Summer Snow to Greet Obama on Alaska Climate Trip

August 30th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

When President Obama visits Alaska this week to campaign for a new international agreement to fight global warming climate change, Alaska will be experiencing colder than normal weather and forecast summer snows, as seen in this WeatherBell.com graphic of forecast total snowfall by Friday:

Forecast total snowfall by Friday, Sept. 4, 2015 from the GFS model (WeatherBell.com graphic).

Forecast total snowfall by Friday, Sept. 4, 2015 from the GFS model (WeatherBell.com graphic).

Besides this latest example of the Gore Effect, the dirty little secret is that the climate is always changing, and what better place to illustrate the role of Mother Nature (not humans) than in Alaska?

Extreme Weather
Alaska weather matches its geography – extreme. Temperatures there have ranged from 100 deg F (in 1915) to 80 below zero F (in 1971). Summer days are so long that they can grow pumpkins weighing over 1,000 lbs. Nevertheless, yearly average temperatures are actually below freezing — even in the warmest years.

Glaciers were Already Retreating Before 1900
The supposed poster child glacier for global warming in Alaska is Mendenhall Glacier…except that it had already retreated one mile by the early 1900s, long before human greenhouse gas emissions could be blamed.

Furthermore, its retreat is uncovering large tree stumps approximately 1,000 years old, coincidentally coinciding with the (naturally-caused) Medieval Warm Period, back when the Vikings were able to farm in Greenland.

Which begs the question: How could it have been warm enough to grow giant trees 1,000 years ago in an area now covered in ice? We don’t know why it was so warm 1,000 years ago—climate scientists don’t like to talk about it because they can’t explain it — but for some reason they are sure that your SUV is causing current warmth.

Alaska’s Recent Warmth is Mostly Due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
NOAA’s official average temperature product for Alaska, even after they’ve made innumerable and controversial adjustments, shows cooling from the 1920s to the late 1970s, then sudden warming associated with the Great Climate Shift of 1977:

NOAA official Alaska average annual temperatures, (Aug. to July) through July 2015 (NCDC Climate at a Glance).

NOAA official Alaska average annual temperatures, (Aug. to July) through July 2015 (NCDC Climate at a Glance).

This shift was due to a natural reversal of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a 60 year cycle which affects the atmospheric steering currents in Alaska, determining whether cold polar air or warm Pacific air tends to win out as the two air masses continually battle for control over Alaska weather.

Alaskans are used to tremendous extremes in weather throughout the year. The tree stump evidence by itself suggests it was warmer there 1,000 years ago than today.

Yet, President Obama will no doubt wax eloquent about how all weather and glacier changes in Alaska (1) have been brought on by humans, and (2) are bad. I’m sure this is what’s taught in schools now, and many will believe it.

But don’t you believe it.


422 Responses to “Summer Snow to Greet Obama on Alaska Climate Trip”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. mike croft says:

    Good stuff! Thanks.

    • Stewart Teaze says:

      Read Chrichton’s STATE OF FEAR… He called out these morons on this way back in ’04! These commies are simply a bunch of incompetent fools, who have invented this RUBBISH to justify their worthless theiving existences. They should all cut THEIR worthless carbon footprints to zero – IMMEDIATELY.

      • Did read that book back quite a few years ago and it’s no wonder that Hollywood never made it into a movie. It was so damning of the global warming hoax and probably, part and parcel, responsible for the ecoterrorists to rename global warming to global climate change. The appendices regarding Yellowstone Park alone were enough to convince anyone that this is all a crock. And the section on Eugenics made my skin crawl. Crichton was a master of fiction, but this book about how Leftist loonies were actually going around the globe and staging global warming catastrophes by utilizing well-placed explosives and other chaos-creation equipment was brilliant in that you could almost see the ecoterrorists performing such ridiculous feats in order to advance the agenda. It is a particularly quick read and Crichton is spot-on when describing how theorists have been manipulating data in order to push the perception that the Earth is, in fact, warming. The other beautiful thing about this novel is that Crichton backs up all his anti-Leftist prose with facts and figures. If you really want to open someone’s eyes, watch Crichton’s lecture to the Smithsonian Institution regarding Global Warming. That is so damning to the Left that you will never see it touted anywhere except in closed circles. If you’ve got an hour to kill, this is fascinating and riveting stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOu8akBowTg

        • John Doran says:

          Couldn’t agree more, Mr. B.A.A.D.
          The DDT ban shook me to the core.
          50 million dead by the EPA ban, more than Hitler killed.
          This excellent book started my investigations into the hoax.

      • Dusty in Chattanooga says:

        I appreciate and support your position on man-made climate change, but you can’t be more wrong about the Obammunists. They are far from incompetent fools. As Lenin did back-in-the-day, they are using the true Incompetent Fools (i.e. the press and low-information voters) instead as “useful idiots”.
        Man-made climate change fear-mongers are evil, crafty, and power-mad. There’s no “accidental misinterpretation” of the data but instead a willful misrepresentation, coupled with a desire for the hoi-polloi to “do as I say and not as I do”.
        For a text-book example of such, just consider Al Gore, who has made billions of dollars off the backs of climate-change victims, yet whose Nashville, TN house was found to have been using as much power as a small subdivision. And don’t hold your breath waiting to meet Gore while flying the Public Airways: He only travels by personal jet. Usually someone else’s.
        The only benefit to Gore’s putative “home state” from his ascension to the Vice-Presidency is that it finally got him the hell out of Tennessee for good. Cali deserves him.

        • Mary Ann Ludwig says:

          Hey! I live in California. We used to be among the top 10 economies in the world. In the WORLD. We were number 7 or 8. I forget exactly. We do not need nor do we want Gore or anyone else. We have Moonbeam.

          I have noticed that if you live long enough, you can witness the cyclical changes in the climate. We will soon be in the middle of another El Nino (sorry, can’t seem to get the tilde to work). There will be gnashing of teeth and huge expenditures of public funds on mudslides and flood damage by this time next year. I, too, have read Crichton’s book. (He died rather young as I recall. In view of the extreme push on climate change propaganda, it makes one wonder.)

          Anyone remember when it was that mining tools were found on Greenland after a glacial pullback there? It is time to restore sanity to the population and to the government. (By the way, I have scoured the Constitution and Bill of Rights and I can’t for the life of me find anywhere in it that says the federal government is responsible for the climate.) We just have to keep pushing back. They can attempt to ridicule us and call us “deniers”, but it is never wrong to deny the federal government further excessive power. Especially when you are right and it is wrong.

          • Koop in VA says:

            Maybe you should get informed instead of pushing back. Your belief that climate change is not impacted by burning immense quantities of fossil fuels is as ill founded as your belief that California isn’t still in the top 10 economies in the world.

            Be well.

          • gbaikie says:

            “”It’s common for the remaining California boosters (almost ALL far to the left of center) to smugly assert that “California is the 7th largest ‘country’ in the world.” Using GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as a benchmark, it is a true assertion. It’s also an incomplete assertion. And certainly a misleading assertion. Indeed, a more detailed analysis cuts the legs out from under the booster bunch.

            To begin with, that 7th place rank is DOWN from 1999, when CA was ranked 5th. We are in a stately decline. “”
            http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-true-ranking-of-californias-gdp-vs.html

          • Tom says:

            The Federal Government is functionally a lawless, anarchist crime syndicate.

      • Paul says:

        What has communism got to do with it? It is rampant Captitalism and right wing Bankers who have messed everything up. Not just the climate but our economies as well.

      • Barbara Mitchell says:

        Stewart, Amazon is offering the Kindle version of “State of Fear” for free right now.

      • David Appell says:

        Stewart: Chrichton’s book was f-i-c-t-i-o-n.

        I assume you are familar with the word.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @Stewart Teaze…”These commies are simply a bunch of incompetent fools, who have invented this RUBBISH to justify their worthless theiving existences…”

        If you plan on being taken seriously as a climate skeptic, I advise you to leave out the political innuendo.

        Here in Canada, the only carbon tax we have is in British Columbia, which is run by an uber-right wing government under the guise of a Liberal party. They are actually the Social Credit Party, which were soundly defeated circa 1990 and re-appeared as Liberals after stealing the party from a man who had resurrected it.

        This government has imposed a 6 cent/litre carbon tax on all fuels and they hand the proceeds over to private companies. That means schools and hospitals get taxed for the fuel they consume and private enterprise profits from it. It’s kind of a reverse Robin Hood syndrome.

        Not only that, they have added a 20 cent per litre tax onto gasoline to subsidize public transit. That means motorists are subsidizing transit. However, you need to look closely at the reasoning. They believe that increasing the cost of gasoline will drive people from their cars and onto a public transit system that is already maxxed out in rush hour.

        Go figure, right wingers concerned about the environment?

        All this from a right wing government who abides by the laissez-faire principle of capitalism. It seems to be OK to apply socialist principles as long as the private sector benefits from it.

        In California, Schwarzeneggar championed the AGW cause and he is a right of Attila the Hun. And please don’t tell me Al Gore is a commie or even a socialist. Neither is Obama. Democrats in the US would be considered right wingers in Canada.

        In Germany, Angela Merkel is pushing AGW. and her party is described as centre-right. They have recently started building coal-fired power plants again. In the UK, a Conservative right-wing government is pushing AGW.

        Here’s the best one, however. The IPCC and AGW was started by former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Like Merkel, she had a degree, hers being in chemistry. Unlike Merkel, Thatcher was uber-right-wing.

        Thatcher was advised to use her degree in chemistry to pull the wool over the eyes of UN members. The reasoning behind it was to turn the tide on UK coal miners who were battling her government. By turning coal into a dirty word she wanted to paint them as the enemy. She succeeded quite well.

        A protege of Thatcher was John Houghton, who became co-chair of the IPCC. Houghton was a climate modeler and since his appointment he has steered the IPCC in the direction of climate model theory.

        Before you blame AGW on commies, you had better explain why the most influential people in the world pushing AGW are right-wingers. The Club of Rome, which is striving to set world policy on AGW, is a hot bed of right-wingers and capitalists.

        COR thinks we humans are incapable of understanding the complexities of AGW and they are proposing democracy be modified in that respect. Heck, one of them, Maurice Strong, the father of Kyoto, thinks western industrialization should be dismantled.

        Another one of them, a friend of Strong’s, who is a leading banker in Europe, thinks we should dump dry ice in the Arctic to combat the warming.

        • Robert says:

          The BC Liberals are well left of centre and in most cases indistinguishable from the NDP. They are simply two similar dogs fighting over the same bone with great animosity and name calling.

    • david lincon says:

      This report fails to discuss the Geoengineering programs being carried out by our government, and the affects on climate change they bring about. Chemteails, HARP, there is no natural weather anymore. Look-up and pay attention to your environment.

      • Ben Palmer says:

        Chemtrails? Tell as more about them. What is their size in percentage of the natural cloud cover. Where do the come from? Are you sure they are not condensation trails? What was their influence a thousand years ago, when it was warm?

        • dpharmer says:

          U MEAN IT WAS WARM…1000’S OF YEARS AGO….

        • Dusty in Chattanooga says:

          Mr. Palmer:
          Since there probably weren’t a significant number of jet aircraft back then, chemtrails were likely a nonentity a thousand years ago.
          However, on a humid morning under the jet-lanes, notice the contrails growing overhead. Even beginning with clear skies, the jet vapor never seems to go away. It only accumulates and diffuses into a hazy overcast by late afternoon. And only God knows what witches’ brew of aromatic hydrocarbons, CO2, bactericides and fuel stabilizers are residing in those trails, circulating in the atmosphere and waiting for the next rainstorm to introduce them into the world’s aquifers.

          • nutso fasst says:

            You don’t need God to tell you what’s in jet exhaust, and you don’t need a conspiracy to know that it’s not good for the atmosphere. There is nothing inexplicable about cirrus cloud development, and you can find at least 3 published papers that show that jet-produced cirrus (AKA ‘global dimming’) has a net warming effect on surface temperature.

      • Sir Gareth says:

        David,

        Here is important confirmation of your theories:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA

      • Jon Carry says:

        Once you realize that Chemtrails contain DiHydrogen Monoxide, there is no turning back. That stuff is everywhere now.

