January 5, 1927

January 5, 1927 was a remarkable day. Much of the Great Plains were over 70 degrees, and Liberal, Kansas reached 85 degrees. Temperatures in Texas reached 89 degrees. Liberal is forecast to reach 47F today, and a major cold blast by the weekend.

CO2 was 305 PPM at the time.

2016-01-05-06-44-12

About stevengoddard

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

203 Responses to January 5, 1927

    • Only Americans have permitted religious conservatives to distort the meaning. In England, Canada and Australia, liberal still means closer to laissez-faire than teetotalitarian. The American Liberal Party put relegalization of beer on its 1931 platform, so the Dems had to follow suit or lose in 1932.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Progressives soil their ‘brand’ and then have to steal another ‘brand’ with a good reputation

        Thus Fascism (which Bill Clinton whole heartily supports) becomes The Third Way. Socialism/Communism becomes Progressivism and then liberalism.

        Now they are stealing the good name of NASA build up by a generation of real scientists and engineers to hide their latest grab for power and wealth.

        Unfortunately they are very good at hiding the wolf under their latest sheepskin.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Hi Gail, Just popping by to update you with the latest data, so you can correct your files:

          Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/Solar_temp_update.html

        • Gail, our little needy troll demands your attention …

        • Jason Calley says:

          I would urge all readers to visit the link to Skeptical Science that is posted above. One of the better things to read is the small pop-up window defining “heat”. It says, “Heat — The energy transferred by an action of heat transfer.” Great circular definition! It also speaks about “the heat output of the Sun” conflating radiation (photons) and heat (kinetic energy). Most importantly it seems to think that total radiated energy received by the Earth is the only variable. It seems oblivious to the fact that when the Sun’s radiation changes how it is distributed over the spectrum, there are changes in how and where it is absorbed. “UV? IR? Visible? It’s all the same!” I am continually amazed at how narrow their understanding is.

        • Latitude says:

          Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
          ====
          they erased the pause

        • Jason Calley says:

          “they erased the pause”

          Yes, they have the known-bad chart that mixes bad data with better data. “Look! The pause is gone! All we had to do was corrupt the data!” On the other hand, the Sceptical Science crowd will never notice. They are not sceptical, and they darn sure are not scientific.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Jason, SkS write their propaganda to match the low-intellect of their main viewers.
          There is very little actual science there and what there is, ia so overpowered by their rabid propaganda beliefs as to make separating the small amount of actual science, (which is mostly low-end child-like understanding and very error prone), from the BS basically impossible.

          Its designed for people like Martin.. the child-minded, brain-dead zombie followers.

        • John Finn says:

          Most importantly it seems to think that total radiated energy received by the Earth is the only variable.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “Most importantly it seems to think that total radiated energy received by the Earth is the only variable.”

          They forget chemistry completely.

          Solar Radiation: Sources of Energy for the Earth’s Atmosphere
          (wwwDOT)nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html

          ***************************
          Solar Radiation – – Energy Flux – Solar Cycle Change – Deposited
          TSI mostly Vis & IR – 1366 W/m2 – 1.2 W/m2 – 0.1% – Surface
          MUV (200-300 nm).- – 15.4 W/m2 – 0.17 W/m2 – 1% – 15-50 km
          FUV (126-200 nm) – – 50 mW/m2 – 15 mW/m2 – 30% – 30-120 km
          EUV (0-125 nm) – – -10 mW/m2 – 10 mW/m2 – 100% – 80-250 km
          ***************************

          Ultraviolet light creates and destroys the ozone layer depending on the wavelength so the changes listed in that chart matter. A shift in the ratio will shift the amount of ozone created vs that destroyed. Ozone production is driven by UV radiation of wavelengths less than 240 nm. Ozone is a highly unstable molecule so when it absorbs low energy UV (240–310 nm) it splits into an ordinary oxygen molecule and a free oxygen atom.

          In the three decades prior to the 2009 solar minimum and the switch to a ‘quiet sun’ (1979 to 2009) the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface increased markedly. This energy would be absorbed by the oceans at depths up to 100 meters.

          NASA scientists analyzing 30 years of satellite data have found that the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface has increased markedly over the last three decades. Most of the increase has occurred in the mid-and-high latitudes, and there’s been little or no increase in tropical regions.

          …..for example, …at one line of latitude — 32.5 degrees — a line that runs through central Texas in the northern hemisphere and the country of Uruguay in the southern hemisphere, 305 nanometer UV levels have gone up by some 6 percent on average since 1979. [This is addition energy into the oceans at that latitude]

          The primary culprit: decreasing levels of stratospheric ozone….

          The study also shows that increased cloudiness in the southern hemisphere over the 30-year period has impacted UV.
          (wwwDOT)nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html

        • AndyG55 says:

          I had a link to a paper on the absorption of different frequencies of UV into sea water… darned if I can find it,😦.

          But I vaguely remember that there were big differences even in the 320-350nm range.

        • AndyG55 says:

          What that would imply would be that the spectrum changes in UV reaching the Earth can make a significant difference to ocean warming.

          Which is basically what Gail is saying.

        • saveenergy says:

          Hi Gail,
          You really shouldn’t post stuff with scientific notation, numbers & colored bits, poor Martin will be getting very confused & may get a nose bleed & it will be ALL YOU FAULT.
          You must remember he’s only used to the cartoons from the SKS Cook shop.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Dang it saveenergy, now I have to clean my keyboard and screen again.

        • Ted says:

          Martin-

          Why do you believe your cartoonist over the IPCC? Their latest report lists solar irradiance as increasing:

          Small, but definitely positive. And it’s about the only directly measurable variables in the whole climate discussion, so accuracy is exceptionally high.

        • rebelronin says:

          Martin Smith …
          when I first started reading on this subject about 2 years ago, Sks was the first site I read
          and couldn’t believe how incredibly dumb and intellectually dishonest it was.
          Sks turned me into a denier.
          No fossil fuel Koch brother propaganda was required.

          It’s really cold here today.
          I could really use some of that 3 gazillion atomic bombs of heat right about now.
          .

        • Rebel, do you think Big Oil paid SkS to turn visitors into deniers and after they showed good results to send missionaries like Martin Smith to other sites?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Ted, you have to provide a reference to your source, including a link to the graph, or at least something that allows me to check what you have posted. In this case, it certainly looks like the quantities in the graph don’t mean what you think they mean. No one is saying the sun has stopped warming the earth. It looks like your graph is showing the relative magnitudes of the forcings in watts per square meter.

        • Martin Smith says:

          rebel, I don’t know what to say but: You completely misjudged the quality of SKS. Because I have to choose between your opinion of SKS and the opinions of well respected climate scientists, like Stefan Rahmstorf and Gavin Schmidt, and statisticians like Grant Foster. Why would anyone choose to believe your opinion over theirs, especially when a quick perusal of the SKS resources proves you don’t know your ass from 3rd base?

        • gator69 says:

          … well respected climate scientists, like Stefan Rahmstorf and Gavin Schmidt…

          You mean this Gavin Schmidt? The squirming, sweating, stuttering worm that refused to debate Dr Roy Spencer? The weasel that could not stand up to a “denier” and save the planet?😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Marty.. it is your moronic dependence on climate fraud and comedy site that is SkS that makes you come across as such a moronic, ignorant, brain-washed little twit.

          And you are so, so dumb that you don’t realise it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “like Stefan Rahmstorf and Gavin Schmidt, and statisticians like Grant Foster.”

          Looks like Marty has been cleaning out a birdcage again.

        • Ted says:

          Martin-

          “Ted, you have to provide a reference to your source, including a link to the graph, or at least something that allows me to check what you have posted. In this case, it certainly looks like the quantities in the graph don’t mean what you think they mean. No one is saying the sun has stopped warming the earth. It looks like your graph is showing the relative magnitudes of the forcings in watts per square meter.”

          I’m sorry. I forgot there are children here, who need their hands held constantly. Everyone here but you recognizes that chart from IPCC AR5, WG1. It’s figure TS-07, on page 54. Of course, it helps that the rest of us have actually read the IPCC reports, instead of having the Cliff Notes read to us a cartoonist. Of course, the oval and flashing red arrow were added to get your attention, because you’ve demonstrated ad nauseam that you’re incapable of reading a basic chart.

          Do you really believe that the total energy provided by the sun is in the 0.05W/m2 range? Do you really believe that CO2 warms the earth 33 times as much as THE SUN? Is that really what you’re trying to tell us, you blithering idiot? The chart is showing the CHANGE in the amounts of each forcing, from 1750 to 2011. Note that, while small, the number for solar irradiance is positive. For those of you too stupid to understand three syllable words, positive means “bigger.”

          You’re making a fool out of yourself. Either read SOMETHING, or shut the fuck up.

        • Martin Smith says:

          >Do you really believe that the total energy provided by the sun is in the 0.05W/m2 range?

          No, Ted, I don’t. That;’s why I asked you to provide a proper reference for your graph. I can’t determine what the graph represents. You simply can’t expect me to take your word for anything after your ad hominem attacks in your replies to me. Until you provide a proper source reference for your graph, it remains meaningless.

          This graph proves your claim is wrong: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Solar_temp_update.html
          It provides proper link references to its data sources, so you can fact check it yourself. Do you see the difference? My source can be validated, you don’t even provide a source.

