Cooling Nuuk

NASA didn’t like the 1940’s warmth in Greenland, so they simply made it disappear.Nuuk-2011-2016

2016 Version   2011 Version


About stevengoddard

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

168 Responses to Cooling Nuuk

  1. omanuel says:

    Thanks for this post. NASA is rapidly destroying its image.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    Paul shows a few more “adjustments™ ” to Iceland, Greenland data.

    I think we really need to start using the ™ sign on the word “adjustment”

    It is certainly the trademark word that basically all the AGW fraud is based on.

  3. rachase says:

    Wish I’d known long ago that it’s OK to “adjust” historical data; my school transcripts would have looked a whole lot better…

  4. gator69 says:

    … so they simply made it disappear.

    It’s a leftist thing, you wouldn’t understand.

  5. Eliza says:

    I want Trump or Cruz to win I don’t care which as long as they terminate AGW hahahh

  6. Lucky says:

    What are the discontinuities?
    -on the 2011 chart, just one at about 1900
    -on the 2016 chart, at 1900 and at about 1985.

    Note the 2016 chart contains more data at the end as you would expect. To me, the new data has a clear downward trend but no doubt adjustments yet to come will correct this eyesight error.

  7. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    So Greenland expert and climate change alarmist ‘Jason Box’ was right! Greenland has been cooling for the past 70 years!
    …..That was until NASA and Gavin rewrote, adjusted, homogenised, or tampered with Jason’s ‘Peer-Reviewed’ Greenland cooling findings, in order to support their corrupt ‘global warming’ narrative.

  8. cdqgfj says:

    DMI is responsible for temperature measurements in the area, perhaps you should go to the source?

    • gator69 says:

      DMI is not the topic of this post, and is not the entity that made these changes. Why are facts so hard for you to grasp when they conflict with your world view? Stupid or dishonest? Oh right, it’s both, how could I forget.

      • As expected from cdqxyz. Fogging, changing the subject and moving the goal posts.

        I seem to recall another troll arguing about Reykjavik temperatures and when told that GISS changed the temperatures the Icelanders measured he demanded that we show him why the changes were wrong.

        Apparently Jónsson, Björnsson and their Icelandic colleagues don’t know how to take the temperatures of their island.

        Are there any alarmists who are not dishonest crooks?

  9. cdqgfj says:

    Page 50 on this report…more local than NASA and therefore perhaps more reliable in this area:

    Click to access tr15-04.pdf

    • AndyG55 says:

      roflmao. …….. OMG but you seriously ARE a FOOL,

      The page you link to shows Nuuk was warmer in 1940 than in 2005

      It is comparable with the 2011 NASA version.

      Thanks for showing the truth, even if you are way too DUMB to realise it 🙂

      • Andy, slow down for a moment. There are other possible explanations. Aneurysm, overdose, alcoholism or maybe even Stockholm Syndrome?

        After all, we are not stuck with him. He’s stuck with us.

        • gator69 says:

          CW, you forgot to mention the most likely scenario. cfool’s mother/cousin probably dropped him on his head, partly due to her chronic substance abuse problem.

  10. cdqgfj says:

    Notice how most of Greenland is warmer than in the 1940s. I wonder if the cooling from 1940 was “recovery from LIA” too BTW? LOL

    • AndyG55 says:

      You have made your intent on NEVER learning anything about anything to do with climate.

      Just the same low-level ignorance. I have taught low-IQ teens that have more learning aptitude than you appear to have.

      Please go and get a basic education before you come back.

      • cdqgfj says:

        Perhaps you should go back to school instead of teaching teenagers? A couple of advanced degrees rarely hurt anyone.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ” A couple of advanced degrees rarely hurt anyone”

          Your Arts and social science school levels aren’t helping you much

          That is obviously about as far as your education managed.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You do realise that you have proven you can’t even read a graph properly, haven’t you. !!

          Did they teach you barista work in your high school social science?

  11. AndyG55 says:

    You really haven’t learnt anything from your brief stay here, have you.

    No wonder you are laughing at yourself.


    • AndyG55 says:

      Seriously, its like training a puppy.

      Keep rubbing his nose in it..

      Maybe eventually he will take his shit outside,

      and maybe eventually he will even stop treading in it afterwards.

  12. cdqgfj says:

    Recovery from LIA caused cooling after 1940’s? And now the same recovery is causing increasing warming in Greenland? Fantastic.

    • David A says:

      You really think that the LIA recovery was a straight trend for the entire period?

      • AndyG55 says:

        cFool does not think… EVER

        He is incapable of it.

        Recovery from LIA then AMO was able to re-establish its cycle.

        But now that recovery is unfortunately over, and the AMO is heading downwards.

        North Atlantic sea temps falling rather quickly.

        The Arctic region could have done with another couple of degrees warming at least, and at least a small respite from continually frozen navigation lanes..

        …but now it looks like being plunged back into the unwelcoming cold.

        cFool, of course lives, in inner city somewhere (as Greenies most do) ..

        ..and cares NOTHING about the hardships that COLD brings.