      • Chris says:

        I was also going to ask is Obama going to be visiting the HAARP facility to explain how the government has been modifying weather over the pacific? Or is he going to just stand next to melting snow (In the summer?)

      • Bob says:

        Some folks interested in talking about a viable third party tried to convince me of all of the Chemtrail and other supposed things the government was doing “under our noses”, but they consistently failed to provide any proof. Whereas any competent meteorologist can describe that atmospheric conditions that causes a contrail from a passing jet based on elevation, humidity, windage and so on, all measurable, not one person has been able to show any sample of the postulated chemicals in a “chemtrail”. As for HARP, that is a mortgage modification program, and has nothing to do with the weather, except keeping it off your head.

      • Ric Werme says:

        I do look up and pay attention to our environment. I use contrails to estimate the humidity at flight level, and you should too.

        At the very least, you should read http://contrailscience.com/ and everyone should keep it handy.

        • David Appell says:

          Why do I need to know the humidity at flight levels????

          And if I did, I wouldn’t be estimating it from contrails….

          • Erik Magnuson says:

            Since most of the claims for a positive feedback response from increasing CO2 is from increase in water vapor, it would behoove you to know what the humidity is at flight levels.

    • Lee says:

      Snow in Alaska–is that news?

      • Hugh K says:

        Only to alarmists….

        • Dusty in Chattanooga says:

          Isn’t it funny how many Global Warming adventures have had to be cancelled due to… record snowfalls?

          • Koop in VA says:

            Isn’t it funny how 2015 will very likely be the warmest in recorded history and people pre-disposed to a certain political philosophy will deny it because they think it contradicts their politics?

            I’m guessing that you applauded when Inhofe used that lame stunt of having a snow ball in the Senate based on an even more lame understanding of how local weather is contra-indicative of climate change.

          • mpainter says:

            Koop
            Can you provide any evidence that CO2 caused the late warming trend that ended circa 2000? Because there is incontrovertible cloud data that shows that the warming was due to decrease in albedo, i.e., increase in insolation. Also, Jack Dale claims that insolation was also increased by decreases in aerosols, starting circa 1980.

            So far, no data that fingers CO2 as the warming cause.

          • David Appell says:

            Warming trends didn’t end in 2000 — in fact, they are accelerating — but here you go:

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
            http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

          • mpainter says:

            David Appell

            Ah Yes, your ten year kneeling curve, for the fourteenth time.
            And during that interval, temperature went up by how much at the two sites? Oh, it went down. Tsk,tsk.

            Do you never feel any compunction to appear creditable before the world? Nothing but hockey sticks and and your Cal Berkely press releases?

          • mpainter says:

            _Keeling curve_

          • David Appell says:

            mpainter: temperature isn’t a pure function of CO2, at any site. You must know that at least.

          • mpainter says:

            See my comment on Steve McIntyre and hockey sticks above. See also Mark Steyn’s book, referenced by Dr.Spencer above. Also see His comment to you on the matter, above.

          • David Appell says:

            The paper I cited has nothing to do with the Keeling curve.

            You can’t even get that right.

          • mpainter says:

            You apparently don’t understand what a Keeling curve is. FYI it is a continuous measure of atmospheric CO2.

          • mpainter says:

            I should finish my point: which is what your cherished press release shows (cited by you for about the fourteenth instance)

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @David Appel …”Warming trends didn’t end in 2000 — in fact, they are accelerating….”

            IPCC Decemebr 2013, page 6:

            http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf

            “Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade..”

            The warming hiatus is still in effect approaching the end of the 18th year. As you can see on the UAH graph for July 2015, that global average has been quite common since 2002 at least.

    • Susan says:

      That chart explains why the climate change crowd warned us about Global Cooling during the 1970s. In case you are to young to remember, it was a big issue back then with dire predictions similar to the climate change rabble-rousers today.

      • Koop in VA says:

        The percentage of scientific papers on global cooling in the 1970’s was actually significantly smaller than the percentage of scientific papers on global warming. I believe for every paper on global cooling there was actually 6 or 7 on global warming.

        Just letting you know in case you are at all interested in what the scientific community was actually doing and saying in the 1970’s.

        • mpainter says:

          Perhaps you’re right, but it was the alarmists who got the attention and dominated the news. Same as today. The only difference is that it’s warming instead of cooling. I predict that before this century is out, it will flip back to cooling. The lowing herd is easily spooked and stampeded.

      • David Appell says:

        Susan: You have mischaracterized the 1970s:

        The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

        • mpainter says:

          Same as today, the alarmists tooted their horns the loudest and made the news. Nothing has changed. In twenty years, the global coolers will be back on top. Toot toot

        • mpainter says:

          I did. Suspect in the usual manner of alarmist bias

          • David Appell says:

            Which, specifically?

          • mpainter says:

            It omitted the alarmist Nuclear Winter bugaboo of Carl Sagan. That was the loudest and longest of climate alarms up to then. But the clamor of the global non-warming crowd pushed him out of the limelight.

            But don’t fret, David, the global coolers will get their second breath when the AMO and PDO turn blue. Thus the lowing herd wends slowly o’er the lea.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @Susan “…it was a big issue back then with dire predictions similar to the climate change rabble-rousers today”.

        I don’t recall it being an issue at all. I was in university in the mid-70s studying engineering. There was not one mention of global cooling in my geology class, or any other class. Of course, back then plate tectonics was a theory which the media has escalated to fact, with no further proof.

        I don’t recall it being discussed in newspapers.

        Global cooling was not a subject of general discussion, I never heard it mentioned once. It may have been discussed in academic circles but there was no Internet and personal computers had yet to come on the scene. In fact, there was no climate science as a discipline.

        We were more likely to discuss ‘the’ ozone hole back then but even that was not worthy of discussion in a geology class, or in a physics or chemistry class. It is worthy of note that after banning CFC’s which were believed to have created the ozone hole, that another one has opened up on the other pole, after CFC’s were banned.

        In a similar vein, DDT was banned based on alarmist speculation by writer/environmentalist, Rachel Carson, in her 60s book, Silent Spring. Part of her focus was on the effect DDT had on the eggshells of certain birds. It has since been discovered the same problem with eggshells existed before DDT and has persisted long after it was banned.

        I presume that 30 to 40 years down the road another generation will look back on our generation wondering why we were were such a bunch of lunatics over global warming/climate change.

    • Chuck G. says:

      The EPA is pushing the Climate Change lie. Read the fictional book by Larry Burket (in 1992) “Thor Conspiracy”

      • dpharmer says:

        ITS OK TO TURN A RIVER YELLOW IN COLORADO…..WHY ISN’T THE CLIMATE PEEP’S RUNNIN DOWN THE EPA…AT THEIR HOMES AND YATCH’S…WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT STORY…HAVE U TAKEN A BIT OF THE 3 EYED FISH MR. BURNS….

      • David Appell says:

        Chuck: And a fictional book is supposed to prove what, exactly?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @Chuck C…”The EPA is pushing the Climate Change lie”.

        The EPA are uber eco-alarmists hand-picked by Obama. Both NOAA and NASA GISS answer to those alarmists.

        Why do you think NOAA slashed global reporting surface station by 90% and filled in the missing 90% using climate model-based interpolation and homogenization? NOAA now talks in confidence levels with regard to global temperatures, giving the likelihood of 2014 being the hottest year of all time a confidence level of 48%.

        Since when does one talk about measured temperature levels with a confidence level? When they read 20C on a thermometer they are now claiming what they read has a 48% chance of being right.

        I have no doubt the EPA directed them to develop such pseudo-science to support their hair-brained views of the real world.

    • Port says:

      Just watch, the Messiah will melt that snow away so fast, you may think Global warming is about to happen. Oh, but that is what the Messiah is going to rail against. After completing his racist division with the creation of Black Lives Matter, the Idiot is about to emphasize create a huge rift between Big-Oil and the Greenies who actually consume more oil than the average person.

  2. mike croft says:

    Great stuff, thank you!

  3. David Appell says:

    Is snow in Alaska at this time of year unusual? I would be surprised if so. You should provide details on that.

    Roy wrote:
    “the dirty little secret is that the climate is always changing”

    In fact, the last 10,000 years, the Holocene, has been remarkable for its climate *stability*, with a variation in global average surface temperature of only 0.6 C. (Marcott et al, Science 2013.) It’s a major factor in why human civilization has grown during that time.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

    Now, though, the Holocene has ended, and temperatures are changing about 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last glacial period. No jokes about Al Gore change that dismaying fact.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      Actually, multi proxy reconstructions of temperature over the last 2000 years suggest the the current rate of warming isn’t that unusual. For example: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

      • David Appell says:

        Was the Loehe paper even published anywhere?? (Besides the very very dubious “Energy and Environment”!)

        It doesn’t look like it. And its results don’t look like any other reconstructions that have been peer reviewed and published in real journals, like from MBH, Tingley and Huybers, Marcott et al, and PAGES 2k.

        In particular, PAGES 2k, the largest of these studies, finds no evidence of a global medieval warm period or global little ice age.

        “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

        • michael hart says:

          “Is snow in Alaska at this time of year unusual? I would be surprised if so.”

          Yo!
          And so is the absence of snow in Alaska.
          Please come back and let us know when anything unusual happens in Alaska’s climate.

        • Sigurdur says:

          David:
          Have you actually read MBH and looked at the methodology? All the “skipped” proxies that didn’t agree with what they wanted to present?

          In regards to Marcott et al, did that feller take ANY stats? Cause he sure butchered them in his paper. And the really sad thing is, NO one called him out on the very VERY poor methodology of his paper.

          Or, does NO one go to college anymore that presents climate papers that are junk science?

          • mpainter says:

            No one called him out? See Climate Audit, which took Marcott apart and examined it minutely over a period of months with numerous separate posts. Go read. Good entertainment.

          • David Appell says:

            Sigurdur:

            In what way did Marcott et al “butcher” the methodology? Specifically, I mean.

          • David Appell says:

            painter: Anyone can write a blog. Ever wonder why McIntyre never sent all his sterling insights to a quality peer reviewed journal?

            I do.

          • mpainter says:

            Actually,
            Steve McIntyre has earned a number of distinctions in Climate studies. In his own words:

            ” I have considerable experience in statistical analysis. I have made presentations to a panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives and my work has been covered on the front page of the Wall St Journal, by CNN and Fox News and internationally. In 2010, the New Statesman magazine in the U.K. recognized me as one of “50 People Who Mattered” in 2010.”

            His approach at Climate Audit is to meticulously dissect the work of climate studies, with an emphasis on paleoclimate proxy reconstructions via tree rings, varves, other proxies. He is probably the world’s foremost expert in this area. His blog has won various awards, including best science blog.

            Several years ago, McIntyre won a FOI suit against The Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and obtained the data from Keith Briffa that showed that Briffa had fabricated his seminal study on paleoclimate.It was Briffa and his colleagues (Phil Jones, Osborne, etc.) at the CRU that figured so notoriously in the Climategate emails. By this exposure, all paleoclimate tree ring studies had referenced Briffa’s work which now is shown to be egregious.

            No one in Climate studies has done more to expose the spurious science that lies behind the hockey stick. In one instance, his blog occasioned the Journal of Climate to reject a study that it had actually accepted for publication (Gergis et al,2012). This study purported to devise a hockey stick for the southern hemisphere.

          • David Appell says:

            What distinction???

            He gave a few talks. He published a paper. Same as any graduate student….

          • mpainter says:

            And exposed the fraudulent science behind the hockey sticks. See hide the decline, Climategate, Briffa FOI, mismanagement of Marcott, Pages 2k, Gergis, other posts at Climate Audit.

            Seems that you did not read my comment above. Have you read the McLean, 2014 paper yet? (check one)

            ¤ yes
            ¤ no
            ¤ will never read it because it threatens my system of beliefs

            Also, Roy has kindly linked to Steyn’s latest publication on the hockey stick. Have you purchased a copy yet? Only $19.95.

        • Barry Wendell Jackson, Esq. says:

          Two historic events occurred in 1492. One is nearly unknown, but casts some light on the statement above.

          1. Columbus “discovered” America.
          2. The Pope wrote that because of frigid weather, for 80 years his bishops had not been able to visit his Viking Churches, in Greenland.

