The Frigid 48: U.S. Average Temperature 11 deg. F

January 7th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

As predicted here ten days ago, portions of all of the Lower 48 states are below 32 deg. F at 6 a.m. EST this morning (animation here):

Surface temperature and wind patterns at 6 a.m. January 7, 2017.

The spatial average temperature over the Lower 48 at 6 a.m. is 11 deg. F, which is fully 9 deg. (!) colder than at any time last winter (20 deg. F) which occurred twice in January of 2016.


874 Responses to “The Frigid 48: U.S. Average Temperature 11 deg. F”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. ren says:

    “Coldest air since at least 1996 to raise risk of frozen pipes, water main bursts in southern US”.
    Let’s see the polar vortex about 27 km.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-114.26,41.70,452

    • Paul Tarsuss says:

      The cwhoreporate media lies like there is no tomorrow to cover up the true cause of these increasing worldwide changes. The sun rises and sets over Canada now in summer; thousands of miles north of the old limit at the tropic of cancer which runs through cenntral mexico. The moon now plays rodeo all over the sky, moving through dozens of degrees of latitude per month, instead of the former total of 10 degrees PER YEAR, that was the old norm.

      Google – “Huge Media Blackout Regarding Supermoons, Orbital and Axis Changes, Quakes and Tsunami”

      The video alone says it all.

      Good Journeys

      • Lorenzo LaRue says:

        “The video alone says it all.” The video says nothing since the direction CAN NOT BE VERIFIED! If these changes had occurred within only decades the climate would be in total disarray, not somewhat messed up and well on the way to our own extinction, but this change would be way too serious to have left us ‘relatively’ unscathed so far.

      • JohnFLob says:

        It seems you have been severely distracted by the loud noise from all that loose change rattling around in your pockets

    • rich says:

      must be global WARMING……you idiots on the left!!!

      • mark p says:

        No, it’s Global Cooling, which is a recurring phenomena.

        The next glacial period could commence at any time. And when the temperatures drop as they regularly do (every 15,000 years or so) the glaciers will re-advance, perhaps covering most of No. America, as they did as recently as 13,000 years ago. When that happens, it will be catastrophic for most of humankind.

        Today’s mild, food-friendly climate is a blessing. These warmer temps have gaven rise to human civilization.

        According to the data revealed by ice core samples and archeological indicators, today’s mild climate will likely revert to colder and dryer conditions, similar to our last ‘ice age’. These conditions will wreak havoc on most of humanity.

        So enjoy the nice weather while it lasts.

        • Karla Flippin says:

          Exactly!!! No one knows earth seasonal history. We are cooling off. And, no amount of taxing or laws will stop it. NOTHING will stop it. They will WISH for global warming.

  2. Greg says:

    It is not below freezing in Florida, 44 in north florida.

  3. Vincent says:

    And STILL you are promoting Global Warming as an existential threat? How much colder must it be before you realize that your models were wrong?

      • Nate says:

        Roy,

        You had a perfect opportunity there to correct a misconception: that this weeks cold in the US says something about GW. But you didnt take it. At other times you make an effort to correct misconceptions. Why not now?

    • TXEX says:

      Vince Dr Roy is one of the good guys

      • benpal says:

        We don’t know if Dr. Roy is a good guy, but one doesn’t have a good guy to report factual data.

        • Phil R says:

          I’m not a lick-boot sucker-upper, but just by what i’ve read over the last few years I would say that Roy is a good guy who happens to report factual data.

          • David Appell says:

            Roy reports his model’s data.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Roy reports his models data.”

            And you’re a troll whose only purpose commenting here is to obfuscate through spreading rhetoric and propaganda.

            AMSU units measure real time temperature of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere in incredibly large swaths of oxygen, much unlike the two a day temps measured by thermometers. Furthermore, the sats measure 95% of the lower atmosphere as opposed to about 30% by surface stations.

            Calling AMSU units models is trolling.

          • An Inquirer says:

            David Appell’s comment is technically correct, but misleading. Given his knowledge on the subject, it would be logical to conclude that he is deliberately misleading.

    • Slipstick says:

      Vincent,
      The continental United States is about 1.9% of the Earth’s surface and it’s not colder over the entire globe. Today’s temperatures are weather, not climate.

      • E. Smith says:

        Slipstick: I live near a stone jetty that projects into the Atlantic Ocean on Long Beach Island, NJ. In the last 70 years the mean high water mark on it hasn’t changed a millimeter.
        That, sir is climate and it hasn’t changed.
        Al Gore and the climate change idiots are a disgrace.

        • Slipstick says:

          Perhaps that’s true for Long Beach Island; I would welcome data to support that statement. Tell me, any dredging in the area? Any beach erosion mitigation? Any sea walls? All of these are going to affect coastal sea levels, particularly high water levels, which, by the way, are not the mean sea level. Also, conditions in one small area cannot be extrapolated to represent the entire globe.b

          • Steve says:

            Slipstick, are you kidding me. Sea walls, dredging? You do not understand that water is a liquid then, seeking equilibrium based on gravity?

          • Slipstick says:

            Steve, yes, with still water, but coastal levels vary with the local seabed contour and currents. If what you say is true of the ocean coasts, how do you explain variations in tidal range from one locale to another?

          • Lewis says:

            Slipstick,

            The tides are greater the farther from the equator. The Bay of Fundy has 25′ plus tidal changes daily. Not so in the Keys.
            Tidal differences in coastal areas are usually due to distance, not by crow flight, from the ocean.

            Lewis

          • Jimlab says:

            Does anyone know of the mean tide mark placed on the tide rocks on the Isle of Dead in Tasmania in 1843 By the leader of an exposition to Anrarctica? The level of the water has not changed there either in nearly 200 years.

          • John R Smith says:

            We’re gonna miss SLR when it’s gone.
            This nice stable warm period and the resulting tech boom
            will be missed.
            It was nice while it lasted.
            Ya’ think warming causes social displacement?

        • Beagle says:

          I live on Harkers Island, n.c. There’s a 100 year old man here that ties his boat up to the same pole his 100 year old father did. As a matter of a fact, we are tying our boats up to the same poles Blackbeard did..
          If the oceans are rising at a rate of one foot every hundred years, as the models claims, when is it going g to start??
          Furtermore, the melting ice theory has been debunked. Ice is building in Antarctica..
          The earth will always have natural changes. When presumptuious fools think they can change that, is when it becomes dangerous….