        • cdqgfj says:

          Ok so if the arctic and the globe don’t start cooling in about 5 years the skeptics need to come up with new and fresh explanations (although “recovery from LIA” will always work)? That kind of shows that it wasn’t the sun doesn’t it?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Just like the AGW cultists need to come with some other reason for there being no warming apart from El Ninos in the whole satellite data period.

          How many are they up to already.. so 60 or 70… all of which are total fabrications.

          Just like whole AGW farce is a total fabrication. A baseless, unsubstantiated hypothesis

          Come back in 5 years….. should give you time to at least pass basic high school maths and science, which you so obviously lack.

  13. cdqgfj says:

    Oh but there’s a ton of warming in the satellite datasets, for example as evidenced sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion. This truth is so inconvenient to skeptics that they must deny this data at all costs.

    Now that the fake hiatus has ended, what is the new skeptic narrative? Is it still the Sun or isn’t it? The solar notch theory appears to be a fiasco, last time I checked it wasn’t even presented in a way that could be evaluated. I guess it’s just *too hard* to write a few 5-20 page to the point articles about it? Or perhaps it’s the clouds or galactic cosmic rays??? LOL

    • gator69 says:

      A “ton” of warming? 😆

      Anyone else would have, by now, figured out how to discuss the finer points of climate change. But not cfool! He can only speak in hyperboles, and he still cannot grasp the cyclical nature of climate. He projects failure onto skeptics because an ice age has not yet come to fruition, yet cannot see that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified repeatedly, so he demands that skeptics admit defeat. 😆

      Pig ignorant cfool, relying on broken models and scary stories to fulfill his leftist world view agenda. I would feel sorry for him, except that he continues to shill for those who deny assistance to the poorest among us, condemning 21,000 people to death each and every day. He says it’s about science, when we all know it is about control. Science says climate change is natural.

      • cdqgfj says:

        Science says that adding GHG:s into the atmosphere has a warming effect, now the question is only how much warming we’re going to get. Assessing feedbacks is admittedly tricky.

        • gator69 says:

          Science says that adding GHG:s into the atmosphere has a warming effect

          No, only models say that, the broken models. Science has never disproven natural variability, and has never quantified the drivers of climate. So by default, science says climate change is natural, while only alarmists and the pig ignorant claim it is CO2.

          Now, what about the 21,000 people you are helping to snuff out today? Hmmm?

        • AndyG55 says:

          I defy you to produce a paper that proves that CO2 has any warming effect in an open atmosphere.

  14. cdqgfj says:

    Gator, GHG:s absorb radiation at certain wavelengths. This can be measured in the laboratory or it can be derived from nuclear physics. Also, the extra GHG:s in the atmosphere have changed the spectra of Earth exactly as predicted by theory and measurements. Facts. So now science is debating feedbacks and climate sensitivity as it’s already clear that GHGs have a had a warming effect.

    • gator69 says:

      We don’t live in a laboratory idiot, nor do we live in a greenhouse. You are referring once again to broken models, and not to reality, this is an ongoing issue for you.

      Even the IPCC admits that additional CO2 will not cause additional warming. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on our climate, and its wavelengths are virtually saturated. Or did you not know that? Do you know how they make the models create warming? Hmmm?

      Now, what about the 21,000 people you are helping to snuff out today? Hmmm?

      • cdqgfj says:

        The spectra of Earth as measured from space has changed. This proves GHGs absorb radiation also in the atmosphere.

        Please point to me to the page on an IPCC-report where they say additional GHGs cannot cause extra changes in warming/spectra?

        • gator69 says:

          additional GHGs cannot cause extra changes in warming/spectra?

          You are getting warmer! 😆

          Yes, the IPCC says that positive feedback loops will result from additional CO2, and that the positive feedback loops will be the cause of additional warming. Problem is, those positive feedback loops are not found in nature, but are only found in models. 😆

          Now, what about the 21,000 people you are helping to snuff out today? Hmmm?

        • AndyG55 says:

          IPCC is NOT science .. It is POLITICAL !!

          Their reports are ALWAYS vetted by politicians before they are published.

          What they produce is NOT SCIENCE.

    • David A says:

      cdgfi claims, “Also, the extra GHG:s in the atmosphere have changed the spectra of Earth exactly as predicted by theory and measurements.”
      Simply incorrect. In fact studies done by Richard Lindzen show this not to be true. And, BTW for you non nuanced alarmist conspiracy theory mindset, Richard Lindzen accepts the basic C.S. to doubling CO2, he just rejects the positive feedback as outlined in the IPCC.

  15. cdqgfj says:

    The jury is still out on climate sensitivity to CO2 increase. I don’t suppose skeptics have done many landmark studies in that front recently, har har? 😀

  16. AndyG55 says:

    Seriously, all this moronic twerp has is brain-dead AGE propaganda PAP.

    cFool is a monumental KIDIOT, with basically zero capability of learning or understanding.

    He has produced absolutely nothing in the way of coherent anything in the time he has been here.

    He is nothing but an empty comic book, with all the pages ripped out.

    He is not worth bothering with any more.

  17. cdqgfj says:

    Looks like an acceleration…too early to be sure though, let’s see what happens with the La Nina:

    • gator69 says:

      Cherry picked start date, and fudged numbers. Yawn.

      Now back to the 21,000 people you helped snuff out since yesterday. What about them?