          If warming continues, perhaps the Icelanders and Norwegians will reestablish farms and grazing lands in Greenland.

        • Sir Gareth says:

          David,

          We know that Lysenko was on solid ground because 100% of Lysenkoists (not merely a measley 97%) who supported the theory were published and “denialists” were not merely scoffed at, but executed buy the hundreds.

          When did being “published” mean you knew what you were talking about?

          How many papers of Einstein were “published?”

        • Dwight E. Howell says:

          Since the evidence they claim not to have found was found by me I decided that they were a bunch of liars. The distribution of crops such as grapes in Europe and the locations of churches and cemeteries in Greenland on and in permafrost made it clear these people weren’t looking at all hard. Archaeologist report that Greeenlanders grew grain in Greenland at some locations. Studies of stalactites and stalagmites have shown the same thing. The warm period was real.

          The reality is that all across so called science it appears that vast amounts of research hasn’t been confirmed and in fact when it is occasionally put to the test you get about a 75% fail rate on replicatablity at least in psychology. Other areas have been less strenuously tested but are obviously full of BS papers. If grant money depends on affirming something it appears that most researchers are willing to lie and the peer review system has become nothing more than a good old boy system of I’ll sign off on your lies if you’ll sign off on mine. Older research had about a 50% negative result while current research nearly always affirms the authors original objective because nothing else is going to get funding. That reeks but it’s where so called science has sunk to.

          • Jack Dale says:

            The MWP was a northern hemisphere phenomenon.

            From Brian Fagan – The Great Warming

            “A growing number of sources tell us that there was never long last medieval warmth, but that between 1000 and 1200, temperatures were a few degrees warmer in some parts of the world, notable parts of China, Europe, and western North America.”

            All northern hemisphere.

          • Bart says:

            The current warming is largely Northern Hemisphere phenomenon, too.

          • mpainter says:

            All northern hemisphere?

            And where do the hockey sticks come from?…

            All northern hemisphere.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “The current warming is largely Northern Hemisphere phenomenon, too.”

            False. The Southern Hemisphere has warmed by 0.84 C since GISTEMP records began in 1880.

            data:
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts+dSST.txt

          • mpainter says:

            For reliable temperature data, see UAH. Stay away from fabricated data such as gistemp.

          • Bart says:

            Look at the plot, David. NH is clearly tracking way above SH since 2000.

            Now, I am open to the suggestion that, that is just because of chicanery with the NH temperatures, as the SH is a pretty good match with the satellite data, while the North is WAY off.

            But, either way, you lose. Either current warming is substantially NH, or the NH record is unreliable. Take your pick.

          • Bart says:

            This is rather an interesting point. If all the current warming is in the NH, then it kind of takes the “global” out of “global warming”.

          • Bart says:

            Dr. Spencer: Are there plots available of NH vs. SH for the UAH data? That might make for an interesting comparison.

        • mpainter says:

          The pages 2k study is another of those absurd paleoclimate reconstructions dismantled at Climate Audit. As a result, this study has been regulated to the trash heap of would-be science.

          One varve proxy was used upside down for one chart, and in another chart used in the opposite orientation (two different studies; pages 2k is a compendium of approximate reconstructions). Both charts yielded a hockey stick!

          • David Appell says:

            Again, McIntyre just couldn’t bother to publish his claims where it counts?

            PAGES 2k: Over six dozen professional experts.

            McIntyre: One blogger.

          • mpainter says:

            Actually,
            Steve McIntyre has earned a number of distinctions in Climate studies. In his own words:

            ” I have considerable experience in statistical analysis. I have made presentations to a panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives and my work has been covered on the front page of the Wall St Journal, by CNN and Fox News and internationally. In 2010, the New Statesman magazine in the U.K. recognized me as one of “50 People Who Mattered” in 2010.”

            His approach at Climate Audit is to meticulously dissect the work of climate studies, with an emphasis on paleoclimate proxy reconstructions via tree rings, varves, other proxies. He is probably the world’s foremost expert in this area. His blog has won various awards, including best science blog.

            Several years ago, McIntyre won a FOI suit against The Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and obtained the data from Keith Briffa that showed that Briffa had fabricated his seminal study on paleoclimate.It was Briffa and his colleagues (Phil Jones, Osborne, etc.) at the CRU that figured so notoriously in the Climategate emails. By this exposure, all paleoclimate tree ring studies had referenced Briffa’s work which now is shown to be egregious.

            No one in Climate studies has done more to expose the spurious science that lies behind the hockey stick. In one instance, his blog occasioned the Journal of Climate to reject a study that it had actually accepted for publication (Gergis et al,2012). This study purported to devise a hockey stick for the southern hemisphere.

          • David Appell says:

            Steve McIntyre is a blogger. Only people like you, Painter, confuse blogs for science.

          • mpainter says:

            David, see my above comment. This time I suggest that you read, instead of screwing your eyes shut and sticking your fingers in your ears.

        • mpainter says:

          The pages 2k study is another of those absurd paleoclimate reconstructions dismantled at Climate Audit. As a result, this study has been regulated to the trash heap of would-be science.

          One varve proxy was used upside down for one chart, and in another chart used in the opposite orientation (two different studies; pages 2k is a compendium of approximate reconstructions). Both charts yielded a hockey stick!

          Thus the science of Appell/Dale. Has entertainment value, only.

        • Ben Palmer says:

          @David Appel: “Besides the very very dubious “Energy and Environment”!” In ice hockey, the only way to win is to play the puck, not the stadium.
          Here is your golden hockey stick: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/9/1/more-appell-comedy-gold.html

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @David Appell…”Was the Loehe paper even published anywhere?? (Besides the very very dubious “Energy and Environment”!)…”

        Why are you attacking Craig Loehle? He has a degree in forestry and he knows tree rings far better than a geologist like Michael Mann, who reduced tree ring proxy theory to an absurdity in his hockey stick gaffe. He used one tree to cover a span of global temperatures over 100 years and NAS told him he could not use pine bristlecone as a proxy for the 20th century.

        When Mann’s study reached the 1960s, the tree ring proxies began showing cooling while the atmosphere was warming. That prompted Mann to develop his ‘trick’, which involved clipping of offending data and splicing in real data. His trick was referred to as ‘hide the decline’.

        What does peer review have to do with science? It’s not a requirement of the scientific method. It’s a convenience initially aimed at keeping laymen from publishing pseudo-science in journals. A paper from Einstein was rejected because the journal editor did not feel what he was claiming was correct.

        The validity of a paper is not based on whether it is published, it is based on whether what it claims is verifiable.

        Several excellent points were made by John Daly in this article:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/23/john-l-dalys-message-to-mike-mann-and-the-team/

        To summarize:

        -trees don’t grow on the oceans, which cover 70% of the Earth’s surface.
        -trees don’t grow on ice, deserts, grasslands, tundra, or above certain elevations on mountains.

        Daly reckoned trees represent about 15% of the planet.

        Coupled with what Loehle claimed about tree ring unreliability, Daly’s points make it clear that tree ring proxies in general are a poor way to reconstruct past temperatures.

        The same can be said for ice core proxies after the way Jaworowski revealed their unreliability.

    • mpainter says:

      For a dismantling of Marcott et al, see Climate Audit. This study has yet to be put back together- it’s the Humpty Dumpty of paleoclimate reconstructions. Wouldn’t you know that it would be David Appell who posts a link to it here.

      But in fact, the Holocene has not been stable. That is a myth propagated by the AGW zealots who do their best to sow panic over global non-warming. Appell propagates this sort stuff here at this blog… why?…thinking to win converts? Because he knows nothing else? Why laugh at Al Gore, who clammed up years ago?

      • David Appell says:

        “For a dismantling of Marcott et al, see Climate Audit.”

        Where was that “dismantling” published? Besides someone’s own blog, I mean.

        • Come on, David, there are literally hundreds of published papers supporting the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Some poorly interpreted tree rings won’t change that.

          Speaking of which…regarding what the research community thinks of your coveted Hockey Stick (in their own words), check out the new book: “A Disgrace to the Profession” http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html

          • Jack Dale says:

            The hockey stick has been replicated scores of times, using different databases and methodologies.

            Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)’s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

            Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.

            Bertrand et al. 2002: Reconstructed solar output, volcanic activity, land use changes, and greenhouse gas concentrations since AD 1000, then computed the expected temperature changes due to those forcings. Compared the computed temperature changes with two independent temperature reconstructions.

            Esper et al. 2002: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000 using tree ring chronologies.

            Cronin et al. 2003: Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.

            Pollack and Smerdon 2004: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.

            Esper et al. 2005: Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.

            Moberg et al. 2005: Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.

            Oerlemans 2005: Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe.
            Rutherford, et al. 2005: Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.

            D’Arrigo et al. 2006: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.

            Osborn and Briffa 2006: Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 2000 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.

            Hegerl et al. 2007: Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.

            Juckes et al. 2007: Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

            Wahl and Ammann 2007: Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.

            Wilson, et al. 2007: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.

            Mann et al. 2008: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.

            Kaufman, et al. 2009: Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.

            von Storch et al. 2009: Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.

            Frank et al. 2010: A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.

            Kellerhals et al. 2010: Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.

            Ljungqvist 2010: Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.

            Thibodeau et al. 2010: Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.

            Tingley and Huybers 2010a, 2010b: Used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.

            Büntgen et al. 2011: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.

            Kemp et al. 2011: Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

            Kinnard et al. 2011: Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.

            Martin-Chivelet et al. 2011: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites.
            Spielhagen et al. 2011: Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.

            Esper et al. 2012: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.

            Ljungqvist et al. 2012: Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.

            Melvin et al. 2012: Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.

            Abram et al. 2013: Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.

            Marcott, et al. 2013: Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.

            PAGES 2k Consortium 2013: Used multiple proxies (tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, stalagmites, pollen, etc) to reconstruct regional and global temperatures since AD 1.

            Rhodes et al. 2013: Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011.

            Thanks to Jim Milks

          • David Appell says:

            Roy: Hundreds? Where??

            It’s not “my” “coveted” hockey stick. It’s science.

            The PAGES 2k study was done by over 6 dozen paleoclimate experts. Have you even read it??

            As I showed Steyn, the hockey stick is an elementary consequence of basic physics.

            1) Manmade CO2 and other manmade GHGs rose superexponentially after the Industrial Revolution — faster than exponentially.

            2) temperature change is proportional to forcing change, which is proportional to the log of CO2 (and varies as the square root for CH4 and N20).

            (1)+(2) => a hockey stick curve

            It would be far more surprising if reconstructions DIDN’T find a hockey stick. It’s not surprising at all that they do — it’s expected.

            More here:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-about-generating-hockey-sticks.html

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/mark-steyns-expert-comes-up-short.html

          • mpainter says:

            Jack Dale: which of your hockey sticks preserve the the MWP and the Little Ice Age? Any of them? I bet none of them do. Who needs Al Gore?

          • mpainter says:

            The consensus now amount “climate science” is the AGW movement would be better off today without the hockey stick, which is considered a disgrace to the movement. What say you now, Jack Dale? David Appell. Steyn has it all documented, quotes and all. Roy has kindly provided the link. Read and weep.

          • David Appell says:

            mpainter says:
            “which of your hockey sticks preserve the the MWP and the Little Ice Age?”

            What data says they ever existed?

          • David, if you are going to persist in being both a “science reporter” while also ignoring many decades of published work, I will ban you as you have been banned elsewhere.

            It’s a waste of my time (and maybe that’s what you are trying to do) to ask me to list the hundreds of papers that support the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in both proxies and human history. I’m not going to do your homework for you.

            It used to be that most published climate research was done on these two climate events. Unfortunately you have grown up in the modern era where almost everything (including climate science) has been politicized and sanitized for consumption by the masses. Either you honestly are unaware of past research, which you shouldn’t be, or you are and are being disingenuous.

          • mpainter says:

            Appell, thank you for that remark. I rest my case.

          • Ben Palmer says:

            @David Apple: “As I showed Steyn, the hockey stick is an elementary consequence of basic physics.” What is the physics in the hockey stick? It is a statistical exercise and there is no physical law that has been or can be applied. Is there a physical law that proves tree rings represent temperature and temperature alone?