        • Ted says:

          Martin-

          So my claim stands. You’ve just explicitly rejected the IPCC as a reference source. I even told you the page the chart is on. I’m not aware of any way to link to it directly, as it’s in a PDF. You can download the PDF here:
          http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
          It’s in the technical summary, 18.1MB.

          Calling you a blithering idiot is not an ad hominem attack, when you’re STILL blithering.
          READ THE FUCKING MATERIAL BEFORE YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT IT SAYS.

          I’m by no means the biggest fan of the IPCC, but I still trust their reports more than I trust your SKS cartoonist. Where, exactly, is HE getting his information? Are you telling us he’s calling the IPCC liars too? Or are you just completely lost regarding what your cartoonist actually says, AGAIN? Can you at least try to get your own story straight?

      • gator69 says:

        It was progressives who called themselves liberal, that started this mess. Just look up the Fabian coat of arms, and you will see what I mean. It was the religious of this country that created our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

        • Latitude says:

          control the language

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thats why I posted the Fabian coat of arms below gator. It certainly should give anyone with a thinking brain pause. Unfortunately that leaves out about 80% of the population…

        • RAH says:

          Change is not necessarily progress and that simple concept is one which apparently lost on many.

          Here is a nice speech concerning the recent goings on in Oregon from Tiffany Taylor, a Constitutional Lawyer. If the so called “liberals” and “progressives” were truly about empowering the people they would agree with every word this woman says but in fact they are opposed to about every concept she lays out here.

      • “Only Americans have permitted religious conservatives to distort the meaning.”

        Huh? Gail and Gator beat me to it, oiltranslator.

        Yours is a novel view that I haven’t heard before and I’m afraid you will not find many self-identified libertarians among the commenters here who share it.

        The Progressives, Socialists, Commies and other assorted pinkos stole the term “liberal’ when their original names became detested by too many Americans. They similarly subverted the English language with the corruption of dozens of other key terms.

        Their opponents, including religious conservatives, can be at most blamed losing the battle of language but certainly not for this assault on language, reason and common sense.

        Many years ago a Denver paper printed this headline:

        “Colorado Senate Liberals Oppose Liberalized Gun Law”

        Unless there was a provocateur at the paper that used the headline to highlight the lie of Leftists calling themselves “Liberals” it was a typical “liberal” MSM writer who didn’t even get the irony and certainly didn’t use the term to please religious conservatives.

        Here is what I wrote about last year:
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/learning-to-be-a-wind-farm-promoter/#comment-490734
        ——————————

        I agree with gator. Outside of the U.S. and American English, “liberal” still retains some of its original “classical liberal” meaning (though eroding under our bad influence).

        In my experience the speakers of a language can never fully reclaim a word that has been misappropriated or hijacked but it is still a good idea to not give the collectivist Left the benefit of the “liberty” context. They are some of the most illiberal people I know and our liberties have been methodically hollowed out by them.

        One of my favorite newspaper quotes is from a Denver newspaper way back in the 90s:

        “Colorado Senate Liberals Oppose Liberalized Gun Law”

        “Progressive” has its own problems, of course, because normal people don’t associate totalitarian carnage and oppression with “progress” but I don’t believe it’s worth the fight. Obama and his troops polluted “change” and “progress” enough to damage what was left of the word. Besides, I expect they will be relabeling themselves at some point, anyway. They always do.

        Leftist, socialist, collectivist, totalitarian, and Commie or Nazi asshole are all good with me.

        —–

        liberal (adj.) “generous,” also, late 14c., “selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant,” and, early 15c., in a bad sense “extravagant, unrestrained,” from Old French liberal “befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous” (12c.), from Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man”

        http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal

        liberty (n.) “free choice, freedom to do as one chooses,” from Old French liberté “freedom, liberty, free will” (14c.), from Latin libertatem (nominative libertas) “freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint; permission,” from liber “free” (see liberal)

        http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberty

        • Edits:
          … can be at most blamed for losing the battle of language
          … what I wrote about it last year

        • Gail Combs says:

          I normally call them Progressives or Fabians.

          No matter what you call them. They are wolves hiding under the sheepskin of ‘kindly motives’

          From this window

          It was installed at the London School of Economics with great fanfare, British Prime Minister Tony Blair officiating and Bill Clinton in attendance.

          It was designed by Fabian Society co-founder George Bernard Shaw. It shows Sidney Webb and Shaw striking the Earth with hammers smashing it to “REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART’S DESIRE,” a quote from Omar Khayyam. The wolf in a sheepskin can be seen as the Fabian crest hovering above the globe

        • Gail Combs says:

          Is that Martin Smith third from the right on his knees on the bottom of the window?

        • RAH says:

          Why don’t we just call them WTF they really are? SOCIALISTS! And there are a considerable number of so called Republicans that are exactly that also. I’m so tired of them using BS tags like “Liberal” or “Progressive” when they are NEITHER.

          They are SOCIALISTS plain and simple and anyone that would take the trouble to actually look the terms up in a dictionary would see that.

          They are neither tolerant nor accepting of other views and so are most certainly not liberal. They do not support individual freedom unless it has to do with sexual subjects or abortion. They in fact do everything they can to instituted policies which give more power to the government over the individual in almost every realm and will ethically debase every institution that stands in the way. For example a true progressive would be a staunch backer of the scientific method. A true progressive would fight to prevent a level of debt that is damaging to the nation and it’s citizens. A true progressive would actually define political progress as that which allows the individual the greatest freedom to meet their potential to better themselves and contribute to the advancement and success of their society and demand that individuals given that opportunity strive to contribute and not just appease the masses by throwing the occasional loaf of bread as these people do.

        • gator69 says:

          A good friend of mine was once fooled by the progressives, and he said to me, “I’m for progress”. Then I explained they do not call themselves progressives because they want progress, they call themselves progressive because they are progressing towards a goal of socialism. Progressives brought us Prohibition, they have been around since the Civil War, and their ideas are anything but new.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Here is Fabian Socialism aka Progressivism straight from the pen of one of the co-founders. This is what the Socialists/Progressives/Democrats are ‘progressing towards’ — a completely enslaved world population.

          This the Wolf hiding under the sheepskin that Martin Smith is so busy defending. — You reading this Marty? Is this the world you really really crave?

          “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

          Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.
          ……

          “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

          George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

          Sure sounds like slavery to me with no hope of being a free person.

          Here is Shaw praising Hitler.

          And don’t forget the Eugenics part that is also embraced with enthusiasm by the Webbs, the other co-founders of the Fabian Society.

          From the Groniad no less: Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet, Socialism’s one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable

          Again from Shaw

          “We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

          A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

          Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.

          And yes Eugenics is still the goal. (Hillary Clinton’s heroine, Margaret Sanger was all for exterminating blacks and the unfit.)
          UK Doctor Admits To Starving Babies To Death, Using ‘End-Of-Life’ Care

          Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice pediatric nurse, … wrote: “The parents feel coerced, at a very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live. It is very difficult to predict death. I have seen a ‘reasonable’ number of children recover after being taken off the pathway.”

          “I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die.”

          Lloyd goes on to describe the death of a young cancer patient on a death pathway plan: “I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonist for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.”

          And if you think the Liverpool Care Pathway is just in the UK think again.
          Jane M. Orient, M.D.

          …Medicare is also making it increasingly difficult for Medicare patients to get tests, consultations, oxygen or other home-health items, or medications prescribed by a non-Medicare doctor, sometimes even if the patient is willing to pay privately. …

          Medicare does offer some fine new “benefits”—such as paying for “end-of-life” counseling. And why do you need that?

          Death is something that could happen to anyone at any moment. If you have obligations or assets, you need to provide for your survivors. Medicare counseling, however, is not about life insurance, wills, or funeral arrangements—or about making peace with your family or God. It’s about reducing the cost of your care. The most expedient way to do that is to use “end” as a verb.

          These days you can no longer assume that a hospital will seek to prolong your life and restore you to the healthyou enjoyed before you fell ill. It is much easier for the hospital if you give them permission ahead of time not to try. The purpose of the “advance directive” is to decline “life-sustaining treatments”—such as food and water.
          http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/article/if_you_like_your_medicare_you_can_keep_your_medicare/

          Withhold food and water, sound familiar?

          Now think of Obamacare with its panels who will decide what medical treatment you are ALLOWED. Yes ALLOWED. Our doctor wanted to have certain tests done on my husband but the directive from on high said NO! A directive from someone who never met or even knows my husband’s name and isn’t even a doctor. It is called the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

          Welcome to the Socialist Utopia where the slogan is:
          Kittens. Puppies, Babies? Whats the difference. We Kill them all!

        • lectrikdog says:

          {liberal (adj.) “generous,” also, late 14c., “selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant,” and, early 15c., in a bad sense “extravagant, unrestrained,” from Old French liberal “befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous” (12c.), from Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man”} + {re·tard
          verb, riˈtärd/ 1. delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.
          “his progress was retarded by his limp”} = “Libtard”😉

      • John Finn says:

        Jason Calley writes

        Most importantly it seems to think that total radiated energy received by the Earth is the only variable.