      • cdqgfj says:

        How is the start of the satellite-altimetry era “cherry-picked”? And the fudging of numbers is the standard crazy-talk, this wasn’t even done in the US of North America. Sinister global conspiracy again?

        • gator69 says:

          We have accurate and complete tide records going back well past 1993, and the fact that you are unaware of the fudge factor is almost as telling as the fact that you care not one whiff about those you help snuff out every hour of every day.

          What is it about the 21,000 humans who needlessly die every day that allows you to ignore them?

          Is it because most of them are brown?

          Or do you simply not care about anyone but yourself?

          How do you figure that your empty shell of a life is more valuable than the millions of lives that you are helping extinguish?

          Really, it is simple for anyone with an undamaged brain to figure out. We help those in peril NOW, and concern ourselves with others ,b>IF,/b> they are ever threatened by a real danger.

          So how about it cfool? Show me the math that defends your genocide.

  18. cdqgfj says:

    You seem to be unaware that tide-gauges and altimetry give comparable results for sea-level rise when the gauge-measurements are compared against altimeter-measurement at the closest possible point (usually some kilometers away from the gauge). I hope you are not using conservative US blogs as your main source of information about the Earth!

    • gator69 says:

      So as I suspected, you cannot defend your genocide, and you ignore another 21,000 who you will help slaughter again today.

      As for sea level, I go to the world’s leading expert…

      Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Which is laughable, this idea that CO2 is driving global warming.

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

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

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

      These scare stories are being used for political purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • gator69 says:

      Now that we have settled on sea level, what about the 21,000 who will die today because of your and your team’s advocacy?

      Kill much? Why yes, yes you do! Millions of innocent humans each and every year, nearly 1000 per hour! You guys make Hitler seem like an amateur.

    • David A says:

      “tide-gauges and altimetry give comparable results for sea-level rise when the gauge-measurements are compared against altimeter-measurement at the closest possible point”
      Not true, and tide gauge readings show ZERO acceleration! This means what you are saying cannot be true, so you need a good reference for your assertion. They may show a good correlation before the satellite adjustments, but then that would be further evidence against todays satellites and their adjustments.

  19. cdqgfj says:

    Mörner doesn’t know jack shit about satellite altimetry but of course he’s the poster-geezer for the denialist-crowd because he says what they want to hear.

    • gator69 says:

      Typical ad hom attack on world’s leading expert. Why not starve him to death too?

      You are a sick SOB who will kill for your leftist agenda.

      • cdqgfj says:

        Mörner is not even close to a “world leading expert” in satellite altimetry. This is clear if you look at his publication-record – it’s empty in this regard. Again you have been fooled by the skeptic blogs – try to read more widely for your own good!

        • gator69 says:

          Morner is the world’s leading expert on sea level. And you don’t need to be a satellite expert to be a sea level expert.

          I have a remote sensing degree, and we were taught in situ measurements trump remote measurements.

          Now how many people are you willing to sacrifice killer?

        • Gator, you have clearly not studied Marx, Engels and Lenin or you would know that the rise of the masses against their bourgeois oppressors is historically inevitable. A few people here and there is the price of progress and your unscientific sanctimonious bourgeois sentimentality is not going to change that.

          Why should comrade cdqgfj answer your silly questions?

          Try to read more widely for your own good!

        • gator69 says:

          Idiot, Morner is the world’s leading expert on sea level. And you don’t need to be a satellite expert to be a sea level expert.

          He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.

          In situ measurements trump remote measurements, so your precious satellite experts depend upon Morner if they want accurate measurements.

          Now how many people are you willing to sacrifice killer? Give me a number.

  20. cdqgfj says:

    Mörner is NOT an expert in measuring global sea-level with altimetry (the only method with quasi-global coverage). He might be an expert in paleo-sealevel but even there his most influential papers are decades old. I suspect he is not very active these days any longer.

    • gator69 says:

      Idiot, Morner is the world’s leading expert on sea level. And you don’t need to be a satellite expert to be a sea level expert.

      He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.

      In situ measurements trump remote measurements, so your precious satellite experts depend upon Morner if they want accurate measurements.

      Now how many people are you willing to sacrifice killer? Give me a number.
      Are you ashamed of something?

      • cdqgfj says:

        He’s been an active researcher in paleo sea-level and local sea-level changes, yes. I don’t see how this makes him a “leading expert” on sea-level especially considering the timeliness and quality of his publications.

        Global measurements trump point measurements on the coast which miss most of the expansion of the water-column due to heat expansion. I have an advanced degree or two in satellite remote sensing btw.

        • gator69 says:

          Global measurements calibrated by what, idiot? Please find me a more qualified sea level expert than Morner. Not satellite expert, sea level expert.

          If I want sea level info, I go to a sea level expert. If I want satellite info, I go to a satellite expert.

          Now, how many millions are you willing to sacrifice? Or am I being too kind? Is it billions? Come on you cowardly killer, answer the question.

        • David A says:

          So you support UHA.

          BTW, who is Jack Shit and how do you know him? How do you know what Morner knows about remote sensing? Have you asked him? What makes him an “activist” and you not one? If I find someone with a degree or two in satellite remote sensing who disagrees with you, will you call him an activist? What specifically about his published papers do you disagree with?