          • Bart says:

            David Appell @ August 30, 2015 at 7:06 PM

            “1) Manmade CO2 and other manmade GHGs rose superexponentially after the Industrial Revolution — faster than exponentially.”

            Actually, it’s been at best quadratic, and it is only linear now, coinciding with the stasis in temperatures, and not consistent with accelerating emissions.

            “2) temperature change is proportional to forcing change, which is proportional to the log of CO2 (and varies as the square root for CH4 and N20).”

            It is hypothesized to be so. It has certainly not been rising proportional to it for the past two decades.

            It is not surprising at all. The Earth’s climate is a complicated system, governed by numerous and complex feedbacks. Once a natural system has had as long as the Earth to fall towards a maximum entropy state, it is typically very difficult to pull it out of the state it is in.

            What would actually be shocking would be if it were so sensitive to a minor trace gas as hypothesized. The evidence clearly indicates to all but the religiously devoted that it is not.

          • Barbara Stockwell says:

            “A Disgrace to the Profession” is excellent. Notable scientists in their own words and a fast read!
            Amazon has it, but I bought from the steynstore.com as well. Sadly, those who need to read it the most will avoid it like the plague.

          • David Appell says:

            Roy, instead of threats, how about addressing Jack Dale’s list?

          • mpainter says:

            David Appell, for a thorough examination on the scientific value of such studies, see Climate Audit.

          • David Appell says:

            Roy wrote:
            “Unfortunately you have grown up in the modern era where almost everything (including climate science) has been politicized and sanitized for consumption by the masses.”

            Unfortunately, you grew up in a time that has been made irrelevant by better data and better methodologies.

            You ignore all of the modern studies, Roy, that contradict your narrow view of climate. I bet you haven’t even read any of the lastest reconstruction studies.

            Have you?

            PS: When are we going to see a peer reviewed journal paper on your version 6, so the scientific community can begin to understand the large changes you have made?

            You’ll notice that Karl et al published their paper WHEN they introduced their new dataset, not months before.

          • mpainter says:

            David, do you really believe that peer reviewed publications are the only means of advancing science and of examining questions of science? If you do, what a narrow and rigid view you have. For one thing, there are not enough publications to contain all of the work that is accomplished in science. Have you never attended a science convocation such the annual AGU? The thousands of posters, reports, and exhibits that might be seen there? Every discipline of science has such events, in just about every country. Yet you express scorn for it all.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Jack Dale “The hockey stick has been replicated scores of times, using different databases and methodologies”.

            Then why did the IPCC scrap Mann’s hockey stick and replace it with a graph with so many error bars it has become known as the spaghetti graph? In the new graph they have restored the LIA and MWP. The IPCC also reduced the range of the hockey stick’s 1000 year claim to 1850 onward.

            Where have I heard that year mentioned? Oh, yeah, that was the year the Little Ice Age ended officially. The IPCC have based their pre industrial Era in the middle of the LIA, which they acknowledge in their 1990 review. So they began in a period when global temps were 1C cooler than today.

            Syun Akasofu has claimed the IPCC erred by not including rebound warming from the LIA into their claims for anthropogenic warming.

            If you check your list of citations, I am sure most of them are related to Mann in some way. Wahl and Amman were students of Mann and Briffa is connected to him through his alarmist endeavours.

            As Wegman reported in his assessment of Mann in a joint investigation of him with NAS, chapter 9 of the IPCC reviews featuring Mann were nepotic in nature. Man and his colleagues were freely quoting each others’ papers.

            When Steve McIntyre brought to IPCC bigwig Susan Solomon’s attention at the IPCC that NAS had ruled out pine brstlecone as a proxy on the hockey stick, she asked chapter 9 to investigate. They ignored her.

        • Ben Palmer says:

          @Appel: “Where was that “dismantling” published? Besides someone’s own blog, I mean.”
          Besides that, it’s only YOUR opinion.

        • mpainter says:

          Climate science by climate scientists: a tangle of fabrications from dubious proxies. What you, and others like you, fail to understand is that manipulating figures from dubious proxies means nothing; it is not science, it is something else.

          The only proxy that has been shown to be temperature dependent is d18O. Where is the d18O in that spaghetti jumble that you proffer as science?

          • Dano says:

            What do the ideologically pure, free market scientist weigh in with regarding the data?

            Best,

            D

          • Sir Gareth says:

            I learned something the other day that the media has never reported.

            Because the “data” they were using no longer “proved” their theory, they decided to include “average” sea temperature by using temperature “data” collected at the sea water cooling inlets of old ocean freighters plying the oceans over the last dozen decades.

            But Why did they change the old way of collecting “data” to this new way of collecting “data?”

            After all, a 0.001 degree change in sea temperature represents a greater degree of heat content change than one full degree of atmospheric heat change.

            Thus a 0.001 degree change in average sea temperature represents a greater change than the entire change their screwy theory purports to have occurred in the last 140 years. This is the same period we allowed mankind to lift ourselves out of hopeless poverty by allowing us to use affordable power sources.

            But what instrumentation on leaky old sea freighters can measure sea temperature (surface only, on selected sea routes representing an infinitesimal amount of global oceanic heat content) to 0.001 degree accuracy when this cannot be done except in the most sophisticated physics labs in the world?

            Here is why they picked the “data” (meaningless gibberish):

            It made their theory work a few years longer and than it otherwise would have until they can jump to a new set of “data” (more gibberish).

            This fraud is damaging science so profoundly that it will bring us into a new dark age unless it is stamped out now.

          • mpainter says:

            Gareth,
            The truth their scientific position cannot be supported without phraud. They have no other means to support except by fabrication of data. We will see more and more this type of fabrication as the “pause” continues and the Appell/Dale types get more and more desperate. Data fabrication is institutionalized at such places as the U of Colorado (where Appell/Dale continually link) and now the NOAA. The example that you refer to comes from the NOAA.

          • mpainter says:

            A whiff will be sufficient for the wise.

          • David Appell says:

            shorter painter: don’t bother me with papers and data — I have my mind closed already.

          • mpainter says:

            Leif Svalgaard: It’s got to pass the smell test before I give it serious attention.

            Does AGW pass the smell test? (check one)

            ¤ sometimes
            ¤ hardly ever
            ¤ you don’t want to get your nose too close

    • Mike Phillips says:

      Your source states co2 has never been higher at 400ppm. This is a lie as are most AGW statistics.

      http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/

      • Mike Phillips says:

        Jack Dale, please provide the funding sources for all these studies/conclusions.

        • Jack Dale says:

          Unlike Willie Soon, the funding sources will be included in the published papers.

          • mpainter says:

            A disgrace to the profession says Steyn about the hockey sticks. Do you imagine to show otherwise with these harassment tactics, Jack Dale? Do you imagine to restore the hockey stick to credibility with your tactics here?

          • geran says:

            Jack, sorry but “copy/paste” is NOT science.

          • David Appell says:

            What makes you think Steyn knows anything about science, let alone that he has written the last word on the hockey stick?

            Steyn — music reviewer — versus scores of paleoclimate scientists.

          • David, Mark Steyn simply quotes the scientists who would normally be supporting Mann’s Hockey Stick, but who instead panned it. How else do you think Steyn could get away with writing a book entitled “A Disgrace to the Profession”, when Mann has already sued and likely has unlimited legal funds at his disposal from Soros-or-Steyer-or-whomever?
            Why do you think the latest IPCC report hardly mentions Mann’s Hockey Stick?
            The fact that you bitterly cling to it suggests you are not an objective “science reporter” but instead an environmental activist.
            Then again, maybe that’s how you put bread on the table. Fair enough.

          • mpainter says:

            Scores of climate scientists on the hockey stick is what his book is about; quotes, Appell. You know what quotes are, right?
            The hockey stick is a stench in the nostrils of people like Dessler, many others. Go read. And weep. And Steyn knows more about the issue than you, Appell. For example, he reads Climate Audit.

          • David Appell says:

            Roy, I queried one of the scientists Steyn quoted. He has done no paleoclimate work, hasn’t published on the subject, and only offered hand-waving arguments:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/mark-steyns-expert-comes-up-short.html

          • mpainter says:

            What paleoclimate work have you or Jack Dale done? For a comprehensive survey of hockey stick studies, see Climate Audit.

          • David Appell says:

            painter has to cite a blog, becasue he has no real science to cite. typical.

          • mpainter says:

            Nice to hear from you David. You are an amusing fellow, do you know?

        • Sir Gareth says:

          Only Soviet style Lysenko type funding mechanisms produce good science.

          Until socialist regimes came into power real science did not exist because its funding was not socialist until the 1930s when socialism was popularized in Western cultures.

          Thus Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, Lavoisier, Kepler, Bohr, Fermi, Einstein etc etc, who were never “peer reviewed,” are all simply minority frauds and quacks.

          This is what they teach your kids in their socialist science classes (not to be confused with “social science” classes) in their socialist (government) schools.

          The old quack science of Newton et. al is just too hard for modern young minds. Socialism is easier and “more fair”

      • Jack Dale says:

        The exact quote is

        “This May, for the first time in at least a million years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has exceeded the threshold of 400 ppm. – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/#sthash.gx0zomW3.dpuf

        The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.
        – Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
        – Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).
        – The Arctic was ice free.
        – Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
        – Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.
        “The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.”

        Even the graph on the website you quoted is consistent with that.

        • mpainter says:

          Atmospheric CO2 is completely beneficial, the utmost foundation of life. Already the biosphere is benefiting from higher CO2. The Sahel is greening. The Artic is greening. Those who try to depict as some kind of toxin purposefully propagate alarmism. Like David Appell, who says that “the poison is in the dose”.

          Well, Jack Dale, what do you say? Is CO2 detrimental to life?

          • Jack Dale says:

            CO2 is plant food within limits. N, P, and K are also plant food; dump a bunch of that on your lawn and watch what happens.

            Increased CO2 in open environments leads to:
            1) Increased predation by pests
            doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105

            2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops
            doi:10.1038/nature13179

          • mpainter says:

            You are like David Appell, who never can find that study, either. I have referred him to it a half dozen times and still he has not found it. Ha ha. Try John McLean, 2014, Late Twentieth Century Warming and Cloud Cover. Or you can go to his website. Do not pull an Appell on me and ask again in three weeks.

          • mpainter says:

            Nesting screwed up. The above in reply to yours at 9:22pm below.

            Concerning your two references that purportedly show that CO2 is bad for plants, thank you for that. Nothing could better illustrate the execrable science of the panic-mongers than these.

          • Sir Gareth says:

            Jack Dale:

            RE:”CO2 is plant food within limits. N, P, and K are also plant food; dump a bunch of that on your lawn and watch what happens.”

            Plants can no longer live at 150ppm, It is known that 2000 ppm leads to luxuriant growth and people who grow costly greenhouse blooms enrich their C02 levels to 1000 ppm or more even though it is costly to do so. So theis really means that you dont know what you are talking about doesnt it?

            RE “Increased CO2 in open environments leads to:
            1) Increased predation by pests”

            Too funny, full grainhouses lead to depredation by mice, therefore we should not grow grain

            But I grant you that this makes perfect sense, but only to a fool

            RE:
            2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops

            Yes with more carbon dioxide, we get more carbohydrates in our diet and become obese. WithlLess food on the earth it keeps us all healthier and only the fittest will survive a in starving world passing on their better genes – great points; Hitler made them too.

          • David Appell says:

            Painter, the nutritional value of plants depends on fixing nitrogen, not on their carbon uptake.

            Plant scientists — experts — know this:

            “Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation….. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.”

            “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html

          • mpainter says:

            Nutrition depends on caloric value. The potato allowed the population of Europe to double during the seventeenth century by providing over twice the caloric yield per acre as grain.
            More atmospheric CO2 means more nutrition. More grain, potato, yield per acre. Fertilizers supply nitrogen, other elemental needs. Try as you might, can’t demonize the basis of life:CO2.

          • David Appell says:

            “Nutrition depends on caloric value.”

            False.

            Worse, dumb — unless you think that eating at McDonald’s three times a day is the peak of nutrition.

          • David Appell says:

            “More atmospheric CO2 means more nutrition.”