        • Denis Rushworth says:

          E. Smith

          Worldwide Tide gauge data is easily available at PSMSL.org. The Sandy Point NJ gage may be near you. Check it. There is also a nearby GPS altitude device (under “other data on the PSMS chart) location which shows notable subsidence in that area which may be sufficient to account for all of the slow steady gauge increase shown.

        • Steve says:

          Slickstick,

          of course you understand the Tidal action is caused by the gravitational forces exerted by the moon and sun. All tides will change by local, given how these two heavenly bodies are aligned at any point in time. That is why tidal influence changes everywhere on the globe based on time and juxtoposition of these two bodies. That is why E Smith was referring only to the high water mark over a period of decades. That can be a very relevant measure of overall sea height over time.

        • David Appell says:

          E. Smith says:
          “Slipstick: I live near a stone jetty that projects into the Atlantic Ocean on Long Beach Island, NJ. In the last 70 years the mean high water mark on it hasnt changed a millimeter.”

          Where is the data showing that?

      • Gerkmonster says:

        Actually, the global temperatures are plummeting as well as La Nina sets in.
        Of course, what really matters is the oceans and we have very little visibility there.

      • R. Shearer says:

        A couple of weeks ago, the warmists were “alarmed” at the higher than average temperature at the North Pole.

        Yes, the U.S. is <2% of global area. The North Pole is < 0.01%

      • Jtom says:

        I am weary of the old “this is weather, not climate,” canard. You do know how climate is derived, right? Making that statement is like a kid sayin, yeah, I failed today’s quiz, but my semester average will be an A. Entirely possible, but less likely by the failure.

        • David Appell says:

          NOAA’s temperature record is 136 years long.

          One week is 0.014% of that.

          The US is only 2% of the globe.

          So, what happens here this week will have extremely little effect on the global climate numbers.

          • Steve says:

            You mean the global thermometer. That is acutally a rediculous concept and statistically impossible to prove either one way or the other. The deviations are just too small.

          • David Appell says:

            I don’t know of any “global thermometer.”

            So what’s your point?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”I dont know of any global thermometer.
            So whats your point?”

            It would be helpful if you were honest about your point for commenting here. All you do is try to block anything said with appeals to authority. You seem to lack any scientific expertise or reasoning of your own.

            The point is obvious. The global thermometer reference is to a global temperature which is nothing more than a number derived from statistics. Even worse is the notion of a global climate based on the fictitious global temperature.

        • Nate says:

          Ok maybe so. We’re having a nice Georgia day, sunny 60 degrees.

          Except it is the middle of New England.

          This meaningful to anyone?

      • Dale left coaast says:

        If you are feeling too cold today . . . just wait a few years . . . .
        NOAA will adjust the temperature data upwards so that 2017 will be the hottest year ever!

      • Buffalolips says:

        Please provide a cite for your claim that the Earth’s surface is not colder over the entire globe (compared to some other measurable time in the past). Given that the difference between weather and climate is a measure of time, with weather being the conditions of the atmosphere over a short period of time, and climate being how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long period of time, how much “time” and temperature change will it take before people wake up to the fact that climate is in fact changing. If you’re willing to acknowledge that much, how about explaining why the trend is toward colder (unless of course your only explanation is solar activity). Are there no other contributing factors? Really?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Buffalolips…”…how much time and temperature change will it take before people wake up to the fact that climate is in fact changing”.

          Sorry, those of us interested in real science based on observation and measurement are heeding the admission of the IPCC in 2013 that no global warming occurred in the 15 year period between 1998 and 2012. Also, we are heeding the satellite data provided by UAH which shows no global warming trend between 1998 – 2015, some 18 years.

          Lindzen actually claims back to 1995 and if he’s right, we are now over 20 years with no warming. Please explain how excessive climate change happens without global warming.

      • Ronald C Wagner says:

        Global means all over. It is not warming here. If you want the global just measure the sea level rise if any. Virtually none. That is the real answer. Simple, very simple.

      • Grant Christensen says:

        Why, when warm weather events occur, do you and other handwringing global warming devotees blame “global warming as the cause?

        • Nate says:

          Agreed short term weather says nothing about climate. Should we pay attention to record temps over long periods, such as 4 years? UAH data just set record high for a 4 y period. Also 3 and 2 y periods. All stat significant.

          • wert says:

            And exactly how warm? Sorry, can’t tell, adjusted the heck out of it.

            I’m sorry, there is nothing worrying. The more you adjust, the less I believe in you.

          • Nate says:

            ‘adjsusted the heck out of it’ which one? Was discussing satellite data UAH.

            But all the records showing records for recent periods. Which one do you trust?

      • Robert Austin says:

        Of course the unseasonable cold is weather, but then if it had been unseasonably warm in CONUS, it would have been climate change, would it not.
        /sarc

      • Every out of the ordinary weather event that happens is climate change dim wit! Why do you think the leftists changed the narrative?

    • Ernest Bush says:

      Dr. Spencer reports factual data, dude. It isn’t always good news for those who want to claim its getting colder, but its factual. This week it was bad news for the Warmistas.

      • Ted says:

        actually you can’t say Dr. Spencer reports factual data because he doesn’t collected it. To the best of my knowledge NASA is the only source of data that scientist use in their research. But lately there are whistle blowers claiming that NASA doctors data. They lower temperature data collected in the past and increase temp of the new data. One of them got his hand on raw data NASA received from some South America stations and compared it with the official data NASA released. released numbers were higher by one degree.

        • David Appell says:

          You do know that satellites don’t actually measure temperatures, right?

          UAH calculates them via a model — a fairly complicated model.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”You do know that satellites dont actually measure temperatures, right?”

            The sats measure microwave radiation from oxygen molecules that correlate directly with the oxygen’s temperature.

            It is strictly Appell’s conspiracy theory that UAH manufactures the temps in a model. This proves beyond doubt that he is a troll.

            NOAA launched the sats in 1979 with AMSU units that receive microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. The resultant temperatures derived was intended to be used by weather stations as reliable temperature information.

          • TedM says:

            Correct and they very closely track the radiosonde data which does measure temperature. However you already know that, so it just raises the question as to why you continue to choose to ignore it.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            ‘It is strictly Appells conspiracy theory that UAH manufactures the temps in a model.’