          Do people live near tide gages, or in the middle of the oceans? Are costal cities or the middle of oceans more relevant to public policy?

      • Gator,

        You and Mörner just don’t understand. There is an expansion of the water-column due to heat expansion and you can’t measure it with tide gauges on the coast. The expanded column stays in the middle of the ocean so the seal levels along the coasts remain the same. That’s why the waters around Maldives didn’t rise and they can build all these new tourist airports

        You know that cdqgfj has an advanced degree or two in satellite remote sensing—he has so many degrees in remote sensing he’s not quite sure—and he can sense the expanded column is somewhere in there so stop arguing with him.

        Besides, Mörner is only an expert on local and paleo sea levels. It is not important what the water does locally. Even if 100% of the local gauge stations reported no sea level rise the waters would still be rising and bulging in the middle. And sea water behaves differently now anyway because of climate change, not like your old paleo water did for millions of years when the climate was not changing.

        • gator69 says:

          CW, I did some more reading, and it’s worse than we thought. Hidden heat at the bottom of the oceans is causing columns of water to thermally expand, and these superheated columns of water are shooting up out of the ground, threatening to flood Wyoming and Montana! Of course all of this is exacerbated by SUV’s, meat, and fracking. A leftist assured me this is the gold standard of science, and that human sacrifice is needed to save the planet from its climate

  21. cdqgfj says:

    BTW anyone who thinks science is an issue where labels like “conservative” or “liberal” matter has already misunderstood what is going on. Such labels only matter in ideological debate, like for example in creationists attacking evolutionary science. Why is it that all creationists are theists? Because their agenda is non-scientific, of course. Science stands on its own legs and therefore scientific theories have supporters from all religions and political camps.

    …so which are the best liberal climate skeptic blogs? I hope they are many…

    • gator69 says:

      You seriously have to ask why atheists tend to be evolutionists and why the religious tend to be creationists? 😆

      BTW – I know many faithful who have no issue with the theory of evolution, and I have read atheists who agree with intelligent design.

      What I have never found is a decent human being who believes in condemning millions to death every year for their agenda.

      You are a scumbag.

    • David A says:

      Anyone who thinks CAGW is science, is misinformed. Your point about liberal blogs is a clear logical fallacy. The lack of overtly liberal CAGW skeptical blogs demonstrates how ideological and political CAGW is. How many alarmist blogs are hosted by conservatives?

      There are many skeptical blogs where political ideology is irrelevant and not noticed. See climate audit, see CO2 science, see the NIPCC “Climate change revisited” I have no idea if the blog hosts are liberal or conservative, and either do you, just as you have no idea of the political leanings of 30,000 plus signers of the Oregon Petition.

      What part of the following quotes do you consider science?

      “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
      on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
      – Prof. Chris Folland,

      Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
      “The models are convenient fictions
      that provide something very useful.”
      – Dr David Frame,
      climate modeler, Oxford University

      ”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
      Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology,
      Lead author of many IPCC reports

      “”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
      David Foreman,
      co-founder of Earth First!

      “[the United Nations could become] a comprehensive Planetary Regime which could control the distribution of all natural resources.. and all food on the international market.” -You guessed it, Our Science Czar John Holdren

      To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family, tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas.
      “The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy”. (Brock Chisholm, first Director General of the World Health Organisation

      Cd, anyone who says energy should be expensive and rationed are stating that food and health and all human activity should be rationed and controlled. In fact, they are saying that human life should be nasty, brutish and short.

      This is why Gator keeps on you.

      • gator69 says:

        It is funny how CAGW hucksters think they are “liberal”. I am probably far more “liberal” than cfool. I believe in individual rights, and abhor large governments.

        The CAGW crowd are fascists, who believe the state should have the right to dictate every aspect of human life.

        • cdqgfj says:

          One theory I’ve heard is that the US is run by a single corporate fascist party through its republican and democratic wings…

        • gator69 says:

          That is true, they are known as “progressives”, and they want Big Government just like you.

        • gator69 says:

          Cfool, you never have told me just how many people you want dead. Give us a number. Is it millions or billions? You have already been an accessory to millions of deaths, so I’m guessing you are shooting for billions, so to speak.

      • cdqgfj says:

        I do not advocate or “believe” CAGW. It’s clear based on science that humans are causing AGW so let’s get used to a changing climate/weather. Also, I have little interest in the politics of climate negotiations or the like.

        • gator69 says:

          Actually science dictates that natural variability is still the driver of climate change.

          You cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

          You cannot provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

          Ah, science!

          Now, how many do you plan to kill?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “It’s clear based on science that humans are causing AGW ”

          BULLSHIT. You would not know science if it slapped you in the face.

          You have not been able to provide even one link that proves this baseless conjecture, except those that show that the only human influence on “the climate” is through data tampering.

  22. cdqgfj says:

    When is the Arctic cooling going to start??

    • gator69 says:

      Cherry picked dates and fudged numbers, all selected to promote the anti-human CAGW agenda. Yawn.

      How many are you willing to sacrifice killer?

      • cdqgfj says:

        Oh conservative media told you that all science-result pointing towards climate change or AGW are fake? That’s very convenient as now you don’t have to think! Hail Jesus!