            False. The science I just cited says it does not. Can you read, or not?

          • mpainter says:

            Let me see if I understand you David. You say that atmospheric CO2 is bad for plants, right? Then these commercial greenhouses that put the CO2 levels at 1,000 ppm (at great expense) are making a big mistake, are they not? But perhaps your cherished science is the mistaken one.

            Think about it very carefully, David, and try to understand my point. I’m sure you can, if you try hard enough.

        • cjones1 says:

          The Pliocene? The Panama hypothesis accounts for climate effects caused by the geologic forces creating the isthmus around the Pliocene. Before 2.5 milliin years ago, there was no ice on Iceland, nor Northern Poler ice cap…a few periods of glaciation previously. Didn’t the Journal ‘Geology’ recently publish an article attributing the Northern Hemispheric long term climate cycles to to the long term orbital patterns noted by Milankovitch? As I recsll, since the Pliocene, CO2, CO2 levels overall have been lower than most of Earth’s geologic history.

          • mpainter says:

            Recent study (a geological survey) show that Isthmus of Panama has been in place since the Paleocene (circa 60 my). See Jamarillo et al, GSA Bulletin, 2014.

          • mpainter says:

            Correction, Jaramillo.. Carlos Jaramillo

    • Thousand year old BIG trees uncovered by Alaskan Glaciers demand otherwise… what an Inconvenient Truth… assumptions, models and proxies vs actual evidence..

      • Dano says:

        A low-elevation ~tidewater glacier shows us what? Be specific as to what the science says (Not Watts).

        Best,

        D

      • Erik Magnuson says:

        One eye opener for me was the National Park Service’s history of Glacier Bay. Around AD 1600 it was dry land, a bit before 1800 it was completely covered by a glacier and has been retreating since.

    • Ben Palmer says:

      @David Apple: “In fact, the last 10,000 years, the Holocene, has been remarkable for its climate *stability*,[…] It’s a major factor in why human civilization has grown during that time.”
      It has been remarkable for it’s mild climate and that’s the major reason for the growth of human civilization, the Vikings wouldn’t have settled on a frozen island, even with stable, temperature to grow food.

    • Sean says:

      I was stationed at Eielson AFB AK 4-90 to 9-93 it snowed on June 1 92 and Aug 31 92. They sourdoughs and natives call it “Year with out a summer.” It is a cyclical pattern.

    • Mike M. says:

      David Appel wrote: “Now, though, the Holocene has ended, and temperatures are changing about 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last glacial period.”

      But that is based on proxies that do not show the current warming. So it is a meaningless claim.

      • David Appell says:

        Our current rate of warming is about 30 times faster than when the last ice age was ending.

        From Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a:
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

        global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.4 C
        global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is +0.0 C

        so the average temperature change is 3.4 C in 7000 years, or ~ 0.005 C/decade, compared to GISTEMP’s 30-year trend of 0.16 C/decade

        So that’s a factor of 32 now compared to then.

        http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/current-warming-30-times-faster-than.html

        • mpainter says:

          Slipstick, are you there? Remember when you made such a claim, about the present rate of rise in temperature? You recall how I cited ice core data, I’m sure, and how I refuted the claim. You then investigated and learned some things, right? And you very politely thanked me for the correction. Well, watch this:

          You hoo, David. See ice core data which shows a sudden rise in temperature of 4-6°C within a few decades, as per d18O, at the start of the Holocene. Also, interstadials likewise show such a precipitous rate of increase, as per ice core data; the Bolling event being a typical rise.

          Remember my comment above that AGW science was fabrication because there was no other means to prop up the failed AGW hypothesis? Well, David, thank you kindly for providing an outstanding example of this sort of fabrication from the hockey team.

        • Mike M. says:

          David Appel:
          “global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.4 C
          global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is +0.0 C

          so the average temperature change is 3.4 C in 7000 years, or ~ 0.005 C/decade, compared to GISTEMP’s 30-year trend of 0.16 C/decade”

          Are you really that stupid?

          I have a car that I bought 10 years ago and that has been driven about 96,000 km. That works out to an average speed of 1.1 km/hour. Funny how I don’t have a stack of citations for blocking traffic, considering all the pedestrians blowing past me.

    • Bob says:

      Neither Al Gore nor Marcott add in the gross factors of solar activity and volcanic activity during those times. The pre 1900 measurements are far more accurate with the ground data than in the computer models. When your grant depends on pleasing the AGW believers the data becomes suspect.

  4. Stewart Teaze says:

    “CLIMATE CHANGE” – Religion of the INCOMPETENT.

    • Jack Dale says:

      You can thank the GOP for the politicization of “climate change.”
      Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002
      “A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.”
      “As with those other issues, the first (and most important) step to neutralizing the problem and eventually bringing people around to your point of view on environmental issues is to convince them of your sincerity and concern.” Once you can fake sincerity, you have it in the bag.
      “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
      “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.”
      ” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming
      1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. ”
      “Straight Talk” Memorandum written by GOP consultant Frank Luntz [ he who invented The Contract With America in 1994]. The Memo’s ideas have apparently been utilized by Republican congressional and executive leaders since approximately the end of 2002. These pages 131-146 constitute the wide-ranging memorandum’s section on environment.”

    • JOEL GOODMAN says:

      AND DON’T FORGET THE INTENTIONAL LIARS THAT MAKE MONEY ON THIS FRAUD, REMEBER ALGORE AND HIS IDIOCY? HOW ABOUT OBAMA AND HIS GANG OF LIARS AND FRAUDS.

  5. MinnieHolman says:

    The biggest hoax on humanity is the Al Gore lie of GloBULL warming. obama in the White House is the HOAX perpetrated against America.

  6. Majik Imaje says:

    Climate Change is going to be fixed by Obama! He has a new method in policy for controlling the sun!

    • Jack Dale says:

      Solar science says it is not the sun.

      From the Stanford Solar Center:

      During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth’s climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

      A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

      Solar activity is pretty constant , about 0.1% variation.

      • Majik Imaje says:

        I have lived in the upper regions of the arctic for over 30 years time. We live @ sea level, I have tens of thousands of photographs already posted on line under my name.

        The oceans are not rising; we would be long gone and flooded if they did actually rise. The last time it flooded in Point Hope was in the early 1970’s.

        Everything is exactly the same as it was when first arrived in the arctic.

        Deception of the masses is all about $$$ for re-search (click twice).

      • Chuck U Farley says:

        THE Stanford Solar Center?…..wow!….the very same group who’s ‘mission statement’ is “targeted at 4th-12th grade students” & provides “a broad range of information relating to the Sun. Solar art, folklore, music, literature, and archaeoastronomy …and offer intriguing multidisciplinary “hooks” into solar study.”…that one?
        …guess it wouldn’t matter a bit that somehow the Earth changed it’s orbit to say……somewhere near Mars…..because, as you claim, the “Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.” Therefore, we’d have nothing to worry about….other than getting a little less skin cancer ……yeah….right…

        • David Appell says:

          Chuck: Do you have evidence that the Sun is responsible for modern warming? This would be the time to present it.

          • Mike Phillips says:

            Where else does our heat come from? Do some research on sunspot count and climate variations. I doubt you will though. It would be against your religion/ cult fanaticism.

          • mpainter says:

            I have given you that information a number of times, Appell. I did again today on the preceding blog. See the McLean, 2014 study, Appell.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Phillips says:
            “Where else does our heat come from?”

            Of course most of our heat comes from the Sun. (With a fair bit from the greenhouse effect, too.)

            But what data shows changes in the sun that can account for modern warming of (now) 0.9 C?

          • CooganAlaska says:

            To be technical, all heat derives from the sun. Even the heat released from fossil fuel was originally absorbed as solar energy in the form of transpiration. Obviously any radiative forcing from gasses is just re-entrapment of solar heat. The only true question at hand is how sensitive the global climate is to the entire array of natural and anthropogenic forcings. Most climate scientists are not qualified to answer this question. In fact, those that are can be counted on two hands. Meanwhile all the other so-called scientists are chirping on and on about a consensus–even though science has never been conducted by consensus. Money (funding) and control is driving this debate.

          • David Appell says:

            link to this McLean 2014?

          • David Appell says:

            Coogan: Who, in your expert opinion, are the 10 scientists qualified to answer your question?

        • Jack Dale says:

          Nothing of substance to offer?

          A link to the paper.

          http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf

          • mpainter says:

            See my reference immediately above. The warming was due to increased insolation, Jack Dale. Read it and learn something.

          • David Appell says:

            Not very likely — the Sun’s irradiance has been on a slow decreasing trend since about 1950. See the 7th graph on this page:

            http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

          • mpainter says:

            More fabrication from the U of Colorado David? Still imagine to fool others with that rubbish?

          • David Appell says:

            By now, Painter, it’s clear: any data you don’t like are “fabricated.” Any you do like, you are happy to present (which isn’t very often).

            You don’t fool anyone.

          • mpainter says:

            It so happens that data fabrication has now become the main preoccupation of AGW types. They cannot otherwise present support for their failed hypothesis. Do you imagine that people who blog here do not understand that?

          • David Appell says:

            Prove “fabrication,” Painter. You have never even come close. You’re the type of man who thinks nothing of disparaging the good work of many, calling it all fabrications, all because you can’t face the consequences of the data. You’d rather make up lies about it.

            I can’t think of anything more scurrilous, more phony, more illegitimate.

            You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • mpainter says:

            Hi David. Feeling a wee bit giddy today? Sometimes that can happen when one hyper-ventilates. Calm yourself, relax. Have a beer or sip some vin and think happy thoughts. Reflect on the benefits of aatmospheric CO2. You will feel better, I promise.

  7. John Frost says:

    Obama is not even his name but Barry Soetoro a fraud from Indonesia and Kenya ….He has come to Alaska to destroy it….anything he touches He destroys…he’s go the evil hand!

  8. Jack Dale says:

    Of course, Alaska has near record warmth this winter. The Iditarod had to move 225 miles north to get sufficient snow for the race.

  9. Gary says:

    obama does not care about “global warming” or “global climate change”, no, not at all. What obama cares about is setting up a carbon credit and tax system that will transfer trillions of dollars from the United States to 3rd world countries. That is all obama cares about and he is willing to lie to the death to get it started…executive order, United Nations, he does not care. Just transfer the money. Of course, if it ever happened 90% of it would be absconded by the dictators of those countries.

  10. way2confused says:

    This freaking guy goes around flying Air Force 1 to the tune of $250,000 an hour and leaving a GIGANTIC carbon footprint in the process to push his redistribution of wealth scheme ON OUR DIME. Then he gets to his destination and tells US we have to “sacrifce” to “save the planet.” Let
    s see him set the example and sty the heck home

    Doesn’t he EVER stay in DC? Is the Moocher THAT horrific to live with? Evidently.

  11. The Gore Effect; the gift that keeps giving!

  12. Jack M., Hoff says:

    When will these liberal losers just go away?

  13. Vic Cole says:

    Great article! I find it fascinating that in the 1970s the “scientists” were convinced of a new ice age in the near future. Now they’re convinced of the opposite. Interestingly, both groups used Antarctic core samples as evidence. This is science? Follow the money!

    • David Appell says:

      Not true about the 1970s. These guys did a literature search:

      “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

      In fact, by 1965 plenty of scientists had already been warning about global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases, and by the late ’60s climate models were calculating the warming expected from CO2. List of some papers and reports here:

      http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

      • Sigurdur says:

        David:
        I am old enough that I am fully able to remember the early 1970’s. Yes, there was a lot of tooth grinding in regards to a colder world coming.

        In fact, the President’s current science adviser, Mr. Holdren seems to have co-authored a book that humanity would all be starving by now.

        Also, in regards to the MWP and the LIA, there are 100’s more papers documenting these events than the paltry few poorly written papers trying to erase them.

        Look at Sargasso Sea proxies for a start. A very important proxy.

        • Jack Dale says:

          6:1 warming:cooling in the science of the 70’s.

          • mpainter says:

            Thank God we are not on a cooling cycle, Another LIA would bring famine to the world. Half of our agrarian supplies would vanish with a growing season shortened by three weeks.