        So you are basically saying that TSI on its own cannot explain climate fluctuations on earth which is interesting because most of the solarphiles claim there is a correlation between TSI (or TSI proxies) and various cool/warm periods in earth’s history. I don’t think there is one. I think the solar/climate link is bunkum. You also appear sceptical.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Variation in solar wavelength matters along with other variables. Constant TSI is just a red herring tossed out to divert the lazy brain dead couch potatoes from thinking about the sun as a climate driver. SEE: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

          Changes in UV/EUV which turns out to be highly variable, effects the chemistry of the Atmosphere causing changes in NOx and Ox.

          Ozone changes the temperature of the stratosphere

          ….NASA scientists analyzing 30 years of satellite data have found that the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface has increased markedly over the last three decades. Most of the increase has occurred in the mid-and-high latitudes, and there’s been little or no increase in tropical regions…

          The study also shows that increased cloudiness in the southern hemisphere over the 30-year period has impacted UV.
          (wwwDOT)nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html

          So more UV hit the surface which is 70% water and heated the oceans at dept.

          Sept. 23, 2008: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low
          “The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s,” says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. “This is the weakest it’s been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago.”
          http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/

          If the Solar Wind drops the cosmic rays increase ===> increase clouds?

          As Dr. Joan Feynman et al said

          … The implication is that the geomagnetic minimum between cycles 23 and 24 (in -.•2007) will not exceed that of the 1996 geomagnetic minimum(18.6 nT) which itself was slightly lower than the 1987 aa minimum (19.0 nT), and that the underlying trend in solar irradiance will continue to be fiat or downward. As of this writing it appears that the average aa value for 1997 will be even lower (-.•16nT) than that of 1996….

          Such a leveling off or decline of the long-term solar component of climate change will help to disentangle its effects from that of anthropogenic greenhouse warming .
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL00499/pdf

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey John Finn! “So you are basically saying that TSI on its own cannot explain climate fluctuations on earth which is interesting because most of the solarphiles claim there is a correlation between TSI (or TSI proxies) and various cool/warm periods in earth’s history.”

          I am probably guilty of being a bit too brief on my comment above; I was referring specifically to the linked article and how it was pointing out a relatively constant TSI without even mentioning that there are variations in how that radiation is proportioned among the various wavelengths. But to answer your question, no, I do not think that TSI on its own can explain climate fluctuations. TSI is part of the reason but not all of it. I do see a correlation between TSI and climate, but there is nuance involved. It is really easy for any of us to fall into the habit of false dichotomies; “the cause is X or the cause is Y.” The truth (as near as I can tell!) is much more complicated. Climate is influenced by TSI, and by solar radiation distribution, and by CO2, and by H2O, and by solar magnetic field, and by cosmic rays, and by tidal forces (both solar and lunar), and by solar wind changes associated with sunspots, and by axial precession, and by precession of Earth’s perihelion, and by plate tectonics, and by ocean salinity, and by biological effects of plankton and land plants, and by ocean current changes, and by volcanic eruptions, and thermal inertia of the oceans, and cloud variations, and overall albedo changes, and, and… The list can go on and on.

          The climate of Earth is perhaps the most complex system that we poor humans have ever tried to figure out. To make matters even more difficult, we are dealing with a system which we know is chaotic — so long term changes are simply not predictable, even if they are deterministic. We know that there are some climate states that are more stable and more common than others, but there is no way to be certain what is going to happen. There are, no doubt, some causes that are much, much more important than others. TSI (and spectral changes) and solar magnetic fields seem like a big ones. I think that lunar influences and tidal effects are really important as well. The big question is “what about CO2?” In my opinion, probably not so big. If our planet did not have such a huge amount of water in the atmosphere, then CO2 would be much more important. As it is, the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is about 2 orders of magnitude greater than the CO2 and there is a large overlap in their respective absorption lines — meaning the while CO2 may be important once you get above the troposphere, down here on the surface, it is pretty well overwhelmed by H2O and convection.

          Well, those are my thoughts on it. I hope that clarifies what it looks like to me, anyway.

        • John Finn says:

          Gail Combs

          You’ve linked to 2 studies – one of which is nearly 18 years – both of which rely on obsolete solar data. Leif Svalgaard and colleagues have provided compelling evidence using multiple lines of evidence that the sunspot count in previous centuries (including the early 20th century) was significantly under-estimated. Basically the mid-20th century solar activity was not appreciably different to that in the mid-19th and mid-18th centuries.

          Even leaving those issues aside, We’ve had the best part of 20 years since Jane Feynman’s statement about the decline in solar activity helping to disentangle the solar effects from ghg effects. The solar effect appears to be very little.

          Incidentally could you link the cosmic ray count (Oulu). We’ve seen some increase in CRs but no reduction in global temperature. To the contrary, there is a fair chance both UAH and RSS will measure record highs in the coming year.

          Gail, congratulations you’ve managed to include every crackpot solar theory into a single comment. .

        • Gail Combs says:

          Speaking of Crackpots Finn….

          WOW, What a GREAT Argument from Intimidation!
          (Notice that he can not actually refute what I have said or more importantly what Ilya G. Usoskin of the Geophysical Observatory Oulu unit says BACKED by verification from different data sets.)

          As far as Svaalgaard goes, he is from the same University of that crackpot Paul Ehrlich known for his 100% record of being wrong. However Ehrlich and Svaalgaard have nothing to do with science or being right. It is ALL about supporting the Cause™

          “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution… democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.” — Christiana Figueres, disciple of Al Gore, and Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention

          The solar data set was the only outstanding data set that had not been tampered with.

          The Revisionists diddled with the ice core and historic CO2 measurements to get rid of pre-industrial ice core measurements from whole crushed ice that indicated that CO2 concentrations were up to 2450 ppm and wet chemistry historic measurements had values up to 550 ppm. link

          The Revisionists diddled with the temperature record to lower the past temperatures and increase the present temperatures as Tony Heller, E.M. Smith, Verity Jones, Frank Lanser, Jo Nova and many many others have shown.

          The Revisionists diddled with the sea level data as I and Steve case and many peer-reviewed papers show.

          And now L.S. and his buddies have finally gotten around to diddling with the solar record to squash it flat.

          Seems the Revisionists know darn well IT’S THE SUN STUPID! and are doing their darndest to hide the fact.

          A History of Solar Activity over Millennia. Does a nice job of refuting the solar revisionists.
          As does the New paper confirm[ing] the Sun was particularly active during the latter 20th century “The authors (M. Lockwood, L. Barnard, H. Nevanlinna, M. J. Owens, R. G. Harrison, A. P. Rouillard, and C. J. Davis) strongly object to the solar activity reconstruction of Svalgaard and Cliver, as well as Svalgaard’s criticisms of their paper as a reviewer” (2013) Looks like I am in good company.

          And even funnier in August 9, 2014 Svalgaard has revised his reconstruction of sunspot observations over the past 400 years from 1611-2013. and shows the sun, along with the oceans, controls the temperature. (Snicker)

          Solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard has revised his reconstruction of sunspot observations over the past 400 years from 1611-2013. Plotting the “time integral” of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard’s data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing through and after the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. After a ~30 year hiatus, accumulated solar energy resumes a “hockey stick” rise for the remainder of the 20th century, followed by a decline beginning in 2004, all of which show remarkable correspondence to the HADCRU3 global temperature record…
          The time integral of solar activity plus ocean oscillations [which are also driven by solar activity] can explain 95% of climate change over the past 400 years.

          Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96

        • John Finn says:

          ” However Ehrlich and Svaalgaard have nothing to do with science or being right. It is ALL about supporting the Cause™ ” .

          I can’t speak for Ehrlich who I believe is generally wrong but, I do know for a fact that Svalgaard DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED GHG MECHANISM for global warming.

          The problem with you people is you think that anyone who doesn’t support your disproven, outdated notions on a solar/climate link must, by default, be a proponent of CAGW. In fact, you’ll get a lot of support from warmers for a strong solar effect since they rely on it to explain the pre-1940 warming. The old solar reconstructions offer more support to their side of the argument than they do for the sceptics.

          The solar link is a busted flush. Solar activity peaked in the mid-20th century and has been in decline since at least 1991 (25 years). Temperatures have not declined since 1991. No doubt you’ll bring up the lag. That’ll be the lag that started off at 3 years but now appears to extend to anything up to 50 years.

          Several years ago James Annan (a warmer) bet 2 Russian solar scientists $10000 that the mean temperature for 2012-2017 would be warmer than for 1998-2003. The Russians predicted 2012-2017 would be colder. They are going to be badly wrong. It’ll be that ‘lag’ again. The “lag” that didn’t show up when the “clear” correlations between solar activity and climate were being analysed.

          Airy-fairy nonsense.

        • gator69 says:

          Annan made a bet in 2011 with Doctor David Whitehouse that the Met Office temperature would set a new annual record by the end of the year. Annan was declared to have lost on January 13, 2012.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager

          And of course it all boils down to who does the “measuring”.

