MORE Tornadoes from Global Warming? That’s a Joke, Right?

April 29th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I see the inevitable blame-humanity game has been reinvigorated by the recent tornado swarm. I have not read other meteorologists’ treatment of this issue, so what follows can be considered an independent opinion on the matter.

If there is one weather phenomenon global warming theory does NOT predict more of, it would be severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.

Tornadic thunderstorms do not require tropical-type warmth. In fact, tornadoes are almost unheard of in the tropics, despite frequent thunderstorm activity.

Instead, tornadoes require strong wind shear (wind speed and direction changing rapidly with height in the lower atmosphere), the kind which develops when cold and warm air masses “collide”. Of course, other elements must be present, such as an unstable airmass and sufficient low-level humidity, but wind shear is the key. Strong warm advection (warm air riding up and over the cooler air mass, which is also what causes the strong wind shear) in advance of a low pressure area riding along the boundary between the two air masses is where these storms form.

But contrasting air mass temperatures is the key. Active tornado seasons in the U.S. are almost always due to unusually COOL air persisting over the Midwest and Ohio Valley longer than it normally does as we transition into spring.

For example, the poster child for active tornado seasons was the Superoutbreak of 1974, which was during globally cool conditions. This year, we are seeing much cooler than normal conditions through the corn belt, even delaying the planting schedule. Cool La Nina years seem to favor more tornadoes, and we are now coming out of a persistent La Nina. The global-average temperature has plummeted by about 1 deg. F in just one year.

An unusually warm Gulf of Mexico of 1 or 2 degrees right now cannot explain the increase in contrast between warm and cold air masses which is key for tornado formation because that slight warmth cannot compete with the 10 to 20 degree below-normal air in the Midwest and Ohio Valley which has not wanted to give way to spring yet.

The “extra moisture” from the Gulf is not that important, because it’s almost always available this time of year…it’s the wind shear that caused this outbreak.

More tornadoes due to “global warming”, if such a thing happened, would be more tornadoes in Canada, where they don’t usually occur. NOT in Alabama.

It is well known that strong to violent tornado activity in the U.S. has decreased markedly since statistics began in the 1950s, which has also been a period of average warming. So, if anything, global warming causes FEWER tornado outbreaks…not more. In other words, more violent tornadoes would, if anything, be a sign of “global cooling”, not “global warming”.

Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.

81 Responses to “MORE Tornadoes from Global Warming? That’s a Joke, Right?”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. klem says:

    For those who are members of the church of climatology, making these kinds of bizaar claims help them cling to and maintain their ACC faith.

    • scs says:

      …and money and power.

      Never forget, in this as with every such ‘scare’, follow the money and you’ll find the power behind it.

  2. Ray says:

    Oh Dear, Dr. Spencer, you seem to have missed the point!
    Didn’t you know that ALL unusual events are caused by “climate change”, even if caused by cold weather, warm weather or normal weather, and you will never convince the proponents of “climate change” anything else. I predict that within a year, there will be at least one academic paper (fully peer reviewed), “proving” that this was caused by “climate change” and that the number of Tornadoes has increased since the 1980′s, ignoring of course, data prior to that date.
    Congratulations for not running with the herd!

  3. Alfred says:

    Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.

    Yup. I like to think that many are just misinformed or haven’t bothered to do their own investigative work and as you know, it does require a bit of hard work. However, and sadly, some seem to be struck by all three conditions.

  4. Alan D McIntire says:

    Here’s a link to a June 24, 1974 TIME magazine article warning of global coling. One of the signs is, more frequent tornadoes.,9171,944914,00.html

    “Scientists have found other indications of global cooling….

    Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest’s recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.”
    - Alan D McIntire

  5. Jacob C says:

    Yet, we all knew it was coming.

    Personally, I think such venues and individuals as Think Progress, NBC/MSNBC, the RealClimateers and K. Trenberth could make an Ice Age seem as though it fit their theories. Mile high glaciers in Canada and Scandinavia couldn’t stop them…all because the narrative of linear or exponential global warming with little natural input or impetus is just too important to mess up or modify, and since they are “very unlikely” to be wrong (IPCC, 2007), then the ends justify the means.

    Yes, I am being a little snarky. :-)

  6. Teresa Renshaw says:

    Dr. Spencer, Thank You so much for your professional insight. Having an interest in the Astronomy going back to my childhood, and now a son who loves the NASA channel and The Weather Channel’s storm chasing shows, and currently in a new Meteorology class in 5th grade, I certainly appreciate your ability to briefly and REASONABLY explain this violent weather event in terms even a child could understand. Our next generation needs more scientists like yourself willing to provide realistic explanations to fight off politically motivated theories sure to heat the global warming debate in years to come. Even though I not quite sure of Dr. Forbes’ (The Weather Channel)stand on global warming, I do have to give credit for his prediction of N. Alabama being in the bullseye for highly tornadic conditions all morning long and early afternoon on the day the storms hit. All the wonderful technology, I believe, did spare many more lives.
    Please continue to blog on these controversial subjects as it is nice to have another point of view of these events that is NOT politically motivated.

  7. Roy Brown says:

    Jacob, if a new ice age struck with mile high glaciers as far south as Chicago, the delusional warmists would just blame it on global warming melting Greenland’s ice causing disruption of the North Atlantic Current. They’ve already made a Hollywood movie predicting our inevitable migration into Mexico.

  8. Global warming means there is a source of atmospheric heat and if that is true it will contribute to climate change. The problem is academia is blind to temperature, we use calculators and thermostats but rarely get a visual.

    Although building development is designed with temperatures supplied by meteorology, buildings are signed off as compliant with building codes without verification.

    Building codes tell us as designers and builders to watch out for solar radiation because the electromagnetic lines of flux will interact with absorbent building finishes. The high speed polarizing at twice the frequency causes excitation.

    Professionals need to stay within their area of expertise in this discussion or we are part of the problem. Here is a link to infrared time-lapsed video showing buildings becoming urban heat islands first thing in the morning because of solar radiation.

  9. Paulie200 says:

    I just have to pass along this comment from a brave poster at

    “It’s great news that Spencer, one of the world’s top climate scientists, is alive and well. There are few scientists who understand atmospheric physics like he does.”

    So well said.


  10. Steeptown says:

    Paulie200. That was I. It’s the first time for ages that I’ve had a comment that got past the RealClimate moderators.

  11. Thank you for your “Tornado Explanation” Dr. Spencer it seems a lot more logical than the global warming one.

    - That an increase in contrast between warm and cold air masses is the key for wind shear and tornado formation seems like a textbook explanation.

    Let’s tell Kevin E T (renberth): “Wind shear is a likely cause for the formation of a tornado (if you have a strong thunderstorm.)”

  12. oiaohm says:

    There are multi factors at play.

    One that is not talked about much is global dimming caused by pollution. Contrails and the like. Effect of global dimming is cooling.

    More study would have to be undertaken to be sure global warming was not playing a roll. Particularly how much pollution was north to create cooling by pollution caused dimming.