            Wrong, once again. Models of atmosphere ARE used to derive temperature. The correct way to do this is still debated among the experts:

            Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment

            Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1

            Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies

            Stephen Po-Chedley, Tyler J. Thorsen, and Qiang Fu
            Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
            Add to Favorites Track Citation Download Citation Email
            DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Ted…”To the best of my knowledge NASA is the only source of data that scientist use in their research”.

          UAH data comes from NOAA satellites launched in 1978. NOAA was doing nothing with the data till UAH asked for it. NOAA gave the data to UAH. Since then, UAH has been awarded medals for excellence for their work on the data by NASA and the American Meteorological Society.

          The irony is that the sat data contradicts the fudged surface data NOAA now provides.

      • David Appell says:

        Ernest Bush says:
        “Dr. Spencer reports factual data, dude.”

        No, he doesn’t. He reports the results of UAH’s model calculation.

    • Daniel says:

      Global Warming in its current definition is not falsifiable; so no scientific test can be performed to prove or disprove it. This means it is in the realm of religion of cult.

      • David Appell says:

        False.

        Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

        “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

        • FTOP says:

          That CO2 “forcing” is amazing. Temperature when down by 4C at the measurement location during the study. I guess Feldman proved CO2 cools. Now that s some settled science.

          https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/new-result-shows-co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/

          • David Appell says:

            CO2 is a well-mixed gas — it doesn’t just hover over a single tiny location. So your criticism is moot.

            Your link looks at the Alaskian slope and Alaska statewide. So it’s the usual denier crap.

            But CO2 does have a radiative forcing. That’s what was measured. That’s why the world is warming!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”CO2 is a well-mixed gas …”

            That definition comes straight out of realclimate. I imagine you have a front row seat at RC propaganda sessions when they school you on how to disrupt legitimate scientific discussion at skeptic sites.

            I imagine you have a front row seat at skepticalscience propaganda sessions as well.

            Too bad the disruption (trolling) doesn’t work here.

          • Nate says:

            FTOP,

            Be careful with articles obtained from a random blog, they are likely to be full of misleading, cherry picked, or factually incorrect information. This one certainly fits that description.

            For one thing, the temperature did not go down 4C during the period. The last year, 2011, happened to be a very cold year, otherwise the trend was flatish, certainly not -4C/decade. Misleading.

            Makes no mention that CO2 is not the only factor determining temperature in a local region. Natural variations would be expected to be large and dominate the trend. You can check the trends for single states for single decades and they will be plus, minus, all over the place. Very misleading.

            The point of the original paper was to demonstrate a correlation between forcing and CO2 and for that it succeeded.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            ‘legitimate scientific discussion’ OMG

            I truly wish we could have a legitimate scientific discussion with you, but is not a discussion.

            People try to discuss with you about the science, yes. But you do not discuss in good faith.

            That is, if someone points out to you that something you mentioned was factually incorrect or partly incorrect, and give you legit sources for the correct information, or make logical arguments that you are unable to refute, then you simply ignore this and repeat the same misinformation again later.

            This is not a legitimate discussion.

    • Nate says:

      Weather moves air around. Right now some air from the arctic got moved down south.

      Last week we had rain here in New England when southern air got moved up here.

      Says nothing about global temps.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Nate…”Says nothing about global temps.”

        Says a whole lot when the global average just dropped a few tenths C in a month, tying 2016 with 1998 for the hottest year.

        That cold weather from the Arctic must have been moving around a whole lot more than you think.

        • Nate says:

          December global dropped two tenths of a degree. Now the second week of January temps in US drop 15 degrees….I dont see causation there.

      • wert says:

        True. So why warmistas use that trick 97% of time?

    • David Appell says:

      Vincent says:
      “How much colder must it be before you realize that your models were wrong?”

      Colder????

      UAH just reported the warmest year in their records.

      Even Dec 2016 was the 6th warmest December, out of 39 years.

      So where is the “colder?”

  4. Boone76 says:

    Further evidence that global warming is a hoax. Most Americans grow weary of the far left’s relentless mantra and “scientific” claims.

    • Beagle says:

      It cannot be science, if you arbitarily change raw data..
      NOAA said all thermometers in U.S. were wrong between 1885 and 1940.
      Stangely, they were allsupposed to be wrong in the same direction. The took 1.2 to 2.2 from the each yearly average.
      Of course, that’s the exact amount it took to erase 1935 and 1921 as the two hottest years on record..
      And, of course, that meant they could then say 2014, 2015 were the hottest years on record.. All lies..

      • David Appell says:

        Adjustments to the raw data are done (in all sciences) to remove biases.

        How would you like to remove the biases in the raw temperature data?

        • Lisa DiFiore says:

          Not true. In my field of Applied Behavior Analysis, we analyze data to measure, assess, and determine changes in behavior and the events surrounding specific behaviors to help determine functions of behaviors with the goal of increasing appropriate behavioral functioning and reducing maladaptive behavior in people with significant behavior problems. If we “adjusted” raw data, then we would not be able to determine anything worthwhile, and would undoubtedly cause more harm than good. In medical research, adjusting raw data could be deadly and at the very least could cause scientists to explore and implement useless medical interventions while useful ones get disregarded. No matter what the scientific field, any researcher with knowledge and integrity knows that fudging or “adjusting ” data is never warranted. Never.

          • David Appell says:

            Lisa:

            Your field adjusts raw data as well.

            To control for sample sizes. And many other external influences. Not one person in your field ever reports raw data without caveats.

            Except you do a poorer job of this than do climate scientists, because your field has far more biases it needs to control for.

            EVERY scientific field (which probably excludes psychology and sociology) has to removce biases. Every one of them.

          • Nate says:

            So if a test subject did not conform to the experimental protocol, you still treat that data point the same as others? Or do you make adjustments for valid reasons?

        • David Appell says:

          Lisa wrote:
          “In medical research, adjusting raw data could be deadly….”

          Ha ha.

          Ever heard the expression “controlling for” with respect to medical research?

          I’m sure you have.

          Those are adjustments.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Adjustments to the raw data are done (in all sciences) to remove biases.”

          If that’s done to re-write a historical temperature record with no evidence other than apparent statistical anomalies it’s called scientific misconduct.