        • Jason Calley says:

          It is difficult to look at comparisons of raw data versus adjusted data without remembering the famous quote usually attributed to Stalin: “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

        • gator69 says:

          It is much, much more than a safe bet that the grantologists will make it appear that the globe is continuing to warm. It’s like betting that Baptists will still be Christians in five years. That anyone would take these bets seriously is actually quite amusing.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Betting on an annual average global temperature (a statistic about a statistic about a statistic about…) is a dangerous thing to do if you are relying on something like GISS (especially GISS) for an answer. How about this, gator? Let’s bet $20 a toss on a series of coin tosses. Oh, and by the way, you can toss the coin, but I am the only one who gets to look at it and report the results. What could be more fair? 🙂

        • gator69 says:

          Or you could take another page from the alarmist handbook, and wait until after the flip to claim that whatever side came up was what you had predicted all along. Heads you win, tails I lose.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Finn, you believe what a grantologist like Svaalgard says??

          The New York Times: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

          By RICHARD A. MULLER JULY 28, 2012

          Berkeley, Calif.

          CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

          My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project….

          “I was never a skeptic” – Richard Muller, 2011

          “If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008

          “There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2006

          “Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003″

          So there is Richard Muller, lying and SAYING he is a skeptic.

          SO explain to me again WHY I should believe that Svalgaard, who ONLY shows up at WUWT to bash anyone who says the sun influences climate, is not a grantologist, guarding that aspect of the CAGW fairy tale. Just as Englebeen ONLY shows up at WUWT to defend the CO2 record and Zeke Hausfather shows up at WUWT to defend the temperature record.

          Svalgaard just not as stupid as the others who leave foot prints all over the internet.

        • John Finn says:

          Finn, you believe what a grantologist like Svaalgard says??

          What a ridiculously idiotic rant which seems to involve a gripe against Richard Muller who has far as I can recall hasn’t been mentioned before in this thread.

          I believe whatever the evidence tells me to believe. Svalgaard’s evidence for a relatively invariant sun is compelling. He cites several lines of evidence which are impossible to argue against.

          Similarly, Ferdinand Engelbeen’s position on CO2 levels is faultless. I believe there are still some people who think the higgledy piggledy Beck reconstruction which uses CO2 readings from all sorts of divers locations is valid. It’s quite laughable really.

          I’m not familiar with everything that ZekeH has done but I’ve no reason to doubt his reconstruction of the temperature record. Do you? and if so could tell us what it is and produce your own reconstruction.

          Your freely toss around the term “fraud” when you’ve actually no idea what you’re on about. Apparently, anyone who disagrees with your world view is guilty of fraud.

          I’ve been looking at the subject of climate change for more than 10 years and I can only think of 2 cases which I would describe as deliberately misleading, i.e.

          1. The Hockey-Stick. In 2004 on the Realclimate blog I challenged Michael Mann about the use of the thermometer record readings for the last few decades of the reconstruction. In other words I was probably the first person to raise the issue of the “hide the decline”
          2. Don Easterbrook’s nonsensical projections of future temperature change due to a cool PDO since 1999. As far as I can tell, Easterbrook grafted the satellite anomalies on to the surface temperature anomalies to support his PDO driven cooling projections.

          I am what you might call a true sceptic – unlike most others who comment on these blogs.

        • gator69 says:

          Wow! A whole ten years, you must know everything.

          Some of us actually studied climatology at major universities 30+ years ago, and have been studying ice ages for 40+ years.

          No wonder you buy Zeke’s garbage.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, it is pretty obvious that Finn has never heard of ‘Controlled Opposition’ and has a real big appetite for porcine, bovine and caprine feces. It is also obvious he didn’t look at the links or realize Muller, who conned Anthony Watts, is just another example of the lying conmen that surround and infest WUWT.

          If he has ‘studied’ CAGW for 10 years it has been at the feet of such people as Mikey Mann and done with blinders. However I think he is just another Muller. A Propagandist masquerading as a sort of skeptic. The Good Lord knows the internet is littered with them.

          ” Ferdinand Engelbeen’s position on CO2 levels is faultless. I believe there are still some people who think the higgledy piggledy Beck reconstruction which uses CO2 readings from all sorts of divers locations is valid. It’s quite laughable really.

          I’m not familiar with everything that ZekeH has done but I’ve no reason to doubt his reconstruction of the temperature record. Do you?”

          My goodness you are unbelievable!
          Ferdinand Engelbeen’s position is NOT faultless. I have poked holes in his position, Richard Courtney has poked holes in it, Lucy Skywalker, David Middleton, Anna V, to name a few lay people not to mention Dr Glassman who calls Engelbeen ‘a gadfly’ Dr. Segalstad, Dr Jaworowski, and Dr. Hartmut Frank among others have shown Engelbeen to be chuck full of B.S. What Engelbeen is good at is twisting words not communication of actual science.

          As Far as Zeke Hausfather goes, I have torn his reasons for ‘adjustments’ to shreds here at Steven Goddard’s a number of times as has Steven. So yes, do have SEVERAL reasons to doubt BEST and I did not take Steven’s word for it I did my own digging and uncovered so much muck I needed hip boots.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gail! You’re falling behind! This isn’t like you. Did you run out of graphs?

          Let’s go! chop chop!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “To the contrary, there is a fair chance both UAH and RSS will measure record highs in the coming year. ”

          Sorry little Finn,

          But the El Nino looks like it is subsiding…..

          So there is very high probability that your comment will make you look like a fool.

          Do you post on SkS and get your comments passed without “adjustments”?

          That would explain things.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Gail! You’re falling behind! This isn’t like you. Did you run out of graphs? ”

          Yet another SERIOUSLY MORONIC post from the goreboy.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Marty, I had something much more important to do that try to stuff information in your head — shovel sheep shit.

          And horse.

  1. omanuel says:

    Thanks for this reminder of the natural variability of weather in the great plains.

  2. scott allen says:

    It is 19 degrees in New York, which is 20 degrees below average.

    Where is Betty Midler to complain about global warming

    And according to accu weather it is projected to be 15 to 20 below normal all of January

    • Gail Combs says:

      I really really did not want to hear that. The first of my lamb crop was born a couple days ago. At least lambs do better in the cold than goat kids do. The goats are VERY unhappy with this switch from the 60s to below freezing. I worry about pneumonia with a major temp switch like that.


      UNHAPPY


      HAPPY

      • ristvan says:

        Gail C, the above goats plus the stained glass window prove that you are much more erudite than I had assumed. Highest regards, despite your previous erroneous rant against me personally. Forgiven, as you had obviously not read my 3 ebooks.
        My milk cows get similarly unhappy when Wisconsin winters turn bad. Which is why we have built huge cow sheds over the last decade as we expanded, with roll down drapes if it gets really bad. Which it always does, sometimes. Milking 150, maintaining twice that ( given lactic rotation), plus another 100-150 steers depending on price/age. Right now we are selling steer calves at 2 days old, $450 each, to rebuild depleted Nebraska beef herds. You want a dairy hefer for Texas, fugettaboutit.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The South Dakota blizzard of October 2013 that wiped out 75,000 head certainly didn’t help the livestock industry any. The article said at least 5 percent of the roughly 1.2 million cattle in the western third of South Dakota likely perished. It started with heavy rain soaking the animals and then switched to snow. Some areas recorded almost 5 feet. For livestock that is a real killer. Even for woolly sheep.

          We have sheds for all our animals even though we are in mid North Carolina and rarely get snow. It is the 32F with rain/sleet and a high wind that I worry about. Also the switch from 60F down to 20F (the temp now.) At least it is not raining.

          If I was abrupt and sarcastic it is because I am very worried that the criminal in DC are going to wipe out the USA as a country and so many only look at the goodies being handed out or the fear being whipped up and never see past the current.

          By the by did you ever read:
          Shielding the Giant: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s `Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy

          History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job

          And E.M. Smith’s
          “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism”

          Those three changed my opinion of the US government and our representatives especially when my Senator, Bob Burr, deliberately lied saying he did not support the Food Safety Modernization Act to get my vote and then turned around and co-sponsored the bill that hands control of US agriculture to the World Trade Organization.

  3. AndyG55 says:

    OT, but the number of fools opting to pay extra from “green energy” in Australia is dropping sharply.

    Green Energy really is a waste of time, and a detriment to society and the environment.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/australians-dont-want-to-pay-more-for-green-power-what-was-a-pitiful-1-of-the-grid-shrank-by-half/#comment-1776097

    • Gail Combs says:

      The rank and file in the USA are not about to haul out their wallets either. (Only 26% are willing to pay $300/year or more and only 6% ready to spend $1,000 and up.) But it does look like the constant bath of propaganda is having an effect.

      June 04, 2015 Are Voters Willing To Pay to Combat Global Warming?

      …41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually….

      This is the typical YOU have to change not me mentality seen in progressives.
      April 22, 2015 Americans Still Unwilling To Save Environment With Their Wallets

      This Earth Day, Americans still see a need for big lifestyle changes to protect the environment, but very few think that’s likely to happen, especially if it costs them more money….
      51% of American Adults believe major lifestyle cutbacks are necessary in order to save the environment. That’s up from 47% a year ago and back to the level measured in April 2010. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and say major lifestyle cutbacks are not necessary….

      August 13, 2015 …voters still put job creation ahead of the fight against global warming and don’t blame their fellow Americans for worrying about the economy first.

      Looks like the switch in propaganda tactic is working…
      May 09, 2014 Fifty percent (50%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe global warming is causing more extreme weather events in this country,Thirty-five percent (35%) disagree

      On the good news side, US voters think banning free speech is a no-no and that Obama should not go around Congress.
      July 09, 2014 Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

      Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.

      Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over…. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree…

      The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations. But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban…

      42% believe the media already makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is. Twenty percent (20%) say the media makes global warming appear better than it really is, while 22% say they present an accurate picture. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

      ….. an improvement from February 2009 when 54% thought the media makes global warming appear worse than it is. Unchanged, however, are the 21% who say the media presents an accurate picture…

      even among those voters who consider global warming a Very Serious problem, 57% say the debate is not yet over. These voters by a 49% to 34% margin also oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics….
      Twenty-seven percent (27%) of voters in President Obama’s party think the scientific debate about global warming is over, a view shared by only 12% of GOP voters and 16% of unaffiliateds….

      Men and those over 40 are more skeptical of the media’s coverage of global warming than women and younger voters are…

      … (59%) say the federal government should only do what the president and Congress jointly agree on.

      I like Rasmussen Reports because they use to make the questions available and I never saw any shading of the questions to get the ‘right answers’. Now you have to be a Platinum Member, ( $20/mo or $200/yr) but in a tightening economy I can’t blame them.

  4. eliza says:

    Massive cold waters in the southern waters and a large blob of cold water south of the el nino?
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur

    • Gail Combs says:

      Interesting the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is 2 to 4 C below normal.

      The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is the current that I think is a main driver of weather. In this map you can see how it influences all the ocean basins.

      The amazing Antarctic Circumpolar Current “…The world’s oceans all converge into one circular channel which drives the meridional overturning circulation mixing oceanic global water….”

      Interesting charts of El Niño going back to 1867 (Click on charts for expanded view.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Come to think of it that 2015-16 El Niño is looking rather anemic considering all that cold water surrounding it.

      January 2016

      Here is the 1997-98 El Niño
      World Meteorological Organization

      NOAA

  5. AndyG55 says:

    UAH Global for December is now in, +0.44, up a bit as expected from the El Nino

    2015 ends up in THIRD place below 1998 and 2010.

    What 2016 does will depend totally on how long the El Nino lasts, and how much effect it has.

    Some are predicting the “spike” in Jan, Feb, Mar, then a decrease,
    others are suggesting it will be longer but flatter El Nino

    Whatever happens, by the end of 2016, the following La Nina should be starting to bite.

    Next winter could be quite chilly for you northerners. !!

    I hope your electricity supply systems can cope
    (especially UK, which I think could be in real trouble.)

  6. John Finn says:

    Next winter could be quite chilly for you northerners. !!

    But probably still warmer than the 1987 El Nino year.

  7. Alf says:

    Are the lapse rates different in this El Niño? Seems like we are getting a lot of snow at higher elevations unlike other El Niño years.

    • AndyG55 says:

      It does seem to be pumping a lot of moisture into the atmosphere, that is for certain.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Despite the claims of WARMEST EVAH! The snow cover is up compared to the 1980s – 90s and similar to the last few winters. People forget it is snowy winters and cool summers that cause glaciation and it does not snow much if it gets too cold. Think Antarctica, the driest continent on earth.

      Those meridional (loopy) jets really help generate that snow cover by mixing warm moist air from the tropics with cold air from the pole generating the blizzards that dump 5, 6, 7 feet of snow in one storm.

      For example Italy captured the world’s one day snow fall record twice this last winter in March TWICE.
      240cm (7.84 ft) in Pescocostanzo
      256cm (8.34 ft) of snow Capracotta
      During that storm, 10 feet (3 meters) of snow fell on Passolanciano, Majella Italy burying the chairlifts .
      Not far away, the Greek islands in the Mediterranean were buried under 6½ ft (2 m) of snow in January. In Norway they were forced to remove excessive snow from ski slopes –
      “During the last two days we’ve got more snow than we had in the last two years together,” said Vegar Sårheim. “I had never believed we would experience this.”
      Last fall Buffalo NY also had record snow of over 7 feet from one storm. Almost as much as they get in an entire winter and like Boston still had snow hanging around eight months later

      OCTOBER 2015

      NOVEMBER 2015

      December is not available yet.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    AndyG55 says: …I had a link to a paper on the absorption of different frequencies of UV into sea water… darned if I can find it,…
    >>>>>>>>>

    This?
    http://www.klimaatfraude.info/oceaanopwarming-of-zeespiegelstijging-door-co2-is-niet-mogelijk_193094.html

    in wayback Machine
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150328135430/http://www.klimaatfraude.info/oceaanopwarming-of-zeespiegelstijging-door-co2-is-niet-mogelijk_193094.html

    It mentions Wieliczka, Weng & Querry (Appl. Opt. 28, 1714-1719, 1989)

    • Gail Combs says:

      Goes along with Icelandic glaciers to expand for the first time in over 20 years?

      Jun 29 2015
      …20-30% more snow means larger glaciers according to Þorsteinn Þorstinsson, a glacierologist at the Icelandic Meteorological Office 2015 might be the first year since the mid-90s that all of the Icelandic glaciers do not shrink…. the heavy snows this winter… mean that the central highlands remain largely closed to traffic as roads are still impassable….

    • Robertv says:

      “the temperature in 2015 was above the average of the years 1961-1990.”

      You wonder why they would use 1961 – 1990 average temperature.

      https://www.google.nl/search?q=world+average+temperatures&biw=1104&bih=673&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir3LiHgpXKAhUKPxQKHRkIBVwQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1#tbm=isch&q=giss+reykiavik&imgrc=5qg1TQbgT–b6M%3A

      • Gail Combs says:

        From the much mangled data set published by, the National Center for Atmospheric Research | University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

        Global average temperature since 1880. This graph from NOAA shows the annual trend in average global air temperature in degrees Celsius, through December 2013. For each year, the range of uncertainty is indicated by the gray vertical bars. The blue line tracks the changes in the trend over time. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Image courtesy NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.)

        BOY did they squash that 1940s blip FLAT!
        ” So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. — Tom Wigley 28/09/2009

        • Jason Calley says:

          That quote is one of the smoking guns of fraud. Not incompetence…fraud! Of course the CAGW faithful will literally not see anything wrong with it, because they are already so imbued with certainty that they just see it as correcting bad data to conform with what they KNOW is the Truth.

          When the average person accepts that kind of data manipulation, I just pass it off as common error, or gullibility. It is different for anyone claiming to be a scientist. Scientists have a higher standard and a presumption of expertise in their field. They have no excuse for doing that sort of alteration.

        • gator69 says:

          The grantologists had to fake new data in order to keep the funding and hysteria alive. By their own metrics, CAGW has been falsified.

          According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

          “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

          http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

          Page 24, Middle column

          According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

          He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

          We are now past 18 years and counting.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “BOY did they squash that 1940s blip FLAT!”

          And notice the HUGE DISCREPANCY in slope in the 1980-2000 period compare to this graph from IPCC 2001.

          Someone is FUDGING the past BIG TIME !!!

  9. gator69 says:

    Can Iran be far behind?

  10. andyw35 says:

    It must be warm in the USA as all the cold air is in the Arctic judging by the ice extent

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

    Our plucky DMI graph is on the rise again after a small detour of 365 days at the same value, lol

    Andy

    • Gail Combs says:

      WARM!?
      It is 16.1 °F (minus 7C) right now in sunny mid North Carolina. (Normal/avg low is 28 °F and the temp has a couple more hours to drop before bottoming out.)

      • andyw35 says:

        I like a lady who uses modern scientific C and not old fashioned F !! 🙂

        Andy

      • Martin Smith says:

        Gail! Quickly! Post more graphs to overwhelm your detractors with irrelevant data! It works every time and you just look smarter and smarter.

        • Gail Combs says:

          OOOoooh
          Poor Marty, he can’t read a graph and his head is exploding from information overload.

          Why don’t you run along back to the SkS sandbox now that you have hauled a Big Dog over here to defend you. After all you aren’t needed anymore.

        • gator69 says:

          Gail, Marty lies to protect his “precious”, “the cause”. Of course your info is relevant, I mean you are not posting baseball stats or poetry. You are posting real science, and it drives the CAGW faithful nuts.

        • Ted says:

          Martin! Quickly! Actually read a study BEFORE proclaiming it irrelevant. Most of what you link to, relevant or not, simply doesn’t say what you claim it says. I don’t know about looking smarter, but reading your own source material might at least make you look informed.

          Why are you so anti-science?

        • pinroot says:

          Martin! Quickly! Post some more SkS and wikipedia articles to overwhelm your detractors with irrelevant data! It works every time and you just look smarter and smarter, lol!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “graphs to overwhelm”

          They certainly overwhelm little Marty goreboy !!

          He has no idea how to cope with REAL DATA.

    • John Finn says:

      Brilliant. When all else fails cherry pick an obsolete plot. This particular plot with the coastal regions masked out is due to disappear soon. You might want to check out the updated plot

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

      Arctic sea ice is currently close to its lowest extent on record.

      • andyw35 says:

        How do you know it’s going to disappear soon ? It’s been saying that for a long time now. Meanwhile it gives me endless entertainment as it goes more and more wacky.

        I notice that this plot has not been on the front of this website since it looped back, hee hee.

        Andy

      • Martin Smith says:

        I have tried every time to get them to use the standard plot, but they prefer the obsolete one.