    So more heat one side more cold the other due to the two effects would equal a cyclone season from hell. Remember larger the contrast stronger the winds.

    Global dimming is mostly man made without question. Detection system is surprising simple. Evaporation pans. Funny enough the amount water Evaporates at natural earth temps is more related to light than heat. Lower the light less water that goes. This has been charted by the Csiro in Australia for over 100 years. It was sign of a major problem with the complete global warming models. Even if a area was hotter does not mean there will be more Evaporation.

    “extra moisture” is nothing todo with global warming. Yes the earth can heat up and get dryer no problems due to the effects of dimming.

    Lack of extra moisture in air from Evaporation also disputes that the sun is putting out more light/heat. Since more light equal more evaporation.

    What is strange is reduction in Evaporation is not lining up with drops in temp. So something making our atmosphere retain heat better. So there is global warming as well as 100 percent man made dimming. Question is are the doing both. Or are we just doing 1.

    We love jets we love cars we love trucks. All release the chemicals for global dimming. Yes global dimming is not CO2.

    Rule us out is careless assessment at this stage.

    • stephen richards says:

      Rubbish. Yes light can eject molecules from the surface film of a ‘solid’ but not in significant quantities. Heat is the main driver of evaporation. Global dimming has not been significant even though India and China have been clouding the skys a little.
      Global cooling certainly has been significant. Snow cover in the NH well above normal, more Artic Sea ice than this time last year, slightly above normal Gulf and more sheer.

      Last time there was a major outbreak was the last ‘climate change’ episode in the pacific. It seems ‘climate change’ provoques severe weather. More cold or more hot. In this instance it’s more cold. SIMPLES

  13. Dr. Spencer is exactly correct. It is global cooling ,not global warming ,which correlates to an increase in tornados /severe thunderstorms.

    If one goes back in past history one will see the cool decade of the 1970′s ,was associated with an increase in tornado activity.

    I say the cold PDO, and La Nina, are two of the main reasons behind the increase in severe weather this past Apr. Also the troposheric temp. aloft are colder then normal.

    I still maintain the key to N.H. global cooling wil be the -AO atmospheric circulation becoming more common place, and this in turn will be due to mostly low solar activity and increase high latitude volcanic activity.

    To carry this further, one does not even need much of an overall decrease in global temp. to start N.H. cooling .but rather a distribution change in temperatures over the N.H., which result in polar regions around 75N -90 N being warmer then normal ,in contrast to latitudes say 40 N- 70 N or so, being colder then normal. What can accomplish this is the AO oscillation, being mostly negative. That can start the initial N.H. cooling ,then I think a positive feedback will develope, where the increase in the -AO atm. circulation serves to increase snow cover,clouds, and precip over those latitudes 40 -70 N ,which in turn reinforce the -AO, and start/keep the cooling process intact.

    That is how I think it gets going. Not to forget the cold PDO,with it’s association with more La Ninas versus El NinoS. Not to forget the AMO, will be turning colder as this decade goes by. These in turn could be linked to the prolong solar minimum but it is not as clear as the -AO/increase geological activity link.

    Much of my thoughts are again ,based on past history from the Maunder Minimum/Dalton Minimum, which seems to show the type of correlations I have mentioned ,in the above.

    I say past history is one of the best tools we have, to try to forecast what may happen with the climate, going forward.

    We have not had a prolong solar minimum, since the Dalton Minimum from 1790-1840. Time will tell. I have Oct. of 2005 as the start of this prolong solar minimum.

    • Frank says:

      This somewhat-sensationalized Science Daily article is based on the publication below. When the frequency of strong convection is generally predicted to fall dramatically in the Western US (Figure 3) and wind sheer is expected to decrease dramatically in the Central and Eastern US (Figure 4), these authors somehow believe that their GCM can accurately predict an opposing trend incidence of the small fraction of events representing the severest weather – events that occurs on scales far too small to be accurately modeled. Do the few instances of high convection in the Western US (lightening) and a combination of high convection and low wind shear elsewhere in the US (tornados) actually represent the type of weather conditions when severe weather of this type is a problem? Who knows? Everything is hidden inside the model results, only a small fraction of which have been described herein. Above Roy suggests that cool weather in the spring in the Midwest and Ohio Valley (or perhaps the temperature difference between the Gulf of Mexico and these regions) is an essential component of the recent massive outbreak of tornados. When the authors can show that their models realistically represent dangerous conditions under 1X CO2, then maybe it makes sense to pay attention to what they predict for 2X CO2.

  14. Jack Poynter says:

    A voice of reason in a world of insanity. What a rare and wonderful treat. Please accept my thanks and encouragement for your continued work.

  15. Evan, the only problem is ,it is not warming that has taken place this spring, that has caused the increase in severe weather,but rather cooling. All you have to do to see if this is true or not is look at the 600mb troposheric temperatures ,look at the PDO , look at the SOI oscillation, and look at the location these storms took place over.

    600mb temp – below normal, much colder then one year ago.

    PDO -cold phase

    SOI – Coming off a strong La Nina, and now neutral.

    LOCATION -over Alabamam ,Miss ,Tenn., pretty far south , which says cold outbreaks this spring have been diving pretty far south, in contrast to what they would be doing, in a global warming situation.

    As Dr. Spencer said, the severe weather would have been much further north,if due or tied into global warming.

    Further the global warmers contradict themselves, because they say a more zonal flow will result with global warming, and a more zonal flow or +AO, most of the time is not consistent with an overall increase in severe weather.

    We had a +AO when this event took place, but it was not typical, in that many cold air masses were still able to extend much further south then normal, more like what a typical -AO ciculation would bring.

    In summary no matter what kind of weather we have hot,dry,cold or wet the global warmers will say, it is due to global warming. They are full of BS.

  16. P Gosselin says:

    It’s not a joke. It’s a modern day Salem witch hunt. The same type of hysterical madness is what is fueling it.

  17. Laurie Ridyard says:

    I am a bit surprised at your comment “tornadoes are almost unheard of in the tropics”.

    The marine equivalent – the waterspout – is really quite common in the Doldrums. I have frequently seen 2 or three at the same time!

  18. cthulhu says:

    The fact is Roy, you don’t know. As the saying goes: “the science isn’t settled”. You don’t *know* how tornadoes will be affected by climate change, no-one does. As should be readily conceded by all, our models of climate and weather are not perfect enough to tell us what will happen to tornado frequency, intensity and distribution in a warmer world.

    Therefore the danger exists that any or all of those will change for the worse.

    And that’s what the public should know, it’s part of the risk of continued carbon emissions.

    • Colin Henderson says:

      When you say ” it’s part of the risk of continued carbon emissions.” I am assuming that by carbon you mean carbon dioxide which is one part carbon and two parts oxygen. So a more appropriate short name for CO2 would be oxygen; are continued oxygen emissions a risk?