        • TedM says:

          Or to introduce convenient biases.

          • Bryan says:

            Yes when any scientific measurement is taken its margin of error should be given.
            For example for temperature measurement the result should always be given with (+) and (-) the reading error.
            The thermometer should be tested against other thermometers and know physical temperatures like melting ice.
            Otherwise a systematic error is possible.

            On an old 18th century determination it might be 1 degree celsius or later 0.1 degree above or below the result value.
            Its as likely to be below or above the given value by the margin of error

            It seems rather odd that the temperature series would have to be ‘adjusted’ to give a higher or lower general trend.

            Any such ‘adjustment’ should be looked on with grave suspicion and have to be universally agreed before implemented.

          • Nate says:

            Bryan,

            Agreed. Yes it may seem odd or even suspicious, but without reading their paper or a summary of it you cannot assume they are lying.

            Personally I would make the assumption that I dont know enough about the analysis or the issues until I have looked into it in detail.

            Turns out there were some systematic changes in how temps were measured in the past. See here:

            http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

        • Yeah Except unlike dr roys Spencer’s data orginizations like the noaa, NASA and the iPCC fudge the data to show a warming biast trend that fits there narrative

      • Nate says:

        Beagle,

        Science is about making sense of raw data by analyzing it. Its not at all arbitrary, in fact, what they are doing to the data is published for all to see and judge.

        If you or any experts have a problem with how its being done, you can do it your own way and publish it. That happens often.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Nate…”Science is about making sense of raw data by analyzing it.”

          Yes…in real time, not 50 to 100 years after the data was gathered, or even a few years after it was gathered.

          NOAA, encouraged by the Obama admin, has systematically tried to erase the 15 year warming hiatus declared by the IPCC in 2013. Due to his climate agenda, Obama illegally kept information from Congress. One top scientist was fired by the Obama admin for releasing too much information to Congress.

          What kind of heinous game are you alarmists playing?

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            Puleez, don’t be such a drama queen.

            There was no climate change study going on in real time 50-100 years ago. There was just weather data. It was never intended to be used for climate change research. Therefore the standards for collecting the data were pretty loose and that needs to be accounted for.

            Instead of assigning nefarious motives to NOAA researchers, let me suggest you go and read their paper describing the reasons for the adjustments, then tell me specifically what you think they did wrong.

          • Jake says:

            Nate … understood. But could you please explain to me why this “loose” data collection always seems to have been “loose” on the high side? I’m being serious here, I would like a link to a paper explaining why Farmer Joe’s thermometer always read on the warm side and had to be adjusted down.

            I understand what went on with UAH … similar to a thermometer reading “hot” if it’s near, let’s say, a heating vent … so were the titanium sensors on the satellites. I would think that most data would be more accurate 50-75-100 years ago because of reduced UHI.

          • Nate says:

            Jake, See the link in my comment January 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM above.

            Yes corrections made US trend higher.There is some explanation there.

            But what you can see in last graph is the largest correction made Global temperatures of the past GO UP, lowering the trend.

          • Nate says:

            Jake,

            ‘I understand what went on with UAH similar to a thermometer reading hot if its near, lets say, a heating vent so were the titanium sensors on the satellites.’

            Can you explain a bit more about your understanding of that?

    • Nate says:

      Boone76,

      I opened my wallet and saw several $20s. There is no way there is poverty in the world..its a hoax.

  5. cleo48 says:

    Tell it to Gore. He’s the one to bounce this stuff off of.

  6. Linda says:

    Pensacola is 25 F at 7:30am!
    That’s below freezing!

  7. groupthink says:

    In my domicile currently 19…….I learned the definition of ‘average’ many moons ago, ones physical location is not the center of all creation!!!

  8. barry says:

    Dr Spencer does not make the mistake of turning this weather report into a comment about climate change.

    Others do, but I doubt the good Dr will correct them.

    Just as a record hot day does not by itself prove the existence of global warming, a record cold day does not disprove it.

    For those who have already posted – or agree with those posts – that a bout of cold weather means AGW isn’t real, would you then agree that a record heatwave proves that it is?

    No. You would not.

    I leave it to the honest ones to figure out what that means.

    • Gerkmonster says:

      And who are they? (the honest ones).

    • Jtom says:

      Both heatwaves and coldwaves are evidence, not proof. This is evidence that AGW may not be happening. Heatwaves are evidence that it is. The proof will be determined by the preponderance of evidence over time.

      If you are honest, you would agree that this is evidence that AGW may not be happening.

      • Herr Morgenholz says:

        I find it overwhelming proof that the earth wobbles on its axis, and nothing more.

      • barry says:

        Both heatwaves and coldwaves are evidence, not proof. This is evidence that AGW may not be happening. Heatwaves are evidence that it is. The proof will be determined by the preponderance of evidence over time.

        If you are honest, you would agree that this is evidence that AGW may not be happening.

        If by “this” you mean the cold spell in the US, then no. It is evidence of nothing global, nor of anything sustained.

        It seems some Americans think America is the world, but I’m sure no one is so parochial on this board.

    • Bart says:

      The warmists have milked the transient El Nino for all its worth. Time to pay the piper.

      • David Appell says:

        I’ve noticed more and more deniers having to shout about very short-term changes.

        Is that all they have now?

        • Herr Morgenholz says:

          We have the label “denier”, which is like genocide, but in Bermuda shorts.

          • David Appell says:

            The word “denier” is a perfectly good word in English, that existed long before the Holocaust or Rawandian genocide.

            Deniers spout words like “warmist,” “alarmist,” “warmunist,” and worse. Where are those precedents?

      • barry says:

        The warmists have milked the transient El Nino for all its worth. Time to pay the piper.

        Ah, so for you, this is about tit-for-tat, is it? A sort of schoolyard karma.

      • Nate says:

        So a hot globe for a couple of years is meaningless, but a cold week in the lower 48, that’s meaningful!

        • Lewis says:

          Nate,

          I suppose it depends on what you’re trying to prove. Many alarmists (David’s favorite self-description) have used every event there is, hurricanes, droughts, floods, warm years, hot weeks, you name it, they’ve used them to tell others that climate change is terrible and coming NOW. So here we have a cold spell in N. America and the deniers are using it the same way the alarmists have. What is the problem?