        • andyw35 says:

          Because it’s a lot higher in extent that’s why, even though out of kilter with all the other graphs. I believe the expression ” bias confirmation” can be used here. Sadly, as I have said all along, this graph is borked.

          It was ok till mid way last year and then has gone awol. It’s an outdated product so not looked after.

          Andy

        • gator69 says:

          I get a kick out of alarmists pretending that 1979-2000 is a meaningful “mean”. Very funny stuff! No confirmation bias or cherry picking there.

        • David A says:

          I am still waiting for an explanation of what is wrong with the 30 percent ice, costal zone masked chart.

          If the methodology is consistent, then they are accurate, or precise to previous 30 percent sea ice costsl zone masked out graphics.

          If so MARTIN, what makes them wrong or obsolete???

        • Martin Smith says:

          David, why are you still waiting for an explanation that is posted AT THE WEBSITE. If you go to the page showing the standard 15% plot, the explanation is posted there. Here is the explanation that is posted there: ”
          The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”

          THE COASTAL MASK IMPLIED THAT THE PREVIOUS SEA ICE EXTENT ESTIMATE#S WERE UNDERESTIMATED.

        • gator69 says:

          “Absolute estimates”. Very funny.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The graph is NOT obsolete.

          It is up to date. and uses a consistent metric and is the same graph that SG has used all along

          It is you that wants to use the wrong graph.

          Did you know that Iceland has just had its COLDEST year this century.!

        • Martin Smith says:

          dumb reply, andy.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yes , the 30% DMI graph does UNDER-estimate..

          but it is consistent longer term, up to date graph.

          All that the differences imply is that different parts of the Arctic are freezing.

          The bulk main area is well up, but the fiddly inaccurate coastal areas are down.

          Get over it.

          There is nothing obsolete about the graph.. you just don’t like the REAL DATA that it is portraying.

          Iceland has just had their coldest year this century.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “Yes , the 30% DMI graph does UNDER-estimate..”

          That is why it is wrong to use it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          No its not..

          It gives a consistent measure that is not confused by coastal inconsistencies and irregularities.

          It would be inconsistent to change to the other graph.

        • Martin Smith says:

          No it doesn’t.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again reduced to an empty answer.. poor marty.

          SG uses a graph that is CONSISTENT back to 2005

          The other one only goes back to 2011

          End of story

        • AndyG55 says:

          “This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated.”

          Again, A LIE bought about by IGNORANCE and a total lack of any scientific understanding.

          It does NOT imply that sea ice levels under that measurement metric were under-estimated.

          They are two different metrics…

          One which is CONSISTENT back to at least 2005.

          and a new methodology that only goes back to 2011.

          If you wanted to show changes in sea ice back as far as you could, .. which would you use ?

          Both graphs are valid, but the one SG uses is more consistent and longer term, and the one he has been using all the time.

          All that the difference shows is that for some reason the 30% sea ice has increased markedly, while the thinner, more sparse coastal sea ice is not doing very well.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ““Yes , the 30% DMI graph does UNDER-estimate..””

          Seems like little gorefool is saying that the real value for Arctic sea ice is A LOT MORE than the graph SG uses.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Nice connection Andy.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Its nice to have puppet to play with sometimes.😉

          Let’s just keep pulling his strings.

          He is ours to play with now.. he cannot escape. 😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          Notice how he has run away on the most recent thread.

          where did he go, I wonder 😉

          But he will be back.. avoiding answering the points…

          remaining in his IGNORANCE.

        • andyw35 says:

          Well the non masked DMI plot is now in 2016 and says so, the masked outdated one that DMI doesn’t care about – as nobody should be using – is currently being drawn by an out of control robot with an etch a sketch ….. snigger

          It’ll be on 20 million Km2 soon and they will have to start masking off the coast of Spain ..ha ha

          Andy

      • Gail Combs says:

        How can you have a mean from 1979 to 2000 when YOUR data set STARTS in 2012? You can’t just use someone else’s data set mean and standard deviation. That is dirty pool.

        They even say.

        Sea ice extent in recent years for the northern hemisphere.
        The grey shaded area corresponds to the climate mean plus/minus 1 standard deviation.

        The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated

        …The total area of sea ice is the sum of First Year Ice (FYI), Multi Year Ice (MYI) and the area of ambiguous ice types, from the OSISAF ice type product. The total sea ice extent can differ slightly from other sea ice extent estimates. Possible differences between this sea ice extent estimate and others are most likely caused by differences in algorithms and definitions...

        • Frank K. says:

          Even DMI is now acknowledging the the new record maximum for the 30% and above ice extent plot (with the horizontal line in the plot below). Maybe it’ll reach 12 million km^2 in March? Very interesting…

          http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

        • Frank K. says:

          Hmmm…my previous plot didn’t appear correctly…maybe this one.

        • Frank K. says:

          Drat…just check out the link:

          http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

        • Gail Combs says:

          Frank K, The DMI url always posts an older graph.

        • Neal S says:

          By making case changes in the first portion of the URL which is case insensitive, you can fool the caching mechanism

          Here I used oCean.dMi.dk

        • AndyG55 says:

          Nice find Neal.. I’ve been making a whole new jpg.. pita

          Now I don’t need to. 🙂

        • Frank K. says:

          Thanks Neal S. ! 🙂

        • andyw35 says:

          Frank K said “Even DMI is now acknowledging the the new record maximum for the 30% and above ice extent plot (with the horizontal line in the plot below).”

          That line is not a line put in to show some record by DMI Frank, it’s just the graph has hit the last day of the year, gone back to the start, still black, and then started again. That’s because it is not being monitored by DMI.

          They never put a horizontal line in for any max or min record !

          Just wishful thinking. This graph is screwy and only people who want it to show some massive amount of ice believe in it.

          Andy

      • Ted says:

        No, he’s using the same plot he’s used for several years. Cherry picking would be switch plots to whatever matches your position, at the moment. Using the same one from the start is called consistency.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Which we have been telling Marty for weeks.

        • Martin Smith says:

          He? Who is “he” ?

          Have you understood how the Milankovitch cycles initiate the glacials and interglacials and then are overtaken by the feedbacks yet? If not, I am happy to answer your remaining questions. At least now you know you were wrong about there being a contradiction.

        • Latitude says:

          Then what stops the feedbacks?

        • Martin Smith says:

          “Then what stops the feedbacks?”

          Are you asking about what happens to the feedbacks when the system switches from increasing interglacial to increasing glacial? I have assumed that is obvious. It actually is obvious. I have also explained it several times.

          First, the amount of energy reaching earth from the sun begins to decrease from its. But that maximum energy level is supporting the feedbacks at their maximum equilibrium level. When the energy input decreases, the feedbacks also begin to decrease.

          Think about the albedo feedback. At the point of maximum natural warming, Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum. This is the time when the albedo is at its minimum, meaning the least amount of light is reflected back to space. Now the energy from the sun begins to decrease. Winter gets a bit colder and a bit longer. Arctic sea ice begins to increase in area and in how long it lasts in the summer. The albedo increases, reflecting more light back to space. That is a positive cooling feedback.

          There is also the CO2 feedback. As winters get a bit colder and longer, more vegetation remains frozen all year instead of rotting, so more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere. There is less greenhouse effect. This is another positive cooling feedback.

          They all work that way.

          Questions?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Here is another. As the lower atmosphere begins to cool, the air can hold less water vapor.Water vapor is a greenhouse gas at low altitudes. Less water in the air means less greenhouse effect. This is another positive cooling feedback.

        • Latitude says:

          Then that blows a hole in the run away global humidity/CO2 theory…..

        • Martin Smith says:

          Correct, Lat, but the runaway warming claim came from your side, not ours. Runaway warming can’t occur here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-advanced.htm

        • Latitude says:

          I didn’t know Hansen was on our side??

          So, we have nothing to worry about then.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “I didn’t know Hansen was on our side??”
          “So, we have nothing to worry about then.”

          It is physically possible, but we can’t make it happen. It will eventually happen when the sun expands.

          “A re-evaluation in 2013 of the effect of water vapour in the climate models showed that James Hansen’s outcome might be possible, but requires ten times the amount of CO2 we could release from burning all the oil, coal, and natural gas in Earth’s crust.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Earth

          But we do have to worry, Lat, just not about runaway warming. Just the warming we are causing will be bad for the human race.

        • Latitude says:

          McPherson is not on “our” side either….and neither is the IPCC

        • Martin Smith says:

          Lat, no one is predicting runaway global warming. I explained how reversing the Milankovitch cycles reverses the feedbacks. I trust you understand that process now. Your introduction of the runaway warming head fake was disingenuous, but expected. It has nothing to do with explaining how the feedbacks reverse.

        • Latitude says:

          Correct, Lat, but the runaway warming claim came from your side…
          ===
          You know better….even the IPCC references it…and so does Woodwell

        • Martin Smith says:

          Lat, for christ sake. Look up “reference.” Now look up “predict.” Note that reference does not mean predict. Nobody is predicting a runaway greenhouse effect. You asked what happens to the feedbacks? I explained what happens to the feedbacks. But you actually believe the feedbacks can’t be stopped, that there is no explanation for how they stop. But I explained it to you in words of one syllable, so now you can’t claim you don’t know. But you certainly must have been embarrassed to have been caught believing a really stupid idea, so what do you do? You double down with the runaway warming claim. It is you anti -AGW guys who claim that positive feedbacks must lead to runaway warming. We don’t. Not Hansen. Not the IPCC. There is not enough fossil fuels on the planet to enable them. But your side claims positive feedbacks must lead to runaway warming. Your claim is false.