        • Mike M. says:

          I am old enough to remember the 60’s and 70’s but not to have been following the scientific literature. There was certainly stuff in the popular press about the “coming ice age” but was nothing like the current warming scare. My impression is that it was mostly reporters picking up on some indiscreet scientific speculation because it made a titillating story.

          • Bart says:

            “…but was nothing like the current warming scare.”

            Yeah, the natural cycle turned warmer before the cause could gather steam. But, I do remember well going over it in our Weekly Readers in elementary school. They scared the pants off us youngsters.

        • David Appell says:

          Sigudur: Data trumps memories. Every time.

      • geran says:

        David, your funniest comment on this thread!

      • Alan Davis says:

        The Sept. 2004 National Geographic included a graph showing the temperature and CO2 for the past 400,000 years as obtained from ice core samples. It showed a 100,000 year cycle repeated four times. Each cycle contained a period of approximately 20,000 years of relatively warmth and 80,000 years of colder temperatures leading to an period of glacial advance.

        According to that graph any time now we are actually due to experience a period of dramatic cooling.

        Barrack Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation when they supplied the money for Dr. Richard L. Sandor to develop the Chicago Climate Exchange. AEP’s SVP of Policy Analysis worked with Dr. Sndaor to develop CCX while Dr. Sandor was on the board of AEP. Dr. Sandor and Maurice Strong were close associates. It was all about making money through rigged science! Oh and M. Albright and C. Browner set up a company to help third world nations deal with the funds that were going to be Congress for Cap & Trade legislation!

        • Jack Dale says:

          All was well and natural cycles did their part of keeping CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppm for over 800,000 years. During that time human beings evolved and domesticated plants suitable to that environment. During that time natural cycles like the Milankovitch cycles, would trigger warming releasing CO2 resulting in a positive feedback.

          Then in the mid 18th century we increased anthropogenic carbon emissions from 3 million tonnes per annum to almost 10 billion tonnes per annum. We were the trigger that added CO2. That increased CO2 levels by about 40% to over 400 ppm, a level not seen for for 3 – 5 million years. Using carbon isotope analysis that 40% increase can be traced directly to burning fossil fuels. Humans emit 135 times more CO2 than all volcanic activity. Forest fires are part of the natural carbon cycle, burning sequestered carbon is not.

          We messed with those natural cycles.

          • mpainter says:

            Anthropogenic CO2 levels are estimated (estimated because of the lack of reliable data) at about 20 ppm circa 1918. Temperature rose until circa 1942, about .4°C. Now, did 20 ppm CO2 do that?
            Or was it increased insolation? This is the sort of question that the Jack Dales of the world duck. Duck, Jack.

          • Mike M. says:

            Jack Dale,

            We started messing with natural CO2 cycles about 8000 years ago and natural methane cycles about 5000 years ago. It is possible that by doing so we saved ourselves from an ice age (according to the Milankovitch theory, we ought to be well into an ice age by now). Of course, we don’t really know.

            I accept that we are responsible for the big increase in CO2. That will cause warming. Warming is happening. So what? Some of the warming is us, and some may be natural, we don’t really know. Even if all the warming is us, extrapolating to 2100 gives a warming of about 1.8 K compared to pre-industrial. Given a choice between that and returning to the little ice age, I will take the warming since I know that the latter would be a global environmental disaster.

            Your leap from we are “causing some warming” to “the sky is falling” is illogical. I know that you did not explicitely make that leap, but you sure seem to imply it: “All was well and natural cycles did their part …
            We messed with those natural cycles.”

          • David Appell says:

            “Anthropogenic CO2 levels are estimated (estimated because of the lack of reliable data) at about 20 ppm circa 1918.”

            Bull sh*t.

            I’m not surprised you (again) can’t prove one of your claims. You never can, and this one is worse than ludicrous.

          • mpainter says:

            Delighted to hear from you, David. Actually, estimates are corroborated by CO2 measurements from Law Dome ice cores, Anarctica. These show about 20 ppm CO2 at 1915-20, with an increase of about 2 ppm in the next 20 years or so.

          • mpainter says:

            Clarification: Law Dome ice cores show about 300 ppm at 1918. The assumption is natural levels of atmospheric CO2 is 280 ppm and the anthropogenic contribution at 20 ppm.

      • Oblows says:

        Wow,David,You really took a huge swig of the liberal Kool-aid. Don’t worry ,Uncle Donald will fix everything for you.

  14. Bob Hampton says:

    Lets just hope the bears are hungry and find a skinny piece of meat.

  15. Robert says:

    obama is full of shit…!!!

    • Steve Bunten says:

      Without that he’d be just an empty suit!

      • Jack Dale says:

        On Climategate

        Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

        A three-part Penn State University report cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

        Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia”supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit.”

        A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General’s office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

        The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General’s office concluded, “Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct…we are closing this investigation with no further action.”

        • mpainter says:

          See Climate Audit for the truth about this garbage. Each and everyone of the above claims by Jack Dale has been examined, publicly, by the world of science on Climate Audit, with scores or hundreds of comments on each post (dozens of individual posts). Jack Dale in this comment reveals himself as nothing more than a propagandist pushing the Big Lie. How much are you paid to throw this carp against Roy Spencer’s wall?

        • Mike M. says:

          Six official panels have concluded that the official position is correct. I am officially unimpressed.

        • David Appell says:

          McIntyre is a blogger, not a scientist. He never publishes anything anymore. Blogging is so much easier, you know….

          • geran says:

            David Appell is a troll, not a scientist. He never publishes anything anymore. Trolling is so much easier, you know….

        • mpainter says:

          Actually,
          Steve McIntyre has earned a number of distinctions in Climate studies. In his own words:

          ” I have considerable experience in statistical analysis. I have made presentations to a panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives and my work has been covered on the front page of the Wall St Journal, by CNN and Fox News and internationally. In 2010, the New Statesman magazine in the U.K. recognized me as one of “50 People Who Mattered” in 2010.”

          His approach at Climate Audit is to meticulously dissect the work of climate studies, with an emphasis on paleoclimate proxy reconstructions via tree rings, varves, other proxies. He is probably the world’s foremost expert in this area. His blog has won various awards, including best science blog.

          Several years ago, McIntyre won a FOI suit against The Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and obtained the data from Keith Briffa that showed that Briffa had fabricated his seminal study on paleoclimate.It was Briffa and his colleagues (Phil Jones, Osborne, etc.) at the CRU that figured so notoriously in the Climategate emails. By this exposure, all paleoclimate tree ring studies had referenced Briffa’s work which now is shown to be egregious.

          No one in Climate studies has done more to expose the spurious science that lies behind the hockey stick. In one instance, his blog occasioned the Journal of Climate to reject a study that it had actually accepted for publication (Gergis et al,2012). This study purported to devise a hockey stick for the southern hemisphere.

  16. Cikuq Iluq says:

    Our appreciation for the inconvenient truths, Dr. Spencer.

  17. It is unusually cold this weekend in Alaska.
    It normally is warmer for the state fair…but was very cold yesterday.
    1971 was extremely cold the first year I came to Alaska.
    It was very cold three years ago just like 1971…but last year it was very warm.
    You never know what kind of weather you are going to get.

    And the weather man…is wrong probably 80 percent of the time.

    They are predicting another warm winter…which more than likely means we are going to freeze our buttocks off.

    • Steve Bunten says:

      Yeah, and weather is like that (unlike climate). It changes on a regular basis. Here in Colorado we had a very wet Spring/early Summer, something that was quite unusual. And two years ago we had a lot of rain and flooding in Northern Colorado. By the “Climate Scientists” we should now expect that to happen all the time rather than it just being part of the anomalies of weather.

      BTW, how have the hurricanes and tornadoes predictions of more of the and more severe ever since Katrina? So far the US has not been hit by a hurricane for how many years? Oops!

  18. If the weather stays as cold as this weekend…Obama is going to freeze to death on that glacier trip.
    Global warming is just another way to tell you a scary story…that never was going to happen.

    The News media…can’t get enough of this horror flick though. They just eat it up…and regurgitate it to the public like reprocessed vomit.

  19. They were preaching Ice Age when I was in school as well.
    Fool me once…but twice…nope.
    Besides, If a weatherman can’t get the weather right 80 percent of the time here…how is the Climatologist, that took a class on the other side of the hallway at the same school…any better at predicting the weather?

    They claim they are perfect like Mary Poppins…but I haven’t seen a halo over any of their heads.

  20. Elmwood says:

    I live in Anchorage and can attest to the cold weather that besets us right now. There is snow already on the mountain tops >3,000′. It went from a near record warm summer from an el nino gyre of warm water straight into fall like conditions overnight. it was 45 degrees when i went into work. depressing given the fact that i vividly remember freezing my tail off in June–less than 3 mo. ago–dipnetting for salmon on the copper river.

    Anyways, the glacier i looked at last week called the unakwik glacier in PWS clearly was surging over trees and appeared to be growing, but there are these terminal moraines that must be 1,000s of years old down from the glacier terminus where the water depth go from +600′ to 30′ deep and back to +600′. why these glaciers retreated well before the automobile is interesting. even more interesting is that we have no good reasons why the ice ages suddenly went from 41k cycles to 100k about 1 Ma. in fact we really don’t know exactly why these ice ages occur every 100k years, only that it appears to be related to the Milankovitch cycles.

    • Jack Dale says:

      Bingo. The last two words are your answer.

      • Mike M. says:

        Jack Dale,

        We are nearly to the minimum in northern hemisphere summer insolation. So where is the ice age? It is thousands of years overdue.

        • Jack Dale says:

          I will let solar scientists answer.

          Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

          Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

          Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535

          Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools

          Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

          • mpainter says:

            The only warming since 1950 has been shown to be due to decreases in global cloud albedo and clean air acts (reduction in aerosols), resulting in increased insolation. TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) does not vary but by an insignificant amount: 0.001.

            In fact, the global temperature trend has been flat for over 20 years, as a statistical fact.

            You are not earning your keep with such references as above, David/Jack.

          • David Appell says:

            Prove it, Painter. This is the third time I’ve asked for the data on clouds that proves your claim.

            You’ve failed to produce each time earlier. I suspect this time will be the same.

            You make things up.

          • mpainter says:

            For the fourth of fifth time:
            John McLean, 2014 Late Twentieth Century Warming and Cloud Cover. Do you know how to search?

            He has his own site, and you can see the study there. He shows that cloud albedo declined circa 1985-2002, estimating an increase in insolation of from 2.5 W/sq m to 5 W/sq m. His study is definitive proof that the late warming trend was not due to AGW or CO2, but to natural fluctuations in global cloud cover. His data base was the NASA cloud data.

            I repeatedly have referred you to think study and you repeatedly comment as above. I can only believe that you suffer from some sort of memory impairment. The last instance was two or three days ago:

            David Appell says:
            August 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM
            “The late warming trend circa 1979- 2000 was due to decreasing cloud albedo, not CO2, as shown per cloud data provided by NASA.”

            Where is this data? Link please.

            ast time I asked you, you couldn’t produce it. Or a source for the calculation using it.

            Reply
            mpainter says:
            August 30, 2015 at 11:18 AM
            Simply untrue, David. I have provided you the reference on several occasions in the past. I will not call you a liar, because perhaps you only suffer from some debilitating memory impairment. But perhaps you are a liar. Or perhaps it is simply substance abuse. And get your own links, impaired person.

            For any who are interested in the study, it is McLean, 2014, and he uses data from the NASA cloud data bank. He estimates an increase in insolation of 2.5 W/sq m to 5 W/sq m during circa 1985 to circa 2002 due decrease in cloud albedo, globally

        • mpainter says:

          The ice age cannot be explained in terms of NH summer insolation. Too many facts are left unaccounted for by such a theory.

  21. JR says:

    The answer to the whole issue can be found in the book “Dark Winter” by John L. Casey… AGW is nothing more than an anti-capitalism redistribution scheme….

    • Jack Dale says:

      Skeptics like Tom Nelson of Junkscience and Leif Svaalgard consider Casey to be a scam artist.

      Tom Nelson:

      “We think he’s a scam artist trying to get his hands in your pockets but couldn’t see how he expected to do so — now he’s told us. He’s looking for ‘meaningful funding’ and he thinks the skeptic community might be eager enough to slay the catastrophic warming myth to fork over some cash.