          Personally, being somewhat on the denier side (more accurately, don’t believe CO2 is the issue but do believe climate change occurs) I am more afraid of cooling than warming. So while I don’t believe CO2 is much of a driver, I do hope it gets warmer and not colder.

          Lewis Guignard
          Crouse, NC

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis says:
            “I suppose it depends on what youre trying to prove. Many alarmists (Davids favorite self-description)”

            Where have I ever used that term?

          • barry says:

            Many alarmists (Davids favorite self-description) have used every event there is… to tell others that climate change is terrible and coming NOW. So here we have a cold spell in N. America and the deniers are using it the same way the alarmists have. What is the problem?

            Do you prefer mentioning the war to seeking for the truth?

        • barry says:

          So here we have a cold spell in N. America and the deniers are using it the same way the alarmists have. What is the problem?

          The problem is that the effort to win is more important than the effort to find out the truth.

          (I also don’t think there is exact equivalence. When events are used to talk about warming, they are usually contextualised in terms of averages, and typifying, rather than outright claiming a hot event is solely because of global warming. This context is supremely lacking on the other side of the coin.

          An honest skeptic effort with this cold spell would be to contextualise it in terms of the long-term records. When did the US last have a cold period like this in Winter? When were the coldest winters in the US record?

          Dr Spencer has compared this spell with last Winter – but that was the warmest Winter in the US record, so it leaves a rather false impression.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”An honest skeptic effort with this cold spell would be to contextualise it in terms of the long-term records”.

            We have tried that and you bury your head in the sand in deep denial.

            The long term record since 1998 shows no significant warming trend. The IPCC have verified 15 years of that 18 years While UAH verifies the whole range as having no trend.

          • barry says:

            barryAn honest skeptic effort with this cold spell would be to contextualise it in terms of the long-term records.

            We have tried that and you bury your head in the sand in deep denial.

            My head is up and I’m all agog. Where can I see a skeptic contextualising the recent cold spell within the instrumental temperature record for the US?

        • Bart says:

          When those two years were due to an El Nino spike, yes, pretty meaningless.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Just as a record hot day does not by itself prove the existence of global warming, a record cold day does not disprove it”.

      No one is arguing against that, all Roy is saying is that the cold weather during December averaged out the EN warming earlier in the year and tied 2016 as the warmest year with 1998.

      I have pointed out to you repeatedly the IPCC admission that no warming trend has occurred since 1998. You turned it into a red-herring argument by focusing on the words ‘warming hiatus’. Both trends were identical and insignificant and the error margins made it clear that any trend could have been a warming or a cooling.

      • barry says:

        barryJust as a record hot day does not by itself prove the existence of global warming, a record cold day does not disprove it.

        No one is arguing against that

        Let’s pick a few quotes from this thread.

        The cold spell in the US means…

        “Further evidence that global warming is a hoax.”

        “How does this happen if theres man-made global warming?”

        “And STILL you are promoting Global Warming as an existential threat? How much colder must it be before you realize that your models were wrong?”

        “must be global WARMINGyou idiots on the left!!!”

        Heaps more elsewhere as you can probably guess.

      • You are lying about the IPCC report. Nowhere does the IPCC report “admit” that “no warming trend” had occurred since 1998. There isn’t any such quote in the IPCC report. This is a totally made up claim by you.

        You even logically contradict yourself in your own comment, and you don’t even seem to notice it. Since the error margins for the trend over the short time period are as large that there could have been warming or cooling, a conclusion that there hadn’t been any warming trend would be logically fallacious. The IPCC report doesn’t draw such a non-sequitur conclusion.

    • Hey dr stupid ever heard of the jet stream. You see it’s this wave of air currents that moves up and down. Glad I could help

  9. Uncle Al says:

    The terrible social, economic, and ecological costs of GLOBAL WARMING!!! eviscerate us all. We must scrub the atmosphere of carbon dioxide to lower Earth’s average temperature by 10 degrees past pre-industrial times. Agriculture loves brutal winters. Promise to feed the Earth and all its little children!

    But first…the Carbon Tax on Everything currently extorting a $trillion/year from First World economies must be tripled. It is the only way to be sure.

    • Brian says:

      Someone was asleep during biology 101 the day they were teaching about carbon based life forms and the need for all plants to absorb carbon …………

    • Dale left coaast says:

      I think we should just send Greensleeze and the other envirofascists to China . . .
      When the Air and Water in China are as clean as the USA . . . come back and tell us . . . we’ll talk further !

      • David Appell says:

        How do you think the air and water got as (relatively) clean as they are today? Regulations pushed by environmentalists, fought by polluting industries every step of the way.

        You need to send them a thank you card, with a check inside.

        • Bart says:

          Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.

          ― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time

          • David Appell says:

            Without environmentalists pushing and pushing, air and water would never have gotten as clean as it is.

            Now they’re, rightly, pushing on an even bigger problem.

          • Lewis says:

            No, they’re not. See the devolution of Greenpeace. Started out nicely, degenerated. The Sierra Club is the same. Eric Hoffer is correct. The environmentalist movement has become a racket.

            They fought against the Carbon tax in Oregon or Washington because it was revenue neutral instead of extracting extra money to go to their chosen beneficiaries.

        • Johnny come never says:

          Actually, most people are not environmentalists and most people want clean air and water.

          Further (and oh so ironically), clean air laws may have actually led to the ~1C increase in temps over the last 30+ years:
          http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1

          • David Appell says:

            If they want clean air and water, they are, by definition, environmentalists.

          • Lewis says:

            David,

            I want clean air, clean water, clean land, but not sterile. I use chemicals to kill fungus, bacteria and insects.

            Do you consider me and environmentalist?

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis, you’ve ignored all my questions.

            So I’ll ignore yours.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Johnny…”Actually, most people are not environmentalists and most people want clean air and water”.

            Agreed. However there is a reality we cannot escape at present. We need to heat our homes, drive, use transport, fly, and so on. That requires fossil fuels at present and we need them affordable.

            We have gone a long ways to removing harmful chemicals from internal combustion engines in North America. It would seem those who want us to freeze in the dark are ideologists who want that for the sake of being politically-correct.

            Let them be politically correct on their own time.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”If they want clean air and water, they are, by definition, environmentalists”.

            Not necessarily. As Michael Crichton claimed, environmentalism is a religion. At least, it has become one.