  19. dlb says:

    Cthulhu, you contradict yourself. Firstly you say we don’t know how tornadoes will be affected by climate change, then you finish by saying there is a risk things will get worse. Well seeing we don’t know what is going on, there is just as much chance that tornado frequency will stay the same or even decrease. That is the problem with the AGW hypothesis it is so presumptous. It presumes that CO2 is a major forcing agent of climate, then it presumes that increased temperature will be detrimental to humans and ecosystems. Haven’t AGW advocates heard of the null hypothesis?

    Laurie, waterspouts are relatively mild vortices compared to tornadoes found in rotating thunderstorms. Wikipedia gives a fair explanation. Although I have not seen a waterspout I have seen their terrestrial equivalent a landspout. I was in a glider and saw this pipe snaking a few thousand feet from a ploughed field on the ground up to a cumulus cloud. There was good convection that day and I remember circling in thermals with a lot of corn chaff going by.

  20. cthulhu says:

    “Cthulhu, you contradict yourself. Firstly you say we don’t know how tornadoes will be affected by climate change, then you finish by saying there is a risk things will get worse. Well seeing we don’t know what is going on, there is just as much chance that tornado frequency will stay the same or even decrease.”

    Well you admit there is a risk things will get worse, so I don’t see how what I said is a contradiction.

    “It presumes that CO2 is a major forcing agent of climate”

    It’s hardly an assumption when there is no known forcing as large as CO2 (and that forcing is getting bigger with each year). An actual example of an assumption would be that there’s some unknown unknown bigger forcing out there that dwarfs CO2.

    “then it presumes that increased temperature will be detrimental to humans and ecosystems”

    No, it presumes meddling with a large and complex system is dangerous. I don’t regard that so much as an assumption, as based on reality. No-one ever expects throwing a spanner into a machine is might be net beneficial.

    It’s funny that when scientists propose ego-engineering schemes even many skeptics bawk at the lunacy of meddling with such a complex system without understanding precisely what could go wrong. For a brief moment we get to see those skeptics do understand the issue, but they are somehow blinkered to it.

  21. cthulhu says:

    Im not a fan of ego-engineering schemes either, but I actually meant geo-engineering

  22. Laurie Ridyard says:


    The suggestion that waterspouts are relatively mild and

    “Waterspouts do not suck up water; the water seen in the main funnel cloud is actually water droplets formed by condensation”
    really is nonsense.

    I have no doubt there are “relatively mild” tornadoes, which go unreported because the do not cause much damage.

    I have seen countless waterspouts forming at sea ( I was a Marine Weather Observer for some 17 years responsible for some of the Weather Reports ,SSTs etc.,the UEA.CRU have mucked about with) and can assure you they do suck up sea water.No doubt they appear less ferocious and more compact than tornadoes
    because the energy is taken up lifting the water.

  23. Christopher Game says:

    Christopher Game replying to the post of cthulhu of May 1, 2011 at 3:02 AM.

    cthulhu writes:

    “It’s hardly an assumption when there is no known forcing as large as CO2 (and that forcing is getting bigger with each year). An actual example of an assumption would be that there’s some unknown unknown bigger forcing out there that dwarfs CO2.”

    It is true that the precise physical nature of the present la Nina forcing is not known, but that it dwarfs presently manifest effects of CO2 is obvious, and is of course known. For cthulhu to write that “there is no known forcing as large as CO2″ is at best a misleading abuse of language; it says a lot about how cthulhu thinks. Christopher Game

  24. kenneth says:

    I am suspecting the coriolis effect is involved, too.

  25. Mike Bromley says:

    Given the astoundingly complex gibberish promoted by the CAGW camp (so complex, that indeed they contradict themselves on a seemingly daily basis), your elegantly simple explanation literally clears the air. Cold air meets warm, and not only that, in a predictable manner…because the physics are rather straightforward. Late winter, la Nina…tornadoes.

    Tragic consequences which serve eloquently to smite the warmist jargon, by means of direct causal evidence. Not a model in sight.

  26. cleanwater says:

    How much of the hot air that is flowing over the cold Canadian air is from the gulf and how much is from the loud mouth AGW news commentator that know nothing but what is printed on their monitors?

    • Vlasta says:

      Dr Spencer
      Please keep UHA uptades off the line for the rest of this year . Then we get J Hansen and P Jones .
      No way they can adjust ‘surface temperature ‘ without it .
      Then we ask the question , why for 40 years your anomaly was 0.1 – 0.2 higher than UHA and suddenly its 0.5 higher .
      IThats what I expect the ‘greatest climatologist of the world J Hansen would post as his GISS baby while NINA is easing
      I could be wrong with this statement
      If there was global warming those anomalies shoulb be viceversa

  27. Bill Goedecke says:

    I appreciate Dr. Spencer’s contribution. However, I must say that I don’t think taking a position on climate science is very useful. ‘Global warming’ and ‘global cooling’ are not singular events – certainly both processes can be occurring, given the contribution to green house gases by human activity as well as natural events, and given the amount of aerosols that are contributed to the environment by both anthropogenic and natural processes. The science is fairly complex and I do not have the knowledge to say whether Dr. Spencer or Dr. Hansen is more right than the other.

    I think people take positions because they don’t want to change their way of life – but change is coming no matter what due to resource depletion. The changes we need to make to deal with possible climate change are the changes we need to make to deal with resource depletion. And it don’t matter what I say – once we loose our financial cover, we will all feel it.

  28. Ray says:

    Vlasta says:
    “Please keep UHA uptades off the line for the rest of this year . Then we get J Hansen and P Jones .
    No way they can adjust ’surface temperature ‘ without it .
    Then we ask the question , why for 40 years your anomaly was 0.1 – 0.2 higher than UHA and suddenly its 0.5 higher .”
    Isn’t that due to the differing base periods and the recent change in the base period for UAH to 1981-2010?
    After adjustment to the same base period, there is virtually no long-term difference between UAH, HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP anomalies.
    In fact, last year, HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP anomalies tended to be lower than UAH and the 12 month average is still lower, after adjustement to 1961-90.

  29. Dr Spencer

    Whatt has happened to your global temperature updates in please? I cannot get to it.

    • coturnix19 says:

      Apparently, their computer servers are in Alabama, so tornadoes got to them too. I think, cut power or something.

  30. Ray says:

    I had assumed that the fact that the discover website was unavailable was as as result of the tornadoes.

  31. It is still amazing how many people that post on this site still think humans have somekind of an influence over the climate, when past history shows this, not to be the case. The media has done a great CON job.

    Humans have always, will always, have ZERO influence on the climate. Past history show not one incidence of this, not being so. I dare anyone to show otherwise, and the recent temp. rise that ended around 2005, or a few years earlier, was associated with the extreme solar activity throughout all of last century, and it’s secondary effects, which did not come to an end until Oct 2005.

    Lag times are coming to an end ,and the low solar we now finally have, will be effecting the climate more as we proceed into this decade.

    Again the last prolong solar minimum ended 1840, around 165 years ago,before this minimum started in 2005. 165 years of an active sun and earth’s temp. only go up .6c or so, even with the CO2 increase, that says it all.

