F – 1
      3 days – 95F 95F – 5
      0days – 96F 96F – 1

      Sept 2004 (0)…Sept 2010 (11)..Sept 2013 (1)
      0 days – 91F 91F – 5…………91F – 1
      0 days – 93F 93F – 3………..
      0 days – 95F 95F – 1
      0 days – 96F 96F – 2

  22. Allan says:

    Interesting take here.If the electrical (EM) force(s) pervade all nature at the basest of level’s , would any investigation into the climate system be best suited to be approached from there? With the entire Sun-Earth “circuit” being the framework from which all physical manifestations (Cloud/Rain/Hail/Heat/Wind etc) follow? and then can be treated as the secondary-effects which that view would relegate them to?

    ——snip——In an electric field, the water molecule will rotate to line up with the field. When it condenses in a cloud the average electric dipole moment of a water molecule in a raindrop is 40 percent greater than that of a single water vapor molecule. This enhancement results from the large polarization caused by the electric field induced by surrounding water molecules. In the atmospheric electric field the water molecules will be aligned with their dipoles pointing vertically and in a sense that is determined by the charge polarization in the cloud. It is interesting to note that the tops of storm clouds are positively charged and the base is negative. That is the reverse of the radial charge polarization within the Earth itself. And it is this charge polarization that gives rise to the low-order attractive force we call gravity. So it is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the ‘Biefield-Brown Effect,’ where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometres above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.

    Of course, this raises the issue of charge separation in clouds. The conventional ‘isolated Earth’ view is that positive and negative charge is ‘somehow’ separated by vertical winds in clouds and that this process in thunderstorms is responsible for charging up the ionosphere and causing the atmospheric electric field. But this begs the question of cause and effect. Recent high-altitude balloon flights find that charge is not built up in the cloud, it already exists in the ionosphere above. In January 2002 I argued the electric universe model:

    “Thunderstorms are not electricity generators, they are passive elements in an interplanetary circuit, like a self-repairing leaky condenser. The energy stored in the cloud ‘condenser’ is released as lightning when it short-circuits. The short-circuits can occur either within the cloud or across the external resistive paths to Earth or the ionosphere. The charge across the cloud ‘condenser’ gives rise to violent vertical electrical winds within the cloud, not vice versa.”——————————- http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-weather/

    • OrganicFool says:

      Earth as a stellar transformer – Climate change effects (EU presentation)
      Bruce Leybourne

      http://viewpure.com/QiM_gLRIuGc?start=0&end=0

      Electrical force out-powers gravity by 10^39 times (that’s a lot of zeroes)!

      I have followed the EU theories for several years, not that I understand it all that well. It has taken me quite a while to wrap my head around the physics but they do not condescend to laypeople, which I appreciate. They use old fashion natural philosophy rather than confusing science-speak. What the hell is the “space-time continuum”? “Warped space”?

      The Big Bangers claim the science is settled as well but it is being seriously challenged.

      Orthodox scientists can understand the electrical nature of the universe. Galactic currents power the stars and the solar wind. It makes far more sense than the “everything from nothing” gravitational billiard-ball theory. From this, I believe, will come important technology and more energy efficient, cleaner and safer power generation.

      Faster than light communication may also be possible (“gravitational longitudinal waves”, above my understanding but sounds plausible). We know gravity’s hold is nearly instantaneous as the sun holds only Pluto right now and there is no delay.

      What powers the center of the galaxy? The EU claims it is a simple concept, called a plasmoid. This can be replicated in the lab. The current idea of black holes are science fiction. (Nothing can escape? Only now it can, with massive jets observed from the poles).

      IMHO, the AGW and Big Bang theories are a distraction. As long as they can continue to control the debate and narrative, they will hold onto the power. We need an end-run.

      The EU theory is a serious field of study and should be given the respect it deserves as well as thoughtful debate like any other area of science. Newton wasn’t wrong but the universe is more than billiard ball mechanics. Much of Einstein’s work is being re-examined.

      Electromagnetic fields around planets and stars are now obvious. Where do they come from? The Big Bangers claim they are generated from within the body, but the EU theory has another answer. They are a result of interaction from without not only from within. Why certain planets like Venus or Mars have very weak electromagnetic fields, I can’t say. But it is said that all of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy can fit within the sun’s heliosphere!

      And it should be the most logical answer that the sun, which is a variable star with a changing EM field, would affect our climate even with small changes far more than would a .0004 atmospheric trace gas. Besides, it is well observed that CO2 increases after it warms and the Earth has gone through this many times before. If it was a runaway effect, it would have already happened, it seems to me. An increase of .0001 over 100 years will cause a major problem? Even a child could see this is illogical.

  23. ntesdorf says:

    First they deny that there has been a hiatus in temperature rise, then the prove that there are other causes for the hiatus in temperature, then they adjust the temperature record to erase the hiatus, then they return to deny that there has been any hiatus. This is what Climate Science has become, a small branch of politics.

  24. ntesdorf says:

    The Climatologists knew as little in 1971 as they do now, but their opinion has swung 180 degrees, nonetheless.
    In the future, they will have to go back to the past.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “The Climatologists knew as little in 1971 as they do now.”

      I prefer it stated the other way around.

      The Climatologists know as little now as they did in 1971.

      ie.. SFA !!!!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Actually , maybe you are correct.

      They do seem to have gone BACKWARDS.

      Negative knowledge.. so to speak.

  25. Henry P says:

    @Gail
    I lost the the thread a bit here,
    but I want to pick it up again with this graph from Gail

    It is just a pity that we cannot see the data after 2010.
    Nevertheless, it seems that there was a dip around 1997, when earth’s output was at a max.
    It [cloud cover]seems sure to rise from 2010?

  26. amirlach says:

    Another old failed alarmist loon is “predicting” dhoom! Again… LOL…
    http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

    The Guardian claims his “predictions” were consistent, they just didn’t mention they were wrong!

  27. catweazle666 says:

    amirlach: That piece is from 2008.

    Much to the fury of the Warmunists, James Lovelock has recanted and is now regarded as a heretic.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/26/newsbytes-global-warming-downgraded-james-lovelock-recants/

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s