        • gator69 says:

          Oh conservative media told you that all science-result pointing towards climate change or AGW are fake?

          Nope. But all adjustments to the data are in support of CAGW, and that is a smoking gun of fraud.

          So how many do tou intend to kill?

  23. cdqgfj says:

    So where are all the liberal or left-leaning climate skeptics? There must be many of them, unless climate skepticism is a political ideology.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Climate change ideology is very much a far-left fantasy. Glad you admit it.

    • gator69 says:

      I’m a liberal skeptic. Left-leaning folks are fascists, not liberals.

      • cdqgfj says:

        Bernie-style social democrats are not fascists. Have you visited the social democratic hellhole called Europe for example?

        • gator69 says:

          Controlling the economy and dictating lifestyles is fascist. Bernie wants to do both.

          So how many do you need to kill?

        • gator69 says:

          And BTW, I was born in France, and later I lived in Germany during the ice age scare. I remember the Alpine villagers worrying about glaciers marching down the valleys, because that is what the “consensus” was telling them. And I remember the restrictions on movement and lifestyles, which thankfully we still do not have here.

          Now, do you plan to kill billions, is that your plan? Why is snuffing out 1000 people per hour so easy for you? Psychotic much?

        • Bernie-style social democrats are not fascists.

          Nice shirt there for the troops …

          Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.

        • Bernie-style social democrats are not fascists.

          You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • gator69 says:

      And is it billions you want dead cfool? Give me a number.

  24. gator69 says:

    Since cfool started posting on this thread, he and his team have managed to snuff out roughly 60,000 innocent human beings. Since James Hansen shut off the A/C on Capitol Hill and lied to congress, their team has snuffed out roughly 190,000,000 innocent human beings, and yet this is still not enough.

    Notice that cfool never addresses this most evil of deeds, and cares not one whiff about those that are sacrificed for ice.

    This is the easiest way to turn a CAGW believer into a skeptic. 99% of the population gets it, when you explain to them that this CAGW nonsense is worse than Hitler. Those who are not dangerously mentally ill will choose life over ice every time, and then they will look at the frothing-at-the-mouth killers like cfool, and shudder.

    Keep it up cfool, you are creating new skeptics daily.

  25. cdqgfj says:

    Science is worse than Hitler? how come I get the distinct feeling that you’ve never been involved in any kind of scientific work? Do you still believe in a sinister global conspiracy covering hundreds of scieitific communities? Weird how there have been no whistleblowers, I guess that just shows how widespread the conspiracy is…

    • gator69 says:

      Don’t blame science for your team’s genocide.

      How many do you plan to kill, give me a number.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “how come I get the distinct feeling that you’ve never been involved in any kind of scientific work?”

      You have made it patently obvious the only science you have ever been near is “social science” at high school.

  26. cdqgfj says:

    So how come climate skepticism is politically motivated instead of being founded on published solid science? How come there’s no evidence of these global conspiracies? Think folks.

    • gator69 says:

      So why do you insist on killing millions when the science says it is likely natural variability? Or is it billions you want dead?

      • cdqgfj says:

        The science does not say it’s “likely natural variability”. Check your sources.

        • gator69 says:

          Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of climate change.

          Oh that’s right! You can’t!

          So why do you insist on sniffing out millions?

  27. cdqgfj says:

    You do not seem very bright.

  28. cdqgfj says:

    BTW the cold blob in Greenland has been predicted by no other than Hansen:

    …makes sense that the extra meltwaters from Greenland have to go SOMEWHERE

  29. cdqgfj says:

    IPCC assessment reports explain in detail and with references why “natural variability” does not explain recent changes in climate. Surely you’ve read at least parts of the reports?

    • gator69 says:

      Obviously you have not read the IPCC reports, because you wrongly believe they ruled it NV.

      So why is there not a single paper refuting NV, if it has been ruled out?

      Along with killing millions, you and your team are liars.

  30. cdqgfj says:

    Science is worse than Hitler? how come I get the distinct feeling that you’ve never been involved in any kind of scientific work?

    Hitler was a piker and didn’t follow the science—I give you that. Genghis the Green was the Man. He sequestered huge amounts of decaying human carbon—larger by several orders of magnitude—while Hitler turned most of it into deadly atmospheric CO2.

    Carnegie Institution’s climate scientists Pongratz and Caldeira don’t even mention Hitler in their published studies and even their German colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology agree that the Führer must take a back seat to Genghis when it comes to depopulation and greening of the Earth.

    However, a disclaimer should also be made that the Mongol emperor and his successors had two centuries to work on the problem while the National Socialist leader had just a little over a decade. If Hitler and his successors had 200 years to implement the full Generalplan Ost it could have had a more significant and positive impact on the greening of the Eurasian continent. Large part of the plan was reforestation and the creation of natural parks in that would have worked as an efficient carbon sink.

    We will never know but we must go by the scientific numbers. Hitler loved nature and German forests but as an environmentalist he’s not even in the running.