    CO2 -trace gas,trace increase ,and that exerts control of the climate, next joke.

  32. Ray says:

    Is it my imagination, or are there less extreme temperature anomalies on this map than usual?

  33. What is the current situation re global temperatures? Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the lack of any UHI effect the best indicator of recent trends is the Hadley – CRU Sea Surface Temperature data. The 5 year moving average shows the warming trend peaked in 2003 and and a simple regression analysis from then to the present shows a global cooling trend since then . The current phase of the PDO and the decline in the Solar magnetic field strength suggest his may possibly continue for 20 – 30 years. The warmest year was 1998 -13 years with CO2 up 6.3% and no net warming completely at odds with the IPCC models.

    The increased frequency and severity of tornadoes in the US in the last few years the one of the first and most obvious climate changes resulting from the fact that the earth has been cooling since 2003. On a cooling earth the temperature gradient from the tropics to the northern latitudes is steeper. The jet stream path becomes more meridional than the generally more latitudinal flow seen in a warmer world. High pressure – generally cool highs penetrate much further south and push under the warm air from the Gulf .There is a very sharp temperature contrast across this frontal boundary which provides the instability causing the tornadoes. It is basically the same arrangement which caused the heavy snows (with associated thunder at times) which occurred this last winter.
    These tornadoes were forecast last June (2010) in the 30 Year Climate Forecast posted on my Blog at Further explanation and prediction for the likely global changes for the next 30 years can be found there.
    If the cooling trend continues, as seems more likely than not, these tornado outbreaks will become a more frequent factor in the US at this time of the year for the next 20 to 30 years.
    A cooler world with lower SSTs usually means a dryer world. Thus droughts will be more likely in for example east Africa with possible monsoon failures in India. In California the PDO will mean less rainfall with more forest fires in the south. However in the Cascades and Northern Sierras snowpack could increase since more of the rain could occur as snow. Northern Hemisphere growing seasons will be shorter with occasional early and late frosts and drought in the US corn belt and in Asia repeats of the harsh Mongolian and Chinese winters of 2009 – 10 . In Europe cold snowy winters and cool cloudy summers will be more frequent .Local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps. In the USA hurricanes may strike the east coast with greater frequency than the Gulf Coast in summer and storm related blizzards more common in the East in winter.
    La Ninas will be more frequent than El Ninos.The southern continents will be generally cooler with more frequent droughts and frost and snowin winter.
    Arctic and Antarctic sea ice may react differentially to an average global cooling. We might expect sea ice to increase in the Antarctic but in the NH the Arctic Oscillation while bringing cooler temperatures further south may also occasionaly bring warmer air into the Arctic with possible relative loss of sea ice in that area during some years.

    The most general advice is that world food production will be subject to occasional serious severe restriction because of cold and drought. The use of food crops for biofuels should be abandoned and stockpiles built up for possible lean times ahead.. Northern cities and transportation systems should prepare for more frequent heavy snow and ice storms.
    There is no threat from the burning of fossil fuels for the forseeable future, indeed an increase in CO2 would positively help in feeding the burgeoning population.

  34. Ray says:

    As a result of analysis I have done with variation in the 50 year linear trends in the HadCRUT3 dataset, I believe that we are entering a cyclical decline in that linear trend, which will result in a general decline in atmospheric temperatures over the next 30 years. However, that is also consistent with a long-term rise in temperatures of under 1c per century.
    The 10 year linear trend in HadCRUT3 has been negative since last November. RSS and NCDC are now also negative and UAH and GISS will probably also be negative by the end of this year. If my calculations are correct, the 10 year linear trend will reach about -2.5c per century by 2014, then start to rise again.
    Global temperatures (HadCRUT3 three year mean), are currently 0.14c below the multi-model average of scenario A2 of the IPCC 4th report, and below 15 of the 17 individual models (88%) in that scenario. Amazingly, temperatures are also about 0.1c below the reports “commitment” scenario, which assumed zero growth in greenhouse gasses after the year 2000.
    Again, if my calculations are correct, global temperatres will be below ALL of the scenario A2 model projections by the end of 2012.
    There is no doubt in my mind that the temperature projections in the IPCC 4th report were grossly over-stated, at least in the short-term and will require major revision in the 5th report.

  35. Dr. Norman Page, excellent, we are in complete agreement.

  36. Isaac Anderson says:

    Since I was living in Oklahoma during the May 3, 1999, I will never forget the tornado which was classified a as an F5-F6 that stayed on the ground for 87 miles. Having read all of these comments, I would ask what caused the extreme severity of that tornado?

  37. Buzz Belleville says:

    Seems like a strawman to me. Who is the respected climate scientist who says that AGW IS the cause of more tornadoes? Google it and all you come up with is meteorologists asserting that tornadoes are not caused by AGW. Is there anyone saying the opposite? Or is this just a preemptive strike? Or a way to fire up the masses who automatically assume that Hansen and Trenberth et al are making such a claim? I don’t get it.

  38. Dragontide says:

    AGW makes tornado systems more pronounced and powerful. It does the same to droughts and hurricanes. Anyone that tells you different is misinformed or a puppet for Big Oil & Coal.

  39. Dragontide says:

    Dr. Page:

    The global, land & ocean surface temperature has been above average for 314 consecutive months. 2005 tied 2010 as the warmest year in recorded history. The previous decade was the warmest in recorded history.

    Was it cooler than normal temperatures in Russia last year that spawned 600 out-of-control fires and forced an emergency transport of nuclear fuels & missiles? No. It was a record heat wave, wasn’t it?

    You sure seem incredibly misinformed for a doctor. You do understand the basic science of AGW science, right? For those that don’t: Greenhouse gas molecules allows incoming, shortwave radiation to pass through easily but restricts longwave radiation from going back up. These molecules absorb this heat then release it (in all directions, including DOWN) when they collide with each other. This process keeps us alive. But the more molecules in our troposphere, the more molecular collisions there are. (bringing more heat back to the surface)

  40. DRAGON TIDE, show us the correlation . You can’t because there isn’t any.

    Trace gas ,trace increase ,give us a break.

  41. Dragontide says:


    35,947,000,000,000,000+ cubic feet of man’s Co2 is a tad more than a trace.