      We’d like to think skeptics are not a good target for scammers hunting the gullible but with Al raking in cash with his fear campaign it was inevitable some crook would try to siphon some off with another ‘angle’. If you must give your hard-earned away bear in mind that JunkScience is always chronically short of funds.”

      Leif Svalgaard:

      “The ‘Space and Science Research Center’ and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of ‘experts’. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release.”

      You really need to assess your sources.

    • He IS a scam. Google the guy and watch his videos.

  22. Jack Dale says:

    Dr Spencer

    “This shift was due to a natural reversal of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a 60 year cycle which affects the atmospheric steering currents in Alaska, determining whether cold polar air or warm Pacific air tends to win out as the two air masses continually battle for control over Alaska weather.”

    Interesting claim. What role did the enactment of Clean Air Acts around the world have on this shift? The war and post-war boom were accompanied by a massive increase in industrial aerosols which have the same effect as volcanic aerosols – cooling. The Clean Air Acts removed much of the smog and the aerosols, contributing to warming.

    • mpainter says:

      Jack Dale confesses:

      “Interesting claim. What role did the enactment of Clean Air Acts around the world have on this shift? The war and post-war boom were accompanied by a massive increase in industrial aerosols which have the same effect as volcanic aerosols – cooling. The Clean Air Acts removed much of the smog and the aerosols, contributing to warming.”
      ###

      Increased insolation, not CO2, as you admit with this comment. So why do you propagate alarmism? Are you paid?

      • Jack Dale says:

        Climate change is not the result of one single factor. There are many factors involved.

        Why do you deny science? Based in the quality of your posts, I doubt if you are paid.

        • mpainter says:

          So, I am a denier? Something told me that you would come to that. So much for your science.

          I note that you do not deny that you are paid. Your employers will doubtless look for someone else to do their dirty work, after seeing your performance here. Imagine! Admitting that the global warming culprit was increased insolation! What sublime foolery!

  23. mpainter says:

    Obama will get snowed in. They will have to chip him out. Then he will announce that it was CO2 that done it. Jack Dale will say no, it was increased insolation.

  24. harkin says:

    Many here are forgetting the #1 rule when offered an argument from Appell:

    Stand back. Let Appell argue with himself.

    Appell Aug. 7 at WUWT:

    “I comment here all the time, usually using a pseudonym. And none of you ever realize it.”

    Appell Aug 29 at Bishop Hill:

    “You are wrong.

    I comment under my own name, always.”

    Since his identity is in doubt even to himself, is it any wonder this fellow is so confused on things he knows little about?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/07/friday-funny-mann-gets-real-time/#comment-2002711

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/8/28/away-with-the-fairies.html#comments

  25. Ted says:

    Here in Alaska it snowed just this last week, several inches in the Glennallen-Eureka-Denali highway area (hunting grounds). We already have new snow on the mountain peaks of Wasilla.

  26. CodeTech says:

    Ted, it snowed here in Calgary too, August 21… and we’re a LONG way south of Alaska. Last year the first dump of snow was September 7 and everyone was whining about freak weather. Thousands of trees were damaged because they were still in full green leaf, and suddenly had tons of snow on them.
    There’s definitely no “warming” happening here.
    And seriously, the two jokers stinking up this comment section are hilarious… because they both seem SO SINCERE… but yet are both so amazingly obtuse.

  27. Margy Sanger says:

    obama is the Dr. Doolittle that talks to the idiots, morons, and clowns.

  28. TheWeatherman says:

    A little known fact that most dont want to hear

    “The planet’s magnetic poles do not coincide with its geographic poles because the magnetic field of the Earth is changing. Unlike the geographic poles, the magnetic ones actually move, and this could be considered a common feature of the two poles. The difference is that the magnetic north pole (the south of the magnetic field) is no longer located right in the Arctic region but is moving towards the East at a rate of 55-60 km every year. The magnetic south pole (the north of the magnetic field) still overlaps Antarctica, but is also moving westwards at a rate of 10-15 km per year.”

    source: http://listverse.com/2011/06/19/10-differences-between-the-north-and-south-poles/

  29. Peter O Donovan says:

    Hi
    Can anyone advise on how and when the political elites will back off this fraud. It just does not seem to stop. In the last few weeks I have seen numerous postings on sea level rise, polar bear population, coral bleaching, and people insist with religious fervour that it’s going to happen. I have pointed out evidence such as Dr Spencers website but it makes no differance,
    the reaction is probably akin to that of the response to evidence of the heliocentric nature of the solar system in the middle ages.
    Is there any hope,
    Regards Peter

  30. Ralph says:

    Hopefully Obama’s legacy will include his impeccable timing which would be not only this trip to Alaska but also the Copenhagen conference which ended in a massive snowstorm.

  31. Backus says:

    Geomagnetic reversal happening causing different weather patterns.

  32. ChrisGC says:

    One can only hope that the Emperor Obamessiah gets eaten by one of those endangered polar bears while renaming a mountain that didn’t need a new name at all, and then freezes his @$$ off while blathering o n about “global anthropogenic climate warming change disruption”!!!

    I wonder how much carbon will spew out fro m Air Force One while flying him to Alaska, versus how much will spew forth from his oral sphincter while he blathers on about a subject he knows next to nothing about?! Maybe he should taker Algore along so they can squawk out a duet in harmony?

  33. a p garcia says:

    Fitting he is met with SNOW. Denali is fitting name since it also the name of an Luxury SUV. “The Grand Teton” is the next landmark for a name change since it name is not PC. A sex starved French Explorer named it!

  34. dpharmer says:

    alaska……………………TOO WHITE…..

  35. dpharmer says:

    LOOKS LIKE BARRY GOT A HOLD OF SOME TUNDRA TYE

  36. Nancy says:

    Ad hominem is the result when people run out of reason. Ask whether NOAA changed the equipment the year the temps spiked.

  37. If one goes back to the Holocene Optimum the question is how fast is the earth cooling?

    Since the Holocene Optimum 8000 years ago the earth has been in a gradual overall cooling trend which has continued up to today punctuated by spikes of warmth such as the Roman ,Medieval and Modern warm periods.

    The main drives of this are Milankovitch Cycles which were more favorable for warmer conditions 8000 years ago in contrast to today , with prolonged periods of active and minimum solar activity superimposed upon this slow gradual cooling trend giving the spikes of warmth I referred to in the above and also periods of cold such as the Little Ice Age.

    Further refinement to the climate coming from ENSO, volcanic activity , the phase of the PDO/AMO but these are temporary earth intrinsic climatic factors superimposed upon the general broader climatic trend.

    All the warming the article refers to which has happened since the end of the Little Ice Age, is just a spike of relative warmth within the still overall cooling trend due to the big pick up in solar activity from the period 1840-2005 versus the period 1275-1840.

    Post 2005 solar activity has returned to minimum conditions and I suspect the overall cooling global temperature trend which as been in progress for the past 8000 years ago will exert itself once again.

    We will be finding this out in the near future due to the prolonged minimum solar activity that is now in progress post 2005.

    • Jack Dale says:

      “I suspect the overall cooling global temperature trend which as been in progress for the past 8000 years ago will exert itself once again.”

      Spurious suspicion.

      The sun’s activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don’t expect a little ice age. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”

      Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first “grand solar minimum” for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn’t happen.

      But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. “

      • He says, I say he is wrong.

        Solar activity from the end of the last Little Ice Age through 2005 has had a WARMING effect upon the climate.

        This changed during 2005 and once the prolonged solar minimum gets established and attains my low average value solar parameters we will see what direction the global temperatures will take.

        IT IS GOING TO BE DOWN.

      • Jack Dale, until these solar values are reached your argument about the sun not having an influence upon the climate will have to wait.

        THE CRITERIA

        Solar Flux avg. sub 90

        Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

        AP index avg. sub 5.0

        Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

        Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more

        EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

        IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

        The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005. The key is duration of time because although sunspot activity can diminish it takes a much longer time for coronal holes to dissipate which can keep the solar wind elevated which was the case during the recent solar lull of 2008-2010 ,which in turn keep solar climatic effects more at bay. Duration of time therefore being key.

        If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

        The decline in temperatures should begin to start to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24,if sub- solar conditions have been in place for 10 years + which we have now had. Again the solar wind will be needed to get to an average of below 350km/sec. in order to realize the full solar effects which I believe can be attained quite easily.

  38. UN IPCC also has NO Credibility
    by Allan MacRae
    In 2002 the PEGG, the journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) solicited the following debate on the now-defunct Kyoto Accord (Kyoto Protocol), between Dr. Matthew Bramley and Matt McCullough, P.Eng. of the Pembina Institute, who supported the Kyoto Accord and relied upon the IPCC’s position, and Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Astrophysicist, Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton Paleoclimatologist, and Allan MacRae, P.Eng., who opposed Kyoto based on scientific statements in their PEGG article and rebuttal. Link

    Now, after 13 years, it is instructive to look back at the two positions and determine how they have fared.

    One’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence. The IPCC has a negative predictive track record, because ALL of its scary projections have failed to materialize. The IPCC thus has NO credibility, actually it has NEGATIVE credibility. Probabilistically; based the IPCC’s negative predictive track record, one would more correct if one assumed the opposite of the IPCC’s scary projections.

    All the IPCC’s scary projections of catastrophic humanmade global warming, wilder weather, and climate change have failed to materialize, despite significant increases in atmospheric CO2, the purported driver of this falsely-predicted “weather weirding”. According to the best data from satellites, global temperatures measured in the Lower Troposphere (LT) have not increased significantly in about 18 years. Hurricane frequency and intensity are at record low levels. The climate has been remarkably stable despite substantial increases in atmospheric CO2.

    The IPCC’s sycophants responded by falsifying the Surface Temperature (ST) record to overstate global warming:
    See.

    In 2008 I calculated the “Warming Bias Rate{ [for 1979 to end-2007] = (Hadcrut3 ST – UAH LT anomalies) / time = 0.2C/2.8 decades or about 0.07C/decade. That was the apparent Warming Bias Rate in the ST versus the LT.

    In 2015 the Warming Bias Rate [for 1979 to mid-2015] = (Hadcrut4 ST – UAH LT anomalies) / time = [0.685 -0.204]/3.5 decades = about 0.14/decade.

    THIS IS TWICE THE WARMING BIAS RATE OF JUST ~6 YEARS AGO – AN UNBELIEVABLE INCREASE!

    It is extremely improbable that the total (since 1979) difference in the (ST minus LT) temperature anomalies diverged this much in just 6 years. It is much more probable that the ST data was falsified to overstate global warming.

    Pembina in its 2002 Rebuttal quoted the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers as follows:

    “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations…

    The globally averaged surface temperature is projected [in business-as-usual scenarios] to increase by 1.4 to 5.8C over the period 1990 to 2100.”

    In reality, the only quality data – from satellites – shows NO significant global warming for the past 18 years!

    • Jack Dale says:

      The survey of APEGA members by Lefrud and Meyers present a different picture.

      “In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.”

      From a comment referencing James Taylor’s misrepresentation of their paper.

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Carl Mears at RSS uses the term “denialist” to describe those who misrepresent his data.

      The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures

      Authors: Carl Mears

      Date Added: Monday, September 22, 2014

      Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked” their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets. For example, the figure below is a plot of the temperature anomaly (departure from normal) of the lower troposphere over the past 35 years from the RSS “Temperature Lower Troposphere” (TLT) dataset. For this plot we have averaged over almost the entire globe, from 80S to 80N, and used the entire TLT dataset, starting from 1979. (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)

      http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

  39. As a continuation of my last two post what is going to happen going forward is a gradual cooling trend(jig saw pattern ) with step like cooling periods superimposed upon the slow gradual global cooling temperature trend.

    The key will be how deep and long in duration this prolonged solar minimum will become moving forward into this decade.

    Coronal holes can keep the solar wind elevated for a time after sunspot activity has fallen off which will diminish full solar/climate impacts. This however will also fade if prolonged solar minimum conditions become firmly established.

    I have set forth my solar criteria which I will send once again.