    In 1206 AD Genghis Khan began the Mongol invasion: a horse-crazed bow-wielding military force that swept through much of modern-day Asia into the Middle East and Eastern Europe. But aside from creating the world’s largest empire, the Mongol invasion had another global impact that has remained hidden in history according to new research by Julia Pongratz of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology. Genghis Khan and his empire, which lasted nearly two centuries, actually cooled the Earth.

    “It’s a common misconception that the human impact on climate began with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era,” says Pongratz, lead author of the study in a press release. “Actually, humans started to influence the environment thousands of years ago by changing the vegetation cover of the Earth‘s landscapes when we cleared forests for agriculture.”

    The answer to how this happened can be told in one word: reforestation. When the Mongol hordes invaded Asia, the Middle East, and Europe they left behind a massive body count, depopulating many regions. With less people, large swathes of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

    In the study published in The Holocene, Pongratz along with Carnegie colleague, Ken Caldeira, and German colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, compiled a model of global land cover beginning in 800 AD. She kept her eye on four historical events closely, which she theorized could have impacted the climate due to the return of forests after depopulation: the Black Death in Europe (the end of the 14th Century), the fall of China’s Ming Dynasty (the last half of the 17th Century), the conquest of the Americas (the 16th and 17th Centuries), and the Mongol invasion of the 13th and 14th Century.

    “We found that during the short events such as the Black Death and the Ming Dynasty collapse, the forest re-growth wasn’t enough to overcome the emissions from decaying material in the soil,” explains Pongratz. “But during the longer-lasting ones like the Mongol invasion and the conquest of the Americas there was enough time for the forests to re-grow and absorb significant amounts of carbon.”

    The Mongol invasion had the most significant impact. According to the study’s accounting, re-growth of forests during the Mongol invasion absorbed 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, equaling the amount of carbon global society now produces annually from gasoline.

    Pongratz argues that her study has relevance for the world’s current climate crisis: “Today about a quarter of the net primary production on the Earth’s land surface is used by humans in some way, mostly through agriculture. […]. In the past we have had a substantial impact on global climate and the carbon cycle, but it was all unintentional. Based on the knowledge we have gained from the past, we are now in a position to make land-use decisions that will diminish our impact on climate and the carbon cycle. We cannot ignore the knowledge we have gained.”

    Of course, before society can even consider global reforestation, global deforestation must be halted. Despite worldwide concern and numerous initiatives over the years (both local and global) forests continue to fall at staggering rates. Currently around 10% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation.

    How Genghis Khan cooled the planet
    Mongabay, Jan 20, 2011

    Was Genghis Khan history’s greenest conqueror?
    mother nature network, Jan 24, 2011
    The Mongol invasion scrubbed nearly 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, according to surprising new research.

    Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world’s total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests.

    Dr. Julia Pongratz on Attribution of atmospheric CO2, Video Abstract

    • gator69 says:

      cfool and his team also make GK look like an amateur. The CAGW crowd has killed five times as many as GK, and did it in a fifth of the time! Wait a minute… is this excuse number one thousand and one for the pause?

  31. cdqgfj says:

    You seem to have entered a completely fictitious world. Well done.

  32. cdqgfj says:

    New record low in sea ice extent again:

    • gator69 says:

      So is this your justification for snuffing out 21,000 innocent humans ever day?

    • AndyG55 says:

      No, the record lows were through the first 80% of the Holocene, when there was ZERO sea ice for most summers.

      Current levels are about the same as the late Medieval period as was dipping down into the Little Ice Age.

      The reason it is currently still so HIGH is because we are still very much in the COLD end of the current interglacial.

      Your base-level ignorance is again shown for all to see.

      • cdqgfj says:

        Now I understand why it’s so important to conservatives to try to discredit all the hockey-stick graphs….anyone who looks at them cannot fail to notice that the current warming is orders of magnitude faster than any natural change. This is exactly what would happen if AGW was true BTW 😀

  33. cdqgfj says:

    Science is worse than Hitler and basically about “lying”? Heh heh hee 😀

    • gator69 says:

      Please show me where “science” demands the sacrifice of seven million humans each year.

      You can run killer, but you cannot hide.

  34. cdqgfj says:

    This part of the denialosphere is full of rampant anti-science bias together with weird fantasies of Trump “fixing” the AGW-problem by banning science. Do you have any idea how desperate that sounds? The majority of research into Earth Sciences happens outside the US but lets not disturb the redneck-bubble with facts…

  35. cdqgfj says:

    Dictators usually can have a large impact on the direction of art and science…Trump will save you guys, LOL

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I love the smell of fear in the morning …

      • cdqgfj says:

        Yeah me too, so many lies about “arctic sea ice recovery” were posted on this blog in the past couple of years…doh!

        • AndyG55 says:

          It still hasn’t recovered to the levels of the before the Little Ice Age.

        • AndyG55 says:

          We can only hope though….. seems to be going better this year, so far.

          But the La Nina will start biting soon and the melt will unfortunately slow down.

          Still way more Arctic sea ice than nearly all the rest of the Holocene.

        • gator69 says:

          Yeah me too, so many lies about “arctic sea ice recovery” were posted on this blog in the past couple of years…doh!

          Please post examples of the “many lies” of this blog, and be very, very specific. Post links to said “many lies” and a full explanation of what your sick and demented anti-human brain deems to be a “lie”.