    Then we move on to the methane, nitrous oxide, etc…

  42. Dragontide.
    There are four main temperature data sets.The two satellites RSS and UAH only go back 30 years so their usefulness in trend comparisons is limited. Both the GISS and Hadcrut sets go back about 160 years or so. The averaging algorithms used in the GISS – Hansen set are flawed and consistently and progressively show greater warming than the HadCrut 3 set usually used by the IPCC referred modellers.
    For example GISS March 2011 was 0.25 warmer than HadCrut 3 .
    About 0.1 of this was due to the baseline difference. GISS 1950 – 80 =. Hadcrut 1960 – 90 but that still leaves a substantial 0.15. discrepancy. The Hadcrut and GISS data both have serious questions re the UHI effect which are not present in the SST data. The ocean is 70% of the earths surface and its thermal inertia smooths out short term noise in the system. The SST data shows exactly what I stated in my post above.
    Your comments re the temperatures are either disingenuous or naive. If you climb a mountain the last 8 steps up and 8 down will be the highest.If the temperature cools for twenty years from the 2003 peak you can say the last 40 years are the highest.Of course relative to a 1950 – 80 baseline mean the last 314 months will be above average – everyone will agree the earth warmed from 1975 – 2003.
    As to anthropogenic CO2 – it provides 0.12% of the greenhouse effect- it really is a trace -do you really believe such a little tail can wag so big a dog? – Get serious. At all time scales CO2 changes follow temperature changes- you are confusing cause and effect. Note also that the CO2- temperature sensitivity equation is logarithmic so that CO2 increases produce incrementally less temperature increase.
    Basically you need to stand back and distinguish the forest from the trees.

  43. Dragontide says:

    Dr Page:

    There is a lot more information out there than just NOAA’s and UAH’s satellites. Do a little research on the Inuit and other polar dwellers. Some of that history goes back 30,000 years. Only now are climate issues disrupting their lifestyle. (less sea ice to protect their land from storm surge and less plankton which disrupts their food chain)

    In Antarctica, so much ice has melted that a new life form was discovered that has been living in the ice for 1.5 million years. (iron breathing, microorganisms) So we know that ice was intact all that time or those microorganisms would have spilled into the ocean.

    These things are in perfect sync with NOAA’s and the WMO’s numbers.

    Yes there were more greenhouse gasses that followed earth’s warmer periods. So what? Some permafrost thawed during interglacial periods and released them.

    The size of a black widow spider could also be called a “trace” when compared to the size of a human, jungle animal, etc… Our climate is very delicate. It doesn’t take the Co2 levels of Mars or Venus to bring about major changes.

  44. Dragontide correction– Ice, has been increasing in Antarctica ,for the most part over the last several years. You need to go to Cryooshere Today Website, to see for yourself. Antarctic Ice, has been at high levels.

    Another item you don’t understand is the Arctic, needs to be at or above normal in temperature, in order to bring about overall global cooling. I have mentioned this several times.

    It can be shown that the reason why temperatures went up last century was due to the items that control earth’s climatic system, were mostly being in a warm mode.


    Those factors I am very happy to say ,have now switched toward a cold mode, and thus this decade will in turn be the decade of global cooling. This started in earnest in early 2006, lag times have to be appreciated, but one can see how the temp. rise of last century has already come to a halt.

    In addition to co2 being a trace gas with a trace increase, the band widths of radiation, co2 absorbs,is at or is near suaturation ,meaning that adding additional co2 will have very litte added effect, in increasing it’s absorption ability of the longwave radiation. In addition ,also water vapor and co2 absorb in the same wave lengths, more often then not.

    You watch the temperatures this decade, they will be going lower.

  45. Dragontide says:


    AGW gasses dissipate millions of times slower than water vapor.

    There will not be one single month in this decade with the combined global, land & ocean surface temperature (the world temperature) at or below average unless a volcano, more powerful than 1991s Mt Pinatuba erupts or we are struck by a large space body. It’s impossible. Molecules within greenhouse gasses DO pump heat back to the earth’s surface. Right wingers are still screaming “Drill Baby Drill”. China adds 14,000 news cars to their roads every day. (they do have a few 100% solar cities now but are still a long way from cleaning up their act)

    2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year in recorded history. (at 1.22 (F) above average) When the next moderate to powerful El-Nino hits, a new record will be set. (because a good portion of that heat will not be able to make it out of our troposphere)

    That Antarctic ice you refer to has not yet hard froze. There’s a lot of new ice because when the old ice melts, humidity levels rise, increasing the precipitation rate. All that and a lot more will melt like ice cream at the equator as the ozone hole above the Antarctic grows smaller.

    If too much ice melts in the Arctic and Greenland, there will be global cooling. (about 50-70 years from now) All that fresh water would shut down the oceans conveyor belt effect. So we would have more extreme weather. A rise in disease that thrives on a warmer climate. Flooded coastal areas…Then ice age conditions in some areas. There is no way civilization could endure such conditions. Read Dr. Lester Brown’s ‘Plan B” and/or watch the film “Earth 2100″.

  46. Dragontide
    A few simple minded estimates for fun. I assume by average you mean relative to the 1960 – 90 mean.
    Looking at SSTs for reasons given above.
    The last year with a negative number was 1986 . The last negative month was Dec 1992. The annual SST at the 2003 trend peak was +.406. The warmest year was 1998 at +.451
    Assume for convenience that the current cooling continues at the same rate as the warming -that would mean a minus annual figure in 2020 and a minus monthly figure about 6 years earlier or about 2014.
    However things usually cool down faster than they warm up so I would expect the first negative month somewhat earlier than 2014.
    You may wish to note that the average for the first three months of 2011 was + .242 – so we are on our way.

  47. Dragontide says:

    Dr Page:

    The average I refer to is the 20th century average. (which is what NOAA uses)

    Here is their assessment of the 1st 3 months:

    “For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 12.73°C (54.87°F) was the 14th warmest January–March on record. This value is 0.43°C (0.77°F) above the 20th century average.”

  48. Ray says:

    Dragontide, I admire your faith in the standard AGW orthodoxy, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
    As Dr. Page has attempted to explain, the fact that current temperatures continue to be above the 20th century average is NOT due to recent warming, due to warming over the 20th century and mainly during a period of cyclical warming over the last 30 years. The clue is in the NOAA quote in your last post, i.e. the fact that the first three months of this year are the 14th warmest on record, i.e. not the warmest, not the 2nd , 3rd, 4th, etc warmest, but the 14th.
    Another way of putting this would have been to say that it was the coldest first three months since 1997, but that wouldn’t suit the warmist cause as well, and NOAA prefers to emphasise the warming aspect of the figures, even though it is increasingly having to rely on going further back in the records to make warmist claims.
    Of course, it is now unlikely that any months over this next decade will be below the 20th century average, since that would mean undoing all of the warming which has taken place during that century. However, I believe that there will be a decline in temperatures over the next 20-30 years and that there will be no further warming records broken until after about 2023. I know this may seem incredible to you, but it is entirely consistent with recent cyclical patterns. Unfortunately, you may have been over influenced by recent abnormal temperatures and AGW propaganda.
    On the other hand, if you and the orthodoxy are correct, how do you explain the fact that global temperature anomalies are currently below 88% of the IPCC scenario A2 model projections and are even below the “commitment scenario”, which was based on the assumption that there would be ZERO growth in greenhouse gasses after the year 2000?