            Wanting clean air does not require the myopic views of eco-alarmists. As far as I’m concerned the air is clean enough where I live, in a major city.

            Would I prefer no fossil fuel emissions? Yes. Can I live with them? Yes.

            Until I see a global warming trend that cannot be explained by natural sources I have no worries.

  10. Eric says:

    I live in the FL panhandle, and there’s ice all over my porches and my cars this morning.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Eric…”I live in the FL panhandle, and theres ice all over my porches and my cars this morning”.

      Any jokes down your way about not having to chill your orange juice?

  11. John Sturtz says:

    50-100 years is just a speck in time. The real culprits in climate change are volcanoes and earthquakes.(Not to mention
    an asteroid now and then) Alarmists should understand that man made global warming is a hoax. Let go of your ego and entertain the possibility that mankind has little to no effect on global climate (with the exception of all out nuclear war) So relax. Cut the crap with carbon dioxide being a pollutant. Any 8th grade science course should have taught you that plants need carbon dioxide to produce oxygen.
    Humans need oxygen to produce carbon dioxide. The worst thing you can do is meddle with nature’s scheme. Get a life.

    • Beagle says:

      The fools won’t believe you, but you are 100% right..

    • David Appell says:

      John Sturtz says:
      “Alarmists should understand that man made global warming is a hoax”

      What is your evidence for this claim?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”What is your evidence for this claim?”

        Let’s start with nearly 20 years with no global warming.

    • Mark David says:

      Climate worriers, do us all a favor or two.

      1.) Just call it “climate”, not “climate change”. “Climate change” is a political word, not a scientific word.

      2.) Find another line of work. The hoax you’re currently on is becoming a nuisance to countries trying to recovery from the terrible economics introduced by the 0bama administration back in 2009.

      3.) Stop with the fake narratives, made-up data, and push to make your religion of weather the law of the land. You are selling snake oil and we’re not buying it.

      • David Appell says:

        Mark: Where is your evidence that AGW is a “hoax?”

        Of course you don’t have any.

        So you should just shut up and stop making making that absurd claim.

      • Nate says:

        I didnt know Obama ran other countries too!?

        • Lewis says:

          He didn’t run this one either. He just made every effort he could to ruin as many lives as he could of those who didn’t think he walked on water.

          • David Appell says:

            Did he ruin your life, Lewis?

            You aren’t man enough to be in control of your own fate?

          • Nate says:

            Lewis,

            Sure, that is why most people run for office-so they can “ruin as many lives as possible”. Makes sense. Helps them get reelected.

            I can see that you are an Alex Jones fan.

          • No Fan But Can Respect says:

            Interesting question, David Appell. The old American thought was that the government should minimize its interference with the individual so that the individual could control his or her own fate.
            My life was more than OK before Obama, but not so much anymore. Just one example: My health care cost has gone up $7500 per year because of the ACA, and the amount of health care that I am getting has gone done.
            We may quibble over semantics on whether Obama has ruined my life, but he has had a tremendously detrimental impact on it.

          • David Appell says:

            No fan: What was your insurance cost before the ACA?

            Would you even be insured without the ACA?

            $7,500/yr is still a bargain, given that annual per capita health costs are now over $10,000/yr.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Nate…”I didnt know Obama ran other countries too!?”

          Not only that he makes unfounded accusations that other countries interfered in his party losing the election.

          It has recently been uncovered that he kept climate information from Congress and that his administration had a top scientist fired for breaking his rules about what she could reveal to Congress.

          That’s absurd, a president hiding information from the body that runs the country.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Thats absurd, a president hiding information from the body that runs the country.’

            Im gonna have to requote this one very soon, re Trump.

            Oh wait, he already did hide information from people who run the country (voters, his Tax returns, among others).

          • No Fan But Can Respect says:

            Nate, according to the constitution and the laws of our land, Trump’s tax return is none of my business and none of yours either. It is within the business domain of certain IRS officials, and even though I am suspect of the motives of some IRS officials, I trust the IRS to handle Trump’s return appropriately.

          • Nate says:

            Knowing how a businessman/candidate ran his business is relevant to voters.

  12. Dr Dave says:

    You won’t hear a peep about global warming on a day like today but just wait until a heat wave hits the East Coast in July!!!

    Now THAT would be solid proof of global warming don’t cha know.

  13. Al Gore says:

    Well, at least I invented the internet.

    • Tipper says:

      … and you also were the inspiration for ‘Love Story,’ and were the smartest Vice-President ever for a dolt that made “C’s” and “D’s” in the ivy league school your despicable dad got you into. Glad your fat a** is out of politics.

      • Gerkmonster says:

        He also seems pretty knowledgeable about happy endings too. Give him the credit that he’s due.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Tipper…”…and were the smartest Vice-President ever for a dolt that made Cs and Ds in the ivy league school your despicable dad got you into”.

        That would be Harvard and he threw a hissy fit when his prof, Roger Revelle, later claimed we should not read too much into the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Gore claimed Revelle must have been senile and blamed Fred Singer, Revelle’s co-author, for manipulating him.

        Singer sued and won.

        BTW…Tipper, did you and Al Have fun during his 8 years as a VP scanning rock records for Satanic messages? I can’t think of anything else he did.

  14. Slipstick says:

    Queue the My Local Weather Proves The Climate Is Not Warming Chorus.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      It’s more like the every single AGW alarmist claim has been wrong about predictions for decades chorus that makes the non-scientists decide warming is not happening. Politics has them deciding that warming isn’t happening. In the last article Dr. Spencer shows that there is no statistical difference between the average temperature of 1998 and 2016 that makes many of us believe that warming is maybe on hold. It is also the fact that supposed scientists have tampered with temperature data (remember the first Climategate?) that makes people like me wonder how deep the fraud goes. This could be a really long list, a paper’s worth in fact.

      As it happens cold and snow records are and have been broken around the Northern Hemisphere for the last couple of months, which adds to a body of growing evidence.

      It doesn’t take a research scientist to figure out we have been warming from the LIA. We non-scientists just know it hasn’t warmed to the amount some prominent so-called scientists have claimed.

      • David Appell says:

        “In the United States, the most recent decade (2000-2010) was the nations warmest on record. Record-breaking high temperatures are now outnumbering record lows by an average decadal ratio of 2:1.”

        http://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps

        • Bart says:

          As the man said, “It doesnt take a research scientist to figure out we have been warming from the LIA.” That record of warming starts long before CO2 could even potentially have been the culprit. Remove that trend, and there’s very little left that could be attributed to CO2.