        • Latitude says:

          Martin…..tipping point and climate irreversibility are in reference to runaway global warming…..”our side” didn’t believe any of it from the get go

        • Martin Smith says:

          “Martin…..tipping point and climate irreversibility are in reference to runaway global warming”

          No, the aren’t.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Just the warming we are causing will be bad for the human race.”

          “BULLSHIT “

        • Latitude says:

          James Hansen is a famous climate scientist, right?

          Don’t make me have to pull a Gail and reference all the times Hansen has said a tipping point would lead to runaway global warming…

          …you know better

        • AndyG55 says:

          “At the point of maximum natural warming, Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum.”

          That is why it is such a childish cherry-pick to start Arctic sea ice graphs in 1979.

          The NATURAL CYCLE of the AMO was at its very lowest.

          The AMO is now pretty much at its highest. So Arctic sea ice is low for that pin-prick short period, which just happens to be also only just after the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.

          You can ignore the AMO, you can ignore the zero summer sea ice for most of the 3/4 of the Holocene.

          But “ignore” is just part of IGNORANCE.

          And Marty.. you have IGNORANCE in spades..

          and so long as you use SkS as a reference, that will not change.

        • Ted says:

          Martin-

          Have you figured out WHAT the Milankovitch cycles are, yet? Do you want to tell us some more about how obliquity changes cause the earth to receive more energy from the sun? Or how about elaborating on this new absurdity you just pulled out of your ass, about CO2 causing a runaway greenhouse effect ONCE THE SUN EXPANDS. Or maybe you can just lie to us some more about the contents of some studies YOU NEVER BOTHERED TO READ.

          The sad part is, you don’t know enough about any of the bullshit you spew to even realize how stupid you sound. I’m starting to think SKS sent you here because you were embarrassing them over there.

      • AndyG55 says:

        It is NOT an obsolete plot..

        It is up to date..

        and that It is the only DMI plot that is consistent continuous back to 2005

        It is the same plot that SG has used for a long time.

        It would be wrong and inconsistent of him to change to a different measurement type

        And that record.. reasonably accurate only back to 1976 (which was lower, btw)

        such a piddling length of time , and only representing the upward leg of the AMO….

        meaningless.

        Especially when proxies show that during the first 3/4 of the Holocene the Arctic was often ICE FREE in summer. Which makes your “lowest on record” comment one based purely and absolutely on ignorance.

  11. Martin Smith says:

    Why didn’t anyone discuss this at all? I know it refutes one of your most cherished myths and all, but you could at least talk about how your thinking must be changing. But there was nothing! Don’t be embarrassed. Seriously:

    Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Solar_temp_update.html

    • John Finn says:

      That’s because solar activity has very little influence on earth’s climate changes. The solarphiles still don’t get this but, strangely enough, neither do the warmers. The warmers rely on a more active sun to explain the 1910-1940 increase in global temps. The “detection and attribution” studies which the IPCC claim explain 20th century warming (and cooling) rely on obsolete solar data and BS aerosol fudge data.

      • Martin, I’m so glad you link to a website that shows no pause. No hiatus. I applaud you for showing the latest and most up-to-datest. Who needs a pause when you can get your 4-year-old daughter to draw a new graph with a Crayola? When are you going to show us the next new data, where the hockey stick and broken-cue stick combine with Obama’s fake birth certificate and Al Gore’s submerged beachside mansion in Santa Barbara, and we can find out that we deserve the 10,000 widows and orphans (young men) that Obama sent us because we are infidels who produce carbon pollution? Get on it lad.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Morgan, I don’t object to continuing to use the wrong data so you can show a pause, but at least show your pause in the real world context. It has been one of many pauses since 1970: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
          And even if we were to continue using the wrong data, the pause ended. Last year was the warmest year on record, and this year is warmer than last year by a whole bunch.

        • gator69 says:

          this year is warmer than last year by a whole bunch.

          Exactly how much warmer? And how much of that is adjustemnts?

        • They are still emailing each other, trying do decide how much adjustment to make. But it won’t matter how much they tamper, because in Jan, 2017 President Trump hires real scientists to put the original data back.

        • gator69 says:

          Hello Marty! Exactly how much warming? And for how much of the warming are the adjustments responsible? You claimed “a bunch” of warming this year over last. Lie much?

        • AndyG55 says:

          IPCC 2001 shows a pause from 1980 -1997, then the spike and start of the step.

          All respectable data from satellites then shows a pause or even cooling after the El Nino from 2001.

          There is only one person here using a FRAUDULENT graph.. and that is YOU.

          And you are destined to use FRAUDULENT data, because that is what SkS always relies on.. because FRAUDULENT data is the only data that shows any warming.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “It has been one of many pauses since 1970: ”

          No , not many.. just two main plateaus with a step change

          First the zero trend from 1980-around 2000 (as shown by IPCC 2001)

          Then the zero trend from 2001 -2015. as shown by the satellite data.

          2015 was NOT the warmest year in anything except the fraudulent, fabricated NCDC et al farce. Your continued use of this LIE shows your acceptance of blatant data mal-adjustment and fabrication.. ie scientific FRAUD.

          But its all you have.. so you have to keep hanging onto it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Last year was the warmest year on record,”

          BULLSHIT !

          2015 was in 3rd place, well below 1998.

          You are still relying on massively fabricated and adjusted and data .. its all you have.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Lets see just how FRAUDULENT that red line.. ie GISS really is.

        This is from the 2001 IPCC report

        Basically flat from 1980-2000 with the 1998 El Nino spike

        Marty’s FRAUDULENT GISS graph has a massive positive trend.

        It is a LIE, a FABRICATION and proof of INTENTIONAL FRAUD…… and Marty KNOWS it.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “That’s because solar activity has very little influence on earth’s climate changes.”

        It will be ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS to watch you idiots once the satellite temperatures start to drop once this El Nino is over, which appears may be happening sooner than expected.

        GISS et al, will of course have NO CHANCE of showing any real temperatures until the government sponsoring of the AGW scam ceases and the perpetrators are held to account.

    • pinroot says:

      Please stop using Sks as a ‘reference’.

    • AndyG55 says:

      roflmao.. We know the red line is a maladjusted, fabricated FRAUD.

      This is what SkS always do.. use fraudulent data to show a LIE..

      No wonder you use them so much. Its all you have.

      The blue line, well yes.. we know it started to cool around 2000, that is what we have been telling you for ages.

      PLEASE hang around until after this current El Nino, so that you can for yourself what a monumental ASS you are making of yourself. 🙂

      Or will you run , run , run away like a cowardly little worm as temperatures start to drop.

  12. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, what happened to the Reggie house? Was your campaign to save it successful?

  13. Martin Smith says:

    Thanks all. I feel as if I have done good today. I explained to Latitude how feedbacks reverse. Keep an open mind!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Keep an open mind!”

      From a brain-washed AGW minion like you.. that is truly funny.

      Thanks for continuing to be low-end comic relief.

      ps.. Indications that the El Nino is subsiding , and with PDO and AMO heading negative, could be fun.

      Please stick around. I really want to watch your reaction as real global temperatures start to cool during this year. 😉

      Tell me.. what happens to Norway if its hydro dams freeze ?

      Do they have to start using all that oil they currently export. Fun times ahead, bozo. 🙂

      • Gail Combs says:

        AndyG,

        Did you see my comment HERE up thread?

        Looks to me that this El Niño is going to be a wimp compared to the 1997-98 El Niño.

        I really wish the cloud cover & albedo data was up to date so we could look at it. Funny how they stopped publishing it five years ago.

        I was looks for more recent data and stumble on this.
        October 11, 2015 Albedo regulation of Ice Ages, with no CO2 feedbacks

        He makes an interesting point. This graph is a bit off putting though.

        • RAH says:

          The current El Nino is not quite as strong and different than the “great” El Nino with the highest SSTs concentrated further to the west.

        • Gail Combs says:

          shading a bit towards an El Nino Modoki? Modokis are normally not followed by a La Nina.

      • BruceC says:

        El Niño likely past its peak

        Issued on 5 January 2016 | Product Code IDCKGEWW00

        A number of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) indicators suggest that the 2015-16 El Niño has peaked in recent weeks. Tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures suggest this event is one of the top three strongest El Niño events of the past 50 years. Climate models suggest the 2015-16 El Niño will decline during the coming months, with a return to ENSO neutral likely during the second quarter of 2016.

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml

        • AndyG55 says:

          Gees, that’s happening sooner than accepted.

          Similar reports on “notalot…

          “There are various signs, including SST’s, upper ocean heat content and winds, but the most telling comment is:

          Sea surface temperature across the equatorial Pacific basin have cooled roughly one-half a degree over the last four weeks. At the same time, a large pool of cold water beneath the surface in the western Pacific has been expanding eastward, nearly doubling in size over the past two months.

          ESRL’s MEI Index also confirms this, dropping from 2.308 in November to 2.123 last month. This is the lowest value since last July.

          It could come back for seconds in the next month or so, as it did in 1998, but the consensus is against this.”