  49. Ray says:

    Dr Page, while I agree with you in general, I would not say that GISS “consistently and progressively shows greater warming than HadCRUT3″. In fact after adjustment of GISS to 1961-90 (which I make a reduction of 0.11c), the two anomaly series are in fact very similar. Based on a 10 year moving average, after adjustment, GISS shows a rise from about -0.09c relative to HadCRUT3 around 1890, to about +0.08c around 1912, then fell again to around -0.04 by 1944, rose again to +0.05c by 1955, then generally fell again to about -0.05c by 2001. Since then it has been rising again but the current difference is virtually zero (+0.003c). It is true that the 12 month m.a. is about +0.05c relative to HadCRUT3, but that is much lower than it has been in the past, e.g. around 1911 and 1947/48 (based on means at the end of the relevant period). In fact, after adjustment to the same base period, all of the major datasets show very similar long-term trends.
    That said, I agree that it seems likely that temperature anomalies will decline over the next 10-30 years. Based on identified cyclical patterns in the 50 year linear trend, I also expect very low annual anomalies in HadCRUT3 during 2013/14, although I am not sure if they will be negative. Individual years are hard to predict, but the 12 month m.a. may reach 0.2c by the end of 2012.
    But I do not expect the decline to be continuous. There may be more short-term warming phases and cooling phases after that. Actually, I expect coldest temperatures around 2023, when individual years may be negative relative to 1961-90. After that, a warming phase may begin again, but I do not expect the annual “high” record to be beaten until approximately 2026.
    My predictions are based on a continuation in the apparent cyclical pattern within the HadCRUT3 50 year linear trend, shown in HadCRUT3 monthly anomaly figures. A graph of this cyclical pattern can be seen on the Climate4you website (under Global Temperatures/Cyclic air temperature changes):

  50. An Inquirer says:

    Dragontide, Thank you for revealing that you use NOAA’s temperature and its estimate of 20th century average for your reference points. Would you agree that picking an average is rather arbitrary? Why not choose the average during the MWP? — Or during the Roman Optimum? To establish the average as the mean of temperatures during which the earth was emerging from the Little Ice Age is virtually assuring that current temperatures will be above the average. Comparing current temperatures to such an average probably will tell you little about important issues. Also, NOAA temperature is contaminated by UHI and siting issues. In fact, by looking at the weather impacts on nature and society, the heat of the 1930s was more severe than current levels of heat. However, we do not have a clean comparison of a GMT for both time periods. Other records are less affected by UHI and siting issues — UAH and RSS — but their record does not go back far enough to allow comparisons pre-1980. (These satellite records do confirm a temperature increase from 1984 to the early 2000′s — as we would expect from the PDO cycle and the continued emergence from the LIA. Neither CO2 and certainly not CAGW is needed to explain these temperature trends.)

    By the way, I do not share the confidence of other posters that we will see declining temperatures in the coming decades. It is NOT settled science as to what caused the Little Ice Age. Since that is not settled, it is not settled was caused the emergence from the LIA. And since we do not know what caused the emergence, I am not confident that the emergence has ended. Yes, there does seem to be influences of oceanic oscillations – which we only diagnosed in the last couple of decades — but as Bob Tisdale warns us, the link from ENSO to PDO to GMT is not as clear as most researchers currently think it is.

    Dragontide, you mentioned the 2010 Russian heat wave. Last year, Gavin Schmidt, a strong proponent of CAGW, said that he had not found a link between CO2 and the Russian heat wave – YET. Well, he did search, and he came up empty. Apparently, the Russian heat wave is typical when there are periods of low sunspot activity. The scientific explanation of that link is beyond this post, but the issue is blockage of atmospheric movement. This blockage is associated with low sunspot activity, and it has been many, many decades since sunspot activity has been as low as the last couple of years. By the way, that blockage also can also lead to cold temperatures, and another part of Russia had record cold temperatures at the same time as the heat wave. To be clear, we can have high temperatures during periods of low sunspot activity. The ways in which the sun affects the earth’s weather / climate are multiple and complex and not settled.

    Tidbits: (1) UHI and RSS have the record GMT set in 1998, although UAH’s 2010 # was very close. (2) Humans developed (widespread use of) the thermometer at the same time as we emerged from the LIA which is the same time as CO2 increased and which is the same time frame as UHI affected the temperature record. It is not easy to resolve all the causations and linkages. (3) No doubt that CO2 increases temperatures in laboratory conditions. But to get to CAGW, you need CO2 impacts to be magnified by amplification loops, and for CO2 to swamp natural variations, and for the impact to negative. There is weak evidence for those three steps.

  51. Dragontide says:


    Look at what has happened since the mid 80s. The world temp spikes up then levels out flat. Up then level. Up then level. (like a staircase) Coming in at #14 is a rotten way to start the year. Instead of saying the 1st quarter was the 14th warmest, you can also say it was the 107th coldest. (out of 121) La Nina can’t get the world temp below average. The 2nd most powerful volcano of the 20th century (Mt Pinatuba of 1991) couldn’t do it.

    You can’t break the staircase momentum with 35,947,000,000,000,000+ cubic feet of man’s Co2 floating about our troposphere. The record will, be broken once or twice this decade.

  52. the residence time for co2 is much shorter then what you state.

  53. Dragontide says:


    The residence time for Co2 is about 20 years. That why El Nino heat can’t make it’s natural journey into space in a timely fashion anymore.

  54. An Inquirer says:

    I am not sure how the figure of 35,947,000,000,000,000 is calculated, but I am confident that the rise in CO2 is sufficient to affect crop yields. In fact, at least 18% of current production is due to increased CO2 levels. There are many stomachs that should be grateful for the increased availability of food due to higher levels of CO2. Maybe some of this “35,947,000,000,000,000+ cubic feet of man’s Co2″ has been absorbed by plants.

  55. An Inquirer says:

    It is preposterous to expect that La Nina could “get the world temp below [20th century] average. The 2nd most powerful volcano of the 20th century (Mt Pinatuba of 1991) couldn’t [get the world temp below [20th century] average].”

    A century’s + worth of emergence from the ice age is too strong an influence to be overcome by La Nina or a volcano, espcially when you are using temperatures that are contaminated by UHI.

    One other tidbit of which you should be aware. NOAA’s raw temperatures do not show an upward national trend. However, they do show an upward trend after homogenization. Not every body is sure that the homogenization process does not introduce an upward bias.

  56. Dragontide says:


    Where AGW is making floods & drought more extreme has long since overshadowed your 18%. If we continue to abuse fossil fuels, Sunday dinner will be no more than a bunch of dried up leaves.

    The carbon clock numbers are most likely an underestimation. Places like China and India have a history of not sharing correct information.

    It’s preposterous to expect anything could bring to world temp below or at average with all the AGW gasses in our troposphere. (except a powerful enough volcano or a space body strike)

    NOAA’s numbers show a “global” upward trend. The “world” temperature is what you should be focused on. Not the “national” trend.

    The Earth’s precession will remain in it’s “glacial” stage for another 6000 years. Hard to tell with all the AGW gasses in our troposphere.