          Drive by dribble will not be accepted.

          And in your explanation you will need to detail exactly how any of this justifies the snuffing out of hundreds of millions of innocent human beings.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Silly boy, ya’ self-destroyer
      Paranoia, the destroyer

  36. cdqgfj says:

    And how’s the beloved hiatus doing? No global atmospheric warming since April 2016, LOL

    • AndyG55 says:

      To return longer than ever in about 4 months.

      You don’t understand the meaning of “transient” do you.

  37. gator69 says:

    ckiller says:
    May 10, 2016

    Arctic sea-ice seems to be crashing…prospects for a new record low this summer are getting higher. AGW at work.

    Dictators usually can have a large impact on the direction of art and science…Trump will save you guys, LOL

    And how’s the beloved hiatus doing? No global atmospheric warming since April 2016, LOL

    ckiller, how does any of your childish rantings justify the snuffing out of hundreds of millions of innocent humans?

  38. cdqgfj says:

    Red herring, not interested in the slightest in the billions of beings killed in your fantasies every day.

    How come the planet is warming up faster than before?

    • gator69 says:

      not interested in the slightest in the billions of beings killed

      We know you don’t care about humans, that is evident. And the deaths are not a fantasy, they are preventable when resources are properly allocated.

      About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often.
      Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone. The problem is that hungry people are trapped in severe poverty. They lack the money to buy enough food to nourish themselves. Being constantly malnourished, they become weaker and often sick. This makes them increasingly less able to work, which then makes them even poorer and hungrier. This downward spiral often continues until death for them and their families.

      That works out to 7,665,000 every year.

      So go ahead and mock the millions you help to snuff out, classy.

      BTW – I used your sick comments to convert another CAGW believer yesterday.

      And there is nothing unprecedented about our climate, killer.

      • cdqgfj says:

        Lets lament the victims of capitalism

        • gator69 says:

          Lets lament the victims of capitalism

          Talk about fantasies! Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other construct.

          You are killing millions in the name of CAGW, a leftist wet dream of a fantasy. And to deflect your massive guilt, you attack the one thing that has actually benefitted mankind.

          Thanks for proving your agenda is political, and genocide.

          Your “team” is killing millions every year.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I used your sick comments to convert another CAGW believer yesterday.

        I like it, gator. I guess you’ve also just converted cdqgfj into a completely different kind of useful idiot.

        • gator69 says:

          I do this all the time. I have also used Jimmy.

          Only a sick twisted POS would argue against saving over seven million humans annually. So when this behavior has light shed upon it, normal and even semi-normal people cringe and gasp. And they write off CAGW as a concern until this demented misappropriation of resources is addressed. It has worked every time, and for good reason.

  39. cdqgfj says:

    Generalissimus Trump will dictate what the “correct” scientific results shall be to support the party ideology. Sounds great, where do I sign up??

    • gator69 says:

      Yes, leftists hate humans. Leftists are killing seven million humans every year in their attempts to control all of humanity. There is no scientific basis for doing this, and no justification, it is genocide.

  40. cdqgfj says:

    Do wingnuts always start talking about something else when the discussion is shifted to science? Does reality have a liberal bias? LOL

    • gator69 says:

      Killer, we started with the science, and it was found to be severely lacking. Then we moved on, or at least the rest of us did. But you continue to spew nonsense while aiding in the killing of seven million humans every year.

      Bjorn Lomborg is an AGW believer, but unlike you, he has a properly functioning brain and is not a psychopath bent on the destruction of humanity. Bjorn says I am right, and you are wrong. The science says I am right and you are wrong.

      Shall we start again?

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      So why do you choose to kill seven million people every year?

  41. cdqgfj says:

    Here’s an example of a bold and completely wrong prediction on this blog:

    This is just one of many…perhaps the author could join the Trump administration as Arctic ice prediction Czar 😀

    • gator69 says:

      Why is it you never criticize these failed predictions? Is it because you enjoy snuffing out seven million humans every year?

      FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

      1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
      Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006


      2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
      Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.


      3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

      Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.


      4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
      Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007


      5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
      Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.


      6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
      Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.


      7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
      Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
      Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007


      8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
      Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

      9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
      Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010


      10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
      Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000


      11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
      Spiegel, 1 April 2000


      12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

      3Sat, 26 June 2003


      13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
      IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)


      14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
      Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007


      15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”


      “ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
      Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002


      16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
      Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006


      17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
      Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010


      18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
      Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007


      19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
      Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007


      20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
      FOCUS, 24 May 2006


      21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
      Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007


      22. “Winters: wet and mild”
      Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007


      23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
      Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009


      24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
      Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004


      25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
      Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006


      26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
      Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
      Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006


      27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. […] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. […] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
      Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006


      28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. […] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
      Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.


      29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
      German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010


      30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
      Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001


      31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
      Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010


      32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.


      33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
      State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.


      34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
      Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999


      35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
      David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000


      36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
      BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004


      37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
      Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999


      38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
      Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000


      39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
      Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005


      40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
      Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000


      41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
      IPCC Climate Change, 2001


      42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
      IPCC Climate Change, 2001


      43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
      IPCC Climate Change, 2007


      44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
      WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007


      45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
      Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007


      46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
      Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008


      47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
      Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007


      48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
      Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007


      49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
      Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009


      50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
      Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009


      51. “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”
      BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
      [BBC 2013: “Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.”]