          • David Appell says:

            85% of warming has occurred since 1970.

            No one doubts that temperatures have changed in the past. In the early part of last century, it was due to (I’ve been told when I ask scientists) aGHGs, a more radiant sun, and a clearing out of volcanoic aerosols that caused the LIA.

          • David Appell says:

            noitaint: download the NOAA data, calculate, and let me know what number you get for the percentage of warming since 1970.

            Let me know your results.

          • Bart says:

            According to HC4, total warming is about 1 degC since 1900. Of that, about 0.6 total occurred since 1970. Another 0.6 occurred from 1900-1940. There was a decline of about -0.2 from 1940-1970. CO2 content in the earlier era hovered around 300 ppm. After WWII, it rose rapidly to what it is today, just past 400 ppm. Yet, the temperature trends are remarkably similar in both eras.

          • False claim about the earlier years. Pre-industrial CO2 didn’t “hover” around 300 ppm. It was around 280 ppm:

            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif

            By 1940 CO2 already had increased to about 310 ppm:

            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth20.gif

            An increase from 280 ppm to 310 ppm already exerts a relatively large radiative perturbation at the top of the atmosphere of about 0.54 W/m^2, compared to pre-industrial levels. This is about tree times as large as the radiative forcing between solar cycle 23 maximum in 2000 and minimum in 2008.

          • Bart says:

            Again with the inappropriate reference to solar forcing. The impacts are not the same. They have entirely different spectra. The comparison fails.

            In 1900, the purported CO2 concentration was 295.8. In 1940, it was 310.4. See

            http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/co2table.html

            The log change is log(310.4/295.8) = 0.0482.

            From 1970 to 2000, we went from 325.68 to 369.52, a log change of log(369.52/325.68) = 0.1263, a factor of 0.1263/0.0482 = 2.621 difference.

            Yet, the change in temperature was essentially the same, about 0.6 degC.

        • Herr Morgenholz says:

          I’ve been on the Earth a while.

          Summers were hotter and winters were colder when I was a kid.

          Get off my lawn.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”In the United States, the most recent decade (2000-2010) was the nations warmest on record”.

          Your link conveniently omits the 1930s and ’40s in the US where 1934 is still the record for warming in the US. Even hotter than 1998.

          The 1930s still hold the record for droughts and dust storms.

          NASA GISS tried to change it on the sly but Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org caught them, forcing them to re-instate 1934.

      • Lewis says:

        Ernest,

        What is curious is that the past 20 Plus years, snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has been increasing in the fall and winter but decreasing more rapidly in the spring.
        See: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=4

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Ernest Bush…”It is also the fact that supposed scientists have tampered with temperature data (remember the first Climategate?) that makes people like me wonder how deep the fraud goes”.

        It’s going on right now. NOAA has slashed 5000 stations from a global pool of 6500 stations and used the remaining data from 1500 to manufacture the slashed temperatures in a climate model.

    • barry says:

      Queue the My Local Weather Proves The Climate Is Not Warming Chorus.

      Yep.

  15. Slipstick says:

    Cue^. Sorry, wrong homonym.

  16. Bill says:

    Well, with all this cold weather, all I can conclude is that the corrupt, DemoRAT-Communist Party operative and colossal fraud algore must be giving another global warming speech.

  17. Jim says:

    Remember that time the alarmists said that by now children would not know snow in the winter? Simmer down, chief, you can’t control the climate.

    • barry says:

      Remember that post you made on the 7th of January at 10:22am, where you pretended there was a chorus of people saying children would not know snow, and where you went for the soundbite devoid of the context?

      Those were the days, eh?

  18. Buck Turgidson says:

    Well here it is, the global warming and the end of snow that the climate hysterics and zombies have been warning us about forever. The ski areas are out of business and the oceans are boiling. Everyone is in permanent drought, we’re all doomed. It is playing out just as they predicted. Now let’s fork over huge quantities of tax $$$ to NOAA, NASA, and the other alarmists b/c they were right all along . Actually let’s shut them down for being so incredibly wrong about all this, ripping off the taxpayer to fund their junk science, not correcting their mistakes, not admitting to any error, and arrogantly demanding more tax $$. If the science is ‘settled’ as they tell us, then mission accomplished and let’s shut down all these agencies and move to the next science project. I see no need to keep ripping off taxpayer $$ if they have all the answers.

    • Herr Morgenholz says:

      Science is never settled. Anyone who tells you that is not a scientist. A scientist’s job is to prove that his best friend and most beloved colleague is a blubbering idiot and completely wrong. A scientist’s job is to ALWAYS question and attempt to disprove. This is how advances are made.

      It’s almost like they don’t teach the Scientific Method in school any more…..

  19. Beagle says:

    Water seeks its own level.. That’s all bullshiete. Lies….

  20. FTOP says:

    Lake effect snow — in TEXAS!!
    http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Lake-Effect-Snow-GJ-010517_Dallas-Fort-Worth-409889775.html

    Of course, Texas A&M says its “unheard of” for Texas.
    http://atmo.tamu.edu/class/atmo203/tut/snow/snow8.html

    Like the Verizon commercial – “Can you hear me now?”

    I am sure Hayhoe will blame it on some 1 sq mile area of warm water off Madagascar thus proving that global warming causes snow in Texas.

  21. Vox Veritas says:

    BRRRR!!! It’s way too cold outside!

    Please, somebody change my climate!!!

  22. Enoughalready says:

    What’s is earths perfect average temperature?

    Who makes the determination of that temperature?

    On what basis or range of years or protocol of measurement is it based upon?

    What periods of time did the earth “get it wrong”?

    I think people need realistic perspective. If we threw a party and invited every single human on the planet how big of an area would it take to give each one 5 sq ft of dance floor? The whole USA? Alaska? Texas? Nope… We could host the entire worlds population in tiny Rhode Island. Pull up a global map and look at that tiny little speck. Could that many people in one concentrated place raise the temperature in Rhode Island? Maybe a degree or two but do you think that would impact temps in Moscow? Nope.