  57. Ray says:

    Dragontide says:
    “Look at what has happened since the mid 80s. The world temp spikes up then levels out flat. Up then level. Up then level. (like a staircase)”
    That isn’t the way I see it. Based on the HadCRUT3 12 month rolling average, I see it going up, then down, not flat. Admittedly, the new highs and lows tended to be higher than previous highs and lows. That was a continuation of a pattern which started in the 1950′s and was similar to that between about 1911 and 1944, which culminated in a “high” of about +0.14c in 1944, which was not beaten again until 1983. This was the pattern up until about 1998, since when, temperature anomalies have been flat. You need to look back further than the 80′s to see the true picture.
    I notice that you didn’t answer my question about why current anomalies are below 88% of the IPCC scenario A2 model projections and the “commitment” scenario, whic I reiterate, assumed ZERO growth in greenhouse gasses since 2000. Otherwise, if you were to use temperature anomalies as a proxy for greenouse gas concentrations, you would have to conclude that GHG’s had fallen since 2000.

  58. I say let’s ,let the temperatures do the talking this decade and we will see who is right and who is wrong.

    If the prolong solar minimum persist ,the temp .will be lower.

  59. Ray says:

    The discover amsutemps website seems to be working again, but there are missing data from April 27th to May 2nd.
    Near surface layer anomaly was 0.63c cooler than last year on the May 3rd.

  60. An Inquirer says:

    Dragontide, If all you want to see is CO2, then probably that is all that you will see.
    However, reality might be something different. There have been times in the world when CO2 has been higher than now, and temperatures have been lower. There have been times when CO2 has been lower, and temperatures have been higher. (Admittedly, CO2 levels during 150 years ago were some of the lowest ever experienced by the earth.) Vice versa is also true, there have been times when CO2 has been higher and temperatures have been higher. And so on.

    Dorughts and floods are not getting more severe. A few years ago, the Southeast has had its worst dorught since the 1950s — and the 30s were worse. Australia recently had its worst flood since the 1970s. One part of Australia has had its worst drought in 100 years. Notice that floods and droughts have been worst in the past. We do not see a trend in severity of weather. Of course, damage is up because of increased population and development. Also, maybe because our expectations are unrealistic. It is always amazing that people think Armageddon has arrived when flood plains get flooded. There is a reason why they are called flood plains! To be sure, sometimes we make floods worse by building levees and by covering thousands of acres with concrete and tar.

    No, the 18% has not been wiped out by the non-existent increases in floods and droughts.

    I am very well aware of national trends, global trends, and the issues in the derivation of such data. The US data probably has the best qualitiy controls on it, and sometimes wisdom dictates that we look at it. It would be a mistake on your part to try to lecture me on national vs global. It is possible that your focus on “world” temperature is taking your eyes off what is really important. First, the concept of a GMT is suspect because the average means little in terms of impact. Second, the derivation of GMT is fraught with pitfalls and assumptions that can be driven by one’s bias. None of this undermines my understanding that GMT has increased since the LIA, but it is good to understand the reliability of GMT and what it means to nature and human welfare.

    Dragontide, your fixation on CO2 tons does not inspire confidence that you understand how this # stacks up relative to total atmospheric volume — or more importantly to ocean heat content.

  61. Dragontide says:


    The information from NOAA is much more accurate and extensive. They have access to more weather monitoring stations that any other organization in the world. Plus they have have the most detailed paleoclimate project.

    Inquirer wrote:

    “Dorughts and floods are not getting more severe”

    And then wrote:

    “I am very well aware of national trends, global trends, and the issues in the derivation of such data.”

    If you so aware, how did you miss the record flood in Pakistan that left 20 million people homeless? Or the record floods in West Australia and record drought in East Australia? Or Africa’s drought? Mexico’s drought? You really should read NOAA’s monthly “Global Hazard Report” if you would like to be aware.

  62. Ray says:

    Dragontide says:
    “The information from NOAA is much more accurate and extensive. They have access to more weather monitoring stations that any other organization in the world. Plus they have have the most detailed paleoclimate project.”
    I presume that this was in response to my post regarding the general pattern of the HadCRUT3 12 month average.
    In reality, after adjustment to the same base period, the pattern exhibited by NOAA is virtually identical to that of HadCRUT3. Based on a 10 year rolling average, NOAA was generally higher than HadCRUT3 between 1885 and 1931, was lower between 1931 and 1946, higher between 1946 and 1956, almost identical between 1956 and 1967 and lower from 1968 until the present. At the moment, based on the 10 year adjusted MA, NOAA is 0.01c lower than HadCRUT3.
    So the general pattern shown in the NOAA 12 month anomalies has until 1998, been almost identical to that in HadCRUT3,
    i.e. higher then lower, with rising highs and lows, rather the higher then flat “staircase” pattern which you suggested. I don’t know what your source is for the “staircase” pattern, but maybe it has been smoothed in some way, to remove the falls.
    I notice again, that you do not answer my question on IPCC model projections.

  63. An Inquirer says:

    Nope, I did not miss any of the events that you mentioned. I have a handle on them and on other recent disasters that you did not mention. What you do not seem to have a handle in is the existence of historic events. The severe drought in Australia and the severe flood in Australia have been exceeded in the past in Australia. If you get a contrary impression from NOAA’s monthly global hazard report, then that report is doing you a disservice. Often the media will report something as being record-breaking because it is the worst that it has been for 50 years or 80 years. Note: it was worst in the past! The 2010 Pakistan flood may have been the worst that in that part of the world in hundreds of years, but it was similar to the 1901 flood, and it is possible that the severity of the 2010 flood was increased due to human development. (I discussed that influence in an earlier post.)
    We can learn from the recent flood in Australia. After the devasting 1974 flood in Australia, the government decided that flood control investment would be a good idea. But after building one dam, they decided against building a crucial dam on the May River. A reason cited was that AGW would mean the lack of rain in Australia. (The IPCC had told them so.) Therefore that dam was scrapped, and the money was instead spent on a desalination plant that was never finished. The lack of that dam lead to the deaths of many Australians.

  64. Correction the weather was not extreme during last century up to year 2007, or so. Since 2007 ,the weather , has been becoming more extreme, and the reason is due to the fact that we are entering a global cooling regime.

    CLIMATE 101

    Global warming, will result in a more zonal flow in general, less extremes in weather.

    Global cooling ,results in a more meridional flow in general, more extremes in weather.

    This, simple clear cut, basic fact ,the fraud global warmers ,continue to try to distort. Their own pathetic models even showed the above to be the case, by predicting an ever increasing +AO circulation ,associated with global warming. BS, to the nth degree.

    If you follow the models on a daily basis ,when they try to forecast the AO going out, say two or three weeks in advance ,even for that short time period, one can see how flawed they are ,and yet the global warmers have faith in the model predictions, for the next 100 years! lol,lol

    The models as I have said ,have incomplete data,wrong data and therefore can’t give an accurate forecast for even the weather a few weeks in advance ,never mind decades in advance.

  65. Along those lines, if one goes back to the last substancial global cooling period ,the Dalton Minimum, from 1790-1840, and compares the extreme weather /climate events in that period of time ,versus last century ,one will see how tame, the weather /climate was last century ,with the associated global warming that took place during the last century, in contrast to the wild, extreme weather /climate from 1790-1840, with the associated cooling, that took place ,durig that period of time. Not even close.