      52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
      Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.


      53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and

      “…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
      Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004


      54. “Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
      NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999


      55. “We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
      Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005


      56. Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
      Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005


      57. “Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe, will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with snow disappearing increasingly.”
      Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, “internationally renowned meteorologist”, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov 2008


      58. “With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.”
      Guardian, 14 February 2004
      [4 January 2013: “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow and strong winds.”]


      59. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
      David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004


      60. “For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise” warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex) conference in Goteborg. “This is because the warming leads to the ice on the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year.”
      Spiegel, 3 June 2006
      [The Local 2013: “Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record … I’ve never seen this much ice this late in the season.”]


      61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe

      Reuters, Nov 09, 2012

      FRANKFURT – European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report.

      “The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter, especially over northern Europe.”


      62. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
      Guardian, 26 August 2006.


      63. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p19)

      “…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)

      Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).
      Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004


      64. “The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom”
      Telegraph December 14, 2006


      65. “Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.”
      BBCs Climate Change Experiment


      66. “Cold winters would gradually disappear.” (p.4)
      67. “In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter..” (p.6)
      The Greenpeace report “Impacts of climate change in Belgium” is available in an abbreviated version in English:

      Click to access SumIB_uk.pdf

      Impacts of climate change in Belgium
      Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
      Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC.


      68. “Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
      NASA, June 2, 1999


      69. “The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
      Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007


      70. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
      David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
      February 14, 2004


      71. “Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter sports higher and higher up mountains,…”
      Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich


      72. “ In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be in full leaf. If that isn’t enough, autumn probably won’t begin until October.”
      Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard


      73. “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
      Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
      Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.


      74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”


      75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s anti-emissions law, “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late…The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.”


      76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”


      77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”
      [Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won’t be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is included it here.]


      78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”


      79. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”


      80. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”


      81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”


      82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”


      83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”


      84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”


      85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.


      86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”


      87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”


      88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”


      89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: “Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert–huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect’ scientists believe.”


      90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”


      91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”


      92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”


      93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”


      94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”


      95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”


      96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”


      97. March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”


      98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”


      99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”


      100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”


      101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”
      [Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.]


      102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”


      103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”


      104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
      [Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]


      105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”


      106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”


      107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

  42. cdqgfj says:

    Values are anomalously low for May:

    Funnily this sit has been preaching arctic sea “recovery” for years – looks like there is not one, oops!

    • skeohane says:

      That’s known as weather, not climate, it’s the wind compacting the ice. Your graphs are meaningless.

      • True, but the graphs per se are not important to him. There are psychiatric explanations why he keeps coming back for more. I have trouble understanding the stimuli but they seem well documented.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yes, not only does cFool relish the SUFFERING of others through DEPRIVATION of reliable energy supply, but also seems to relish the battering he ALWAYS gets here.

          It must be what sustains his miserable life.

          It must hurt him so badly to see us laughing at him and his moronic idiocy…

          …. but he loves it

    • AndyG55 says:

      Let’s sum up the facts,
      1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino
      2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
      3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
      4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
      5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
      6. No warming in Japan for 20 years
      7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
      8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 – 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015
      9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930’s as now, maybe slightly lower
      10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 – 2005, then cooling … (is this a CO2 thing as well?)
      11. Even UAH NoPol shows basically no warming from 2002 until the large spike in January 2016

      Points 3-6 are regions not overly affected by El Ninos, but since CO2 is meant to be well mixed, they should be affected by CO2…… But they are not.

      The ONLY warming is coming from El Nino events and ocean cycles. CO2 is not even in the picture.

      Now the AMO is on its way back down, the El Nino is subsiding. The solar cycles are heading into what looks like a protracted quiet period.

      Over then next several years we will see temperatures first drop down to the “plateau” level , probably by later this year, The “plateau” will re-establish, and show the El Nino for the transient event that it has been. (much as the alarmist want to think otherwise)

      Further cooling will then rapidly lengthen the back calculated ZERO trend to the whole length of the satellite record.

  43. cdqgfj says:

    Strong downward trend on volume continues, we’re very likely to fall under the trendline this summer like we did in 2007 and 2012..

  44. cdqgfj says:

    Hiatus and arctic sea ice recovery are over, solar-notch theory does not even exist..are “clouds” the last bastion of the skeptics these days? What are you guys going to do if cloud-feedbacks cannot explain the recent rapid warming?

    • gator69 says:

      I will continue to advocate for the 21,000 your team condemns to death every day, you sick bastard.

      • cdqgfj says:

        Folks your unscientific political ideology is at a dead-end. Repent!!

        • gator69 says:

          Only a leftist would consider saving millions of innocent human lives annually as “unscientific” and a “political ideology”.

          Sick bastards.

        • Unscientific political ideology? You couldn’t resist, eh?

          I know only one ideology that claims being “scientific”. *)

          The Marxist-Leninists call it “Scientific Communism“.

          *) Some political science scholars say there is also an emerging Scientific Climatism.

  45. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    In preparation for the Climate fable, solar “scientists” met at the Bilderberg for four days in 1967, from Arpil 17 to April 21, 1967, to hammer out the Bilderberg Standard Solar Model:

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s