    But let’s see what it would take if humans purposefully tried to raise global temps. If every human had 10,000 x 1500watt space heaters and ran them on high setting 24x7x365 it would take a little over 1 yr to raise the temperature of the world atmosphere 1F degree. However that DOESN’T account for the ENORMOUS heat sinks of the upper atmosphere/space which would consume that heat ..doesn’t account for the oceans(which if we put the same total heat directly into the ocean instead of atmosphere wouldn’t move the ocean avg temps any meaningfully measurable amount). Not to mention the first few feet of soil which also act as a heat sink.

    Then you have another problem… We don’t have enough current energy available to run those 10,000 heaters per person 24x7x365. So even if humans purposely wanted to raise avg temps 1 degree we can’t really do it.

    So if we don’t have the energy to do it purposefully where must the energy be coming from which makes avg temps vary? Come on, you know the answer you just don’t want to say it. It’s big and bright and appears to move around in our sky and our “whole world revolves around it”.

    So if we can’t (via normal heating methods) purposefully warm the planet 1 degreeF what kind of pompous self important a-holes does it take to suggest that we can coincidentally/unintentionally be raising the avg temps by 1F?

    We are at the mercy of the Suns cycles… That’s it. We can impact localized conditions like large metro areas…but move outside of that area by 5-10 miles and there is no perceivable difference… The local heat sinks have already consumed any difference. While you may think heating up LA metro area of 503sq miles is a big deal…California has 163,696 sq miles to sink any variation… LA is only .3% of that state(not 3%, 3/10 of 1%).

    It’s a hoax and voodoo science folks… Every time any group calling themselves scientists call something “settled science” you can bank on it being for nonscientific motives.

    • Chuck Dewey says:

      I agree with you wholeheartedly. There is some “statistics” they like to quote that for some reason gets overlooked. For example: the “warmists” like to quote a statistic about 87% of all scientists believe that the earth is warming, and people cause it
      The problem with that is that less than 5% of scientists have anything to do with climate science. Why is it important that astro physicist, or mathematicians, or organic chemists, etc believe any thing about climate science?

      • David Appell says:

        That was a huge problem with the Oregon Petition, which deniers point to whenever possible.

      • Bart says:

        Dr. Judith Curry counts herself among those who agree that temperatures are rising, and humans have contributed to it. The question is, how much? And, the actual opinions range across a wide spectrum, from overwhelmingly to negligibly.

        • David Appell says:

          The science says, 110% of modern temperature change is due to AGW. (We should be in a cooling phase now, if only natural variations are taken into account, hence the “110%” claim.)

          • Herr Morgenholz says:

            “The Science” says?

            Perhaps you have a source from a climatologist? Or another reputable paper? Don’t tell me you got this from some “journal” or other. One that’s got millions at stake. One that makes sure to have “transgender people of indeterminate color represented to prove our wokeness”.

            Cuz that’s the BS I’m smelling from my snowy lair.

          • David Appell says:

            Sure: the Sun has been cooling since the mid-1960s:

            See the 7th graph on this page:

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

            What natural warming factors am I missing?

          • David Appell says:

            I love how data and facts absolutely stymie you people.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”The science says, 110% of modern temperature change is due to AGW”.

            The more you talk the more I get it that you are a dogmatic alarmist with a myopic POV. What do you think Roy and John Christy do at UAH?

            Hint: John has a degree in climate science and Roy has a degree in meteorology.

            Over at realclimate where this ‘science’ supposedly takes place, Gavin Schmidt has a degree in mathematics and programs climate models. One of the other luminaries, William Connelley, programs computers. Schmidt’s partner at RC, Michael Mann, is a geologist. Your hero, Raymond Pierrehumbert specializes in Earth Sciences.

            At NASA GISS, Schmidt’s former boss, James Hansen, specialized in astronomy.

            Not a legitimate climate scientist or meteorologist in the house.

          • The qualification of a scientists in a field is expressed by the quality and number of publications in the field. Gavin’s working and publishing in the field is what makes him qualified.

            And the assertion that there wasn’t any “legitimate climate scientist and meteorologist” among the GISS scientists is utter rubbish. The personnel at GISS reflects the multi-disciplinary character of the research on the Earth system. Physicists, mathematicians, oceanographers, chemists, biologists, and also scientists who have studied meteorology and/or done their PhDs directly on a climate science topic.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            Hansen was not an astronomer, he was a space scientist, studying of all things, planetary atmospheres like that on Venus.

            Hmmmm, how could that qualify him to study climate…?

          • Bart says:

            “The qualification of a scientists in a field is expressed by the quality and number of publications in the field. Gavins working and publishing in the field is what makes him qualified.”

            Ah… no. The qualification of a scientist in a field is whether he got it right or not, and if any benefit was derived from it. Gavin’s work fails on both accounts.

            The monks of Galileo’s time published massive treatises on the epicyclic movements of celestial bodies. According to the authorities of the time, under your standard, they were highly qualified.

            But, they were wrong.

          • Just because you claims so doesn’t make it true. Or have I missed your scientific refutations of Gavin’s contributions to science?

          • Bart says:

            Have we at least established that the quality of a scientist’s work is not determined based on how much he or she agrees with the scientific fad of the day?

        • Nate says:

          Yes, the same Judith Curry who was a co-author of a paper demonstrating that the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is not a significant problem, and that therefore the surface LAND data sets such as Berkeley, which she worked on, are reasonably accurate. http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf

          Yet UHI continues to be brought up as a MAJOR problem here and elsewhere.

          • Bart says:

            Once again, you confuse uniformity with accuracy.

            “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”
            – George S. Patton

      • Herr Morgenholz says:

        “Associate Professor of Navel Gazing Studies in the School of Gender Discovery” is not a scientific role.

    • David Appell says:

      Enoughalready says:
      “Whats is earths perfect average temperature?”

      The one to which a species has adapted.

      • Bart says:

        A species? I assume you mean humans, or did you have some other in mind?

        Humans have adapted to every climate from Siberia to the Sahara.

        • David Appell says:

          I have all species in mind.

          • Bart says:

            Really? And, to what climate conditions did species that have been around since hundreds of millions of years ago adapt?

            Cold is the enemy of life, Dave. Not warmth. Life flourishes in temperature climates. It doesn’t do so well at the poles.

          • David Appell says:

            Clearly, some species have managed to adapt to climate changes — though most of these changes were slower than