    All one has to do ,is just google, Dalton Minimum /Climate.

  66. Ray says:

    Now that the discover amsutemps website is working again, and the NSL ch4 data is being shown, I have been looking at the relationship between the NSL CH4, AQUA CH5 and UAH figures.
    Admittedly after only 3 days of data,(May 3rd to 5th), the cumulative ch4 anomaly (relative to 1999-2010, for May, was +0.1c, which based on the correlation between May figures in past years, would result in a UAH anomaly of about +0.17c.
    On the other hand, the cumulative ch5 anomaly (May 2nd to 4th), was +0.0087c, which again, based on past years would be equivalent to a UAH anomaly of +0.066c.
    Some of the difference is undoubtedly due to the different days involved, so more data is probably required for a genuine comparison. It is also possible that the ch5 data are actually for May 3rd to 5th, since while the figures are in the files for the 2nd to 4th., the graph says they are up to the 5th.
    I have also noticed that there seems to be greater variability of UAH anomalies from estimates based on past NSL ch4 anomalies than from past AQUA ch5 anomalies, which means that UAH estimates from NSL ch4 anomalies may be less reliable than those from AQUA ch5 anomalies. I find this surprising, since I had expected NSL ch4 anomalies to be closer to UAH than AQUA ch5.
    I have calculated the “normals” for NSL ch4 myself, using figures from 1999 to 2010, since they are not provided in the data files, or shown on graphs. In the case of the “normals” for AQUA CH5, I am using the figures in the data files, although I don’t know over what period of time they are calculated, since I cannot replicate those using the actual figures for 2003-2010.

  67. An Inquirer says:

    Ray and Salvatore,
    While I do not share your confidence that GMT will dip below the 20th century-old average in the foreseeable future, I will grant you that the recent extremes that we are seeing these days are indicative of a cooling planet. For example, the original subject of this blog’s post: vast numbers of tornadoes in the US Southeast occur when there is deep penetration of cold air from the north. Of course, last year’s freezes in Florida, Mexico, etc., would be another sign. Recent attempts to save wild animals from death have been prompted by their environments turning too cold. These rescue operations have occurred for manatees, sea turtles and other sea animals. As previously discussed, the 2010 Russian heat wave was caused by blocked in atmospheric circulation which is associated with low sunspot activity. Low sunspot activity has often — but not always — been associated with a cooling planet. Moreover, people whose professions depend upon accurate understanding of temperature trends act as if temperatures are getting cooler. I was distressed to see the recent return of the farm practice of fall plowing. Such practices lead to increased soild erosion. When I quizzed farmers about this move, they explained that soil temperatures have become excessively cool in the spring. Therefore, the exposing black dirt throughout the winter helps the soil warm up quicker as the black dirt absorbs the sun rays better than unplowed fields. It is not that the extremes we seeing are unprecedented, but rather that the extremes we are seeing are associated with a cooling planet.

    Meanwhile, governments who follow AGW-based forecasts — from England to Austalia and places in between — have made decisions with disastrous consequences to human life and welfare.

  68. Ray says:

    An Inquirer says:
    “Ray and Salvatore,
    While I do not share your confidence that GMT will dip below the 20th century-old average in the foreseeable future, I will grant you that the recent extremes that we are seeing these days are indicative of a cooling planet.”
    Just to clarify, I never said that. My actual words to Dragontide were:

    “Of course, it is now unlikely that any months over this next decade will be below the 20th century average, since that would mean undoing all of the warming which has taken place during that century. However, I believe that there will be a decline in temperatures over the next 20-30 years and that there will be no further warming records broken until after about 2023.”
    And to Dr. Page:

    “That said, I agree that it seems likely that temperature anomalies will decline over the next 10-30 years. Based on identified cyclical patterns in the 50 year linear trend, I also expect very low annual anomalies in HadCRUT3 during 2013/14, although I am not sure if they will be negative. Individual years are hard to predict, but the 12 month m.a. may reach 0.2c by the end of 2012.”
    “But I do not expect the decline to be continuous. There may be more short-term warming phases and cooling phases after that. Actually, I expect coldest temperatures around 2023, when individual years may be negative relative to 1961-90.”

    So what I said was that temperatures would fall but it was unlikely that anomalies would fall below 20th century average, although it was possible that they would fall below 1961-90 averages around 2023, by which time, of course, AGW theory suggests that temperatures should be much higher.

  69. An Inquirer says:

    Your clarification is correct. It is duly noted.

  70. George Semper fi says:

    The earth is currently in an interglacial period named Holocene, which started 12,000 years ago. During Glacial MAX (15,000 BC) the Ice was 3 to 4 kilometers thick down to the 45th parallel and the sea level was 394 ft. lower than today which would have resulted in excessive CO2 release and other gases. ie…Methane…Logical deduction, the earth has been warming for the past 17,000 years
    10,000 years ago:
    New York was beneath 2,500 feet of Ice. There were no Great lakes, No Finger lakes, No Niagara Falls, No Chesapeake Bay, and so, on and on……Glaciologists project in 10,000 years, there will again be a Glacial period (Ice age).
    From the above Scientific information found on the WEB, one can conclude the earth has been warming for at least 17,000 years but will return to cooling and another glaciation period. It also appears the earth has been going through Climate change for Billions of years.
    And last but by no means least, let us not forget “Glacier Girl” who, laid to rest on Greenland in 1942, ended up being buried by 268 feet of global warming (ice) prior to being resurrected in 1992.
    This occurred during the 2nd half of the warmest century according the NYT global reparations team.

    OBTW: Would someone tell the Hockey puckers, the Medieval warming period was 400 years not 50years!

  71. JK says:

    I am mostly plant ecologist, and only know some about this subject.. however it seems to me that although what is written in the article above is completely true, isn’t it possible that climate change, NOT “global warming” could be a contributing factor to the increased frequency and severity of the storms seen this year?

    From everything I’ve ready (Vitousek, Williams et al. Hall, Day) in classes it seems that there will be an increase in mean global temperature of ~4-5 C by 2100. In plant ecology extreme vegetation shifts are what is expected, but I’ve read also that this could alter weather patterns possibly changing intensity, duration, frequency and geographic occurrence. So, although what is post above seems realistic…too me it seems plausible that climate change could be an underlying factor to what is happening..however it will be very difficult to “prove” due to the uncertainty surrounding the extent or magnitude CC itself.

    I live in NY and have for 25 years, granted it isn’t a long time, however we’ve had 3 tornadoes this year alone and I don’t think there’s been that many in a very long time.

  72. MARMAG says:

    So whaat else is new. The global warming loons are like singing worms spewing…”Oh its caused by global warming” and how ridiculous that is because tornadoes are caused contrasting air masses colliding,that is warm and COLD. God forbid we have COLD air as part of the process of forming tornadoes.