  40. Donna Nickels says:

    Modern day Snake oil…using the sciences of anthropology to television, false statistical evidence, and market an idea they can capitalize on. Mr. Obama and Mr. Gore please go home. We don’t want you polluting our beautiful state with your garbage science. Thank you, an Alaskan representing others as well.

  41. THE CRITERIA

    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005. The key is duration of time because although sunspot activity can diminish it takes a much longer time for coronal holes to dissipate which can keep the solar wind elevated which was the case during the recent solar lull of 2008-2010 ,which in turn keep solar climatic effects more at bay. Duration of time therefore being key.

    If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to start to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24,if sub- solar conditions have been in place for 10 years + which we have now had. Again the solar wind will be needed to get to an average of below 350km/sec. in order to realize the full solar effects which I believe can be attained quite easily.

  42. Mick Russom says:

    The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no!

    The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs – with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and

    their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you

    know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON’T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don’t want more

    plants and animals and trees, no.
    Any time period the warmunists want to “prove” there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter – now they

    have the perfect example – the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic… Wait, no, it didn’t, it was the best time for life

    on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

    Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.

    Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone’s nod of approval.

  43. Glenn Koons says:

    Perhaps the CLIMATE WITH

  44. Glenn Koons says:

    Perhaps a CLIMATE wow will hit the POTUS campaign and with the aid of some bears, end all this enviro baloney and he worse POTUS in US history aside from Buch., Wilson, Hardin and Carter. One can only pray. Oh and while we are at it, let Alaskans vote on any name change. What gives this Quisling the right to rename Alaskan property? And if one says this is Fed territory; there is the problem to begin with.

  45. bobbi white says:

    I hope Air Force One gets stuck on the ice

  46. Johnny 5 says:

    Hopefully 0bama gets buried alive by an avalanche. He shows up in in Alaska for reasons of bogus climate change and then gets killed by a large amount of freezing facts.

  47. Richard G. says:

    “Dihydrogen Monoxide”
    You need to explain to the fools, who don’t realize you’re being facetious, that this is the chemical name for H2O (water).

  48. Chicago860 says:

    Nobody seems to include the fact that CO2’s history is as a lagging indicator of warming. That is, the warming occurs first and increases in CO2 follow. Can anyone ask if Al “McFly” Gore knows that?

    A hoax almost as good as Piltdown.

  49. Dennis Hlinka says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I’ve always understood that the 60-year PDO cycle consisted of a 30-year period of -PDO and a 30-year period of +PDO: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1850/mean:12/offset:0.8/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1850/mean:12/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1910/offset:1.05/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1910/offset:0.55/trend/plot/esrl-amo/trend

    The 50-years (1926-1976) of a negative (cooler) temperature trend and over 38-years (1976-2015) of positive (warmer) temperature trend implied by your chart seems out of line with that actual 60-year PDO cycle I’ve come to understand.

    Can you please clarify?

    Lastly, Joe Bastardi’s triple crown of cooling argument his current hopes are based on, that the PDO cycle supposedly went negative around 2007 (after being a +PDO from 1977-2007) and that we should already be in a cooling trend. That doesn’t seem to be happening as the PDO has been strong positive again for the past year and a half: http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/atm/images/pdo_short.gif

    Any comments as to why the periodicity and strength of the current -PDO cycle does not appear to be behaving like it did back in the 1945-1975 -PDO cycle period? Could that difference have something to do with the extra amount of heat being stored and accumulated in the oceans since then?: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

    • dave says:

      Dennis Hlinka asks of Dr Spencer:

      “Can you please clarify [about the PDO]?”

      It is not metronomic.

      • Dennis Hlinka says:

        Dave,

        A lot of criticism I read here is that climate scientists don’t properly account for the cyclical nature of the PDO, AMO, and others and therefore the climate models prediction are not realistic.

        So how does one apply these metronomic (uncyclical?) functions to predict future climate variability in a climate model to satisfy that criticism? How predictable are these functions and how can anyone say that we are heading into a cooling period if the future pattern and magnitude is not all that certain?

        • dave says:

          I said they are NOT metronomic, i.e. they are irregular.
          They are still interesting. Similarly, Sunspot Cycles are irregular, but they exist.

  50. Sphinxster says:

    How many degrees will Alaska’s temperature rise from the tons of CO2 Obama spews into the atmosphere with Climate Changer One on his trip there?

  51. nate says:

    Roy you are trying to draw meaning from noise in the Alaska plot.

    One can readily get apparent trends of +-0.3F/decade in 50 y series of random noise with no underlying trend at all and similar standard deviation.

    You have to look at larger regions, e.g. the whole arctic, to see meaningful trends.

  52. Norman says:

    David Appell
    http://davidappell.com/

    Is not Jack Dale
    https://disqus.com/by/jackdale/

    Two different people moved by things they have read to form similar mental states.

    Hope that clears things up for some who questioned the matter.

  53. ehak says:

    “The supposed poster child glacier for global warming in Alaska is Mendenhall Glacier…except that it had already retreated one mile by the early 1900s, long before human greenhouse gas emissions could be blamed.”

    Indeed. In Alaska and elsewhere.

    In covariance with increasing CO2-levels after 1850…

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/images/icecore.png

    Ooops..

  54. Timno1323 says:

    Salvatore Del Prete…..Al Gore said the same things, what 8-9 yrs ago. Crying wolf only works so many times, especially when your dealing with decade time frames. When you say plain old wrong, do you mean there are not tree stumps beneath the melting glacier?
    Please all, think critically then speak. No one has all answers to climate.

  55. oscarsierra666 says:

    So, what happened to the snow? Not seeing it in the news nor in the forecasts?

  56. Mark says:

    Well the President passed overhead a few hours ago here in Moose Pass AK. The escorts and transporting aircraft were certainly not burning biofuel. And the Osprey certainly can’t be fuel efficient, impressive as they are. For me it’s not so much about are we in a warming period but who will bare the brunt of carbon tax. The way I see it is that the tax will trickle down to the poor.

    As a side note of climate change we layman tend to believe what we experience. The last few winters here in South Central have been fairly warm. However now we are experiencing normal cool weather, even early snow. I expect the bull moose will go into the rut soon. Last year with warmer weather there was not much activity at this time of the year.

    First time posting to a blog, don’t beat me up too bad.

  57. Phyte On says:

    Are their any scientists here on this thread in response to the above article? I am not a scientist. But I would like to make a scientific claim. Please correct me if I am wrong:

    1) it is a scientific fact that government climate policy cannot regulate and control the climate.
    2) For example, There is zero scientific evidence that California’s cap & trade scheme has any measureable impact on the climate.
    3) Climate change cannot be reversed or stopped or modified by government policy. There is no science behind this attempt.
    4) All government attempts to impact the climate are futile.

    Where am I wrong?

  58. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/01/the-arctic-iris-effect-dansgaard-oeschger-events-and-climate-model-shortcomings-lesson-from-climate-past-part-1/

    This is the theory which will put an end to AGW nonsense and explains beyond a shadow of a doubt what is going on in the Arctic presently and what has occurred in the past.

    I am 100% on board with this ,and this in addition goes a VERY long way in reconciling abrupt climatic changes in the N.H. called Dansgaard -Oeschger Events while showing how wrong AGW theory’s explanation is for what is happening in the Arctic.

    When this is combined with Milankovitch Cycles, Geo Magnetic Strength, Land /Ocean arrangements for the bigger climatic picture with Solar Variability superimposed upon this and further refinement from volcanic activity , ENSO ,AMO and PDO the correct track as to why/how the climate changes, is this line of reasoning far and away and will be proven to be so in the very near future.

    Keeping in mind the possibility of a random super volcanic or terrestrial impact always a threat to turn the climate system upside down which has occurred in the past and I dare say coud occur in the future.

  59. I SENT THIS TWICE AND WANT IT HERE TO MAKE SURE IT IS SEEN. THAT IMPORTANT AN ARTICLE AND EXLANATION! Jim Steele is on the correct path in my opinion.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/01/the-arctic-iris-effect-dansgaard-oeschger-events-and-climate-model-shortcomings-lesson-from-climate-past-part-1/

    This is the theory which will put an end to AGW nonsense and explains beyond a shadow of a doubt what is going on in the Arctic presently and what has occurred in the past.

    I am 100% on board with this ,and this in addition goes a VERY long way in reconciling abrupt climatic changes in the N.H. called Dansgaard -Oeschger Events while showing how wrong AGW theory’s explanation is for what is happening in the Arctic.

    When this is combined with Milankovitch Cycles, Geo Magnetic Strength, Land /Ocean arrangements for the bigger climatic picture with Solar Variability superimposed upon this and further refinement from volcanic activity , ENSO ,AMO and PDO the correct track as to why/how the climate changes, is this line of reasoning far and away and will be proven to be so in the very near future.

    Keeping in mind the possibility of a random super volcanic or terrestrial impact always a threat to turn the climate system upside down which has occurred in the past and I dare say coud occur in the future.

    Reply

  60. Craig says:

    GOREBULL WARMING is the new extortion/communism. This gang and the ones before are charging you to breath. These communist parasites are extorting us through utility bills and everything else. They get to live like gods and we go to the poor house. If only we could put the roach light on the pigs at the trough.

  61. More evidence against the asinine AGW theroy.

    The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C. Whether this event is an example of an internal climate mode or is externally forced, such as by enhanced solar effects, is presently under debate. This study suggests that natural variability is a likely cause, with reduced sea ice cover being crucial for the warming. A robust sea ice–air temperature relationship was demonstrated by a set of four simulations with the atmospheric ECHAM model forced with observed SST and sea ice concentrations. An analysis of the spatial characteristics of the observed early twentieth-century surface air temperature anomaly revealed that it was associated with similar sea ice variations. Further investigation of the variability of Arctic surface temperature and sea ice cover was performed by analyzing data from a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. By analyzing climate anomalies in the model that are similar to those that occurred in the early twentieth century, it was found that the simulated temperature increase in the Arctic was related to enhanced wind-driven oceanic inflow into the Barents Sea with an associated sea ice retreat. The magnitude of the inflow is linked to the strength of westerlies into the Barents Sea. This study proposes a mechanism sustaining the enhanced westerly winds by a cyclonic atmospheric circulation in the Barents Sea region created by a strong surface heat flux over the ice-free areas. Observational data suggest a similar series of events during the early twentieth-century Arctic warming, including increasing westerly winds between Spitsbergen and Norway, reduced sea ice, and enhanced cyclonic circulation over the Barents Sea. At the same time, the North Atlantic Oscillation was weakening.

  62. Jennifer says:

    Dr Spencer, I find it curious that you cross out global warming and replace it with climate change, seemingly supporting the idea that there was some sort of deliberate change in terminology by scientists or activists, when you must know how untrue this is. Care to explain?

    • mpainter says:

      Allow me, Jennifer.

      What warming? There is none. It used to be all “global warming” but then the “pause” happened.

      Dear me, fretted the global warmers. How will we frighten the gullible?
      “No problem”, said Herr Goebbels, chief of the propaganda bureau, “we will say climate change and this has great advantage: we can blame everything on CO2, be it drought or flood, snow or ice. You like rising sea level? We got that. We can acidify the oceans, melt the ice caps, or start a new ice age. Never need to worry about running out of the gullible and the weak minded, either.”

      Shall we put you down as one of the gullible, Jennifer? Are you well fooled? Where have you been these last twenty years or so?

  63. Gary H says:

    In reference to the recent empirical evidence discovered at the Mendenhall Glacier – discussed above – here’s a similar tale from Susan Huse’s (biologist for the Alaska Support Office, National Park Service, “The Retreat of the Exit Glacier,” which has seen a bit of exposure around these parts in the past week:

    “The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a time of global cooling from approximately 1350 to 1870 AD. During this time glaciers expanded in the northern regions, moving down the mountains and scouring the
    vegetation that had been in the valleys below. Park Service personnel recently discovered evidence of a buried forest dating back to at least 1170 AD high in the Forelands near the current glacier’s edge.”

    She goes on to explain how visitors to the Exit Glacier can witness the evidence through time and learn . . . Well, except our arrogant fire breathing President.

  64. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Thank you, Dr. Spencer, for speaking out.

  65. Great post! Thanks for this information and your views on this!