    • Latitude says:

      Thanks all. I feel as if I have done good today. I explained to Latitude how feedbacks reverse.
      ====
      No….you said “Milankovitch cycles initiate the glacials and interglacials and then are overtaken by the feedbacks yet?”

      I asked……”Then what stops the feedbacks?”

      Latitude already knows that……

      Using your “explanation”…feedbacks obviously have no control over global warming,
      …which means CO2 has no control over global warming
      Both of those things are easily overwhelmed by Milankovitch cycles…
      …which means it’s the sun that done it

      So why are we discussing what climate scientists say?…we should be consulting astrologists

      • Gail Combs says:

        Latitude, take a quick peak at the paper I link to above. He brings a completely different factor into play for the Milankovitch cycles, glacial, interglacial switches that I had not seen before. Or at least one I had not thought about.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “I feel as if I have done good today”

      Yep, you have continued making a monumental fool of yourself… WEEL DONE. ! 🙂

      Remaining ignorant to anything except the farcical comedy that is SkS.

      • Gail Combs says:

        No, No Andy, you do not understand.

        Marty feels he has done good by dragging a big dog from the SkS sandbox to help him fight his ‘battles.’ It is amusing that neither of them can do much when it comes to an actual debate except trot out more Alinsky tactics.

        BYE BYE!

        • Latitude says:

          Gail, this blog is very popular and regularly linked on Drudge, Zippers, Mail, etc
          I think Marty is just trying to promote his blog….SkS
          cause, Lord knows, SkS is at the very bottom of the pile

        • Gail Combs says:

          Latitude, I know SS is on the bottom of the pile. It is one of the reasons I refuse to look at his links. I want it to stay at the bottom. Beside Marty and Finn never bother to read any links we post even to peer-reviewed papers so why should we read theirs?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “a big dog”

          I didn’t see any big dog.

          at best , a yapping Chihuahua.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Snicker…
          To Marty he is an intellectual giant!

        • Latitude says:

          I don’t follow his links either….

      • BruceC says:

        Marty has also failed to answer my question I asked several days ago, on another thread, why is the current Holocene (warm period) the lowest yet has the highest CO2 levels in the past +400,000 years?

        • AndyG55 says:

          And note that even at its peaks, CO2 was totally unable to sustain warm temperatures.

          In fact CO2 peaks were always near the start of the DOWNWARD temperature trend.

        • Latitude says:

          ..and that’s the scary part
          The default setting for this planet is a lot colder for a lot longer.

          Even if someone believes in global warming 100%..
          …I’ve never understood why it’s a bad thing

        • BruceC says:

          Know what’s even more scarier Lat?

          The ‘cold glacial’ periods appear to be increasing in length!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Not at all scary, Bruce.. Won’ t happen in our lifetime.

          The children bought up on warmista BS probably won’t see it either.

          And hopefully by the generation after that, people will be looking back at the AGW scam and saying ……..

          “WTF were they thinking” !!!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy, it doesn’t take full glaciation to be a royal PITA for the human race. The slide into glaciation is quite bad enough especially when the goal of ‘world leaders’ is to squeeze every last drop of wealth from the masses even if they have to starve them to death.

          “The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”! — Neuman and Hearty (1996)

          Even a drop back into the weather of the 1970’s could be worrying. The Köppen climate classification [is a]widely used, vegetation-based empirical climate classification system. In the 1970’s the climatic change shifted the Köppen climate boundary over 2 degrees lat. or 150 miles (240 K) south.

          This is a major problem for Canada and Russia and the rest of the world.

          Russia has a greater land area than any other country on earth and is one of the world’s most important grain producers, but its grains sector faces a special set of challenges. That vast land mass is a factor behind huge logistical problems, while a variable climate has meant big swings in production volume.

          The International Grains Council (IGC) puts Russia’s total grain production at 85.8 million tonnes in 2013-14, compared to 67.1 million the year before….
          http://www.world-grain.com/Departments/Country%20Focus/Country%20Focus%20Home/Focus%20on%20Russia.aspx

          Especially since the Grain Traders convinced the USA to ditch a grain reserve and turn the excess into biofuel.

          “In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends…very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008 http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2008/0104.html

          So don’t expect the US government to make any move to prevent starvation. In fact Goldman Sachs LOVED it! How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis

          Dan Amstutz is the thread who runs through out. Under President Reagan (Yes a Republican) Dan Amstutz, VP of Cargill, wrote the World Trade Organization draft Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) as USDA undersecretary for international affairs. Amstutz also wrote the “Freedom to Farm Bill” later known as Freedom to Fail Act that wiped out USA farmers, the US Strategic Grain Reserve and set-up the 2008 food crisis orchestrated by Goldman Sachs. Amstutz was also a VP of Goldman Sachs at the time and was president of the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) from 1994 to 2000. “Throughout his very successful career Dan Amstutz represented and championed ideas and goals of NAEGA membership. “ — A Lasting Tribute by the NAEGA who developed the Amstutz Award to honor this baby killer.

          “Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices… and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush http://www.naega.org/images/pdf/grain_reserves_for_food_aid.pdf

          Back to the 1970s grain crisis.
          The 1974 CIA report:
          “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”

          pg7
          … Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people…

          pg 9
          The archaeologists and climatotologists document a rather grim history… There is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change…. has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor, that affected global atmospheric circulation and brought wave upon wave of drought to formerly rich agricultural lands.

          Refugees from these collapsing civilizations were often able to migrate to better lands… This would be of little comfort however,… The world is too densely populated and politically divided to accommodate mass migration.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Gail, I still stick by the comment that I doubt we will see a LOT of cooling in our lifetimes.

          I hope like heck that we don’t drop down to LIA temps again too soon.

          And I also think that the general populous HAS to wake up to the fraud of AGW at some stage.

          A small, very obvious cooling is all it will take..

          That is why the AGW fakers are so worried.. they can see what’s coming.

        • Gail Combs says:

          AndyG,

          There is one point all, or at least most of us miss. It is LAND that cools the fastest. That is why 65N is critical to the Milankovitch cycles. The Oceans are giant hot water bottles keeping the COASTAL areas warm a lot longer than the interior. Remember the coastal areas are where most of the cities (and recording stations) are while the interior, like the US great plains and Russian & Canadian wheat belts are where the farms are. This means world temperatures, especially NOAAs, mean diddley because we are measuring the wrong place. If farmland cools we are in deep caca.

          The energy in the lower atmosphere is actually temperature PLUS water (latent heat of vaporization) When the earth cools it gets drier and if the energy in water vapor is ignored you could actually see the temperature rise as the earth cools. (Deserts are hotter than rain forests for this reason.)

          Frank Lansner has done quite a bit of work separating out the temperature signal from coastal areas vs interior. January 6, 2014 The Original Temperatures Project

          Non-coastal stations can be divided further into Ocean Air Affected stations (“OAA”, marked yellow) and then Ocean Air Shelter stations (“OAS”, marked blue).
          OAS areas thus have some similarities with valleys in general, but as illustrated above, the OAS areas cover a slightly different area than the valleys.

          Frank’s graphs show the greater responsiveness of interior land areas. Since you are an Aussie, I thought you would like this one first.

          In the writing “RUTI Coastal stations” (based on GHCN V2 raw) I found that Non-coastal temperatures (blue graph) were much more cold trended from around 1930 than the Coastal trends (red). http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/coastal-temperature-stations.php

          And a final very telling comment on BEST (Zeke, the Mush pup & Muller) from Frank.

          For all countries analysed so far, the BEST national data is nearly identical with the coastal trends and the Ocean Air Affected (“OAA”) locations. The data from the Ocean Air Shelter (“OAS”) stations appears to be completely ignored by the BEST project country after country after country. Just as we saw for HISTALP.

        • AndyG55 says:

          oops Gail.. first graph says “Austria” not “Australia” 😉

          If your eyes are like mine at the moment.. an easy mistake.

          Way to much Excel work today.. I need a bigger screen at work I think.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Sorry, Andy, not very good eyesight combined with John Dewey’s intentionally F-up ‘See and Say’ reading method means while I can read 1500 words per minute with ease I sometimes confuse words that look the same. It also makes me really really rotten at editing or reading out loud.

  14. BruceC says:

    What’s more interesting is that 80% of that +400,000 years, temperatures have been at or below the 1961-1990 global average temperature.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Take a close look at this graph.

      In all cases, in the last 250,000 years, when the solar insolation at 65N dropped the temperature also dropped…. except for the Holocene which is droppinf much more slowly.

      MIS11 was the double precession interglacial between 424,000 and 374,000 years ago. It was considered as a possible Holocene analog and is not shown. Lisiecki & Raymo (2005) trashed that idea. The 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 only dropped to 489 W/m2, while the Holocene at present already has a minimum of 474 W/m2.
      A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records Lisiecki & Raymo (2005)

      The stack’s phase relative to precession in this interval demonstrates that northern hemisphere insolation was the major driver of benthic d18O change by at least 4.1 Ma, perhaps through northern deep-water formation or the growth of small northern glaciers. Precession response is not significantly coherent prior to 4.1 Ma, presumably due to weaker d18O response, but our phase estimates are still indicative of northern hemisphere forcing……

      Their conclusion:

      RESULTS
      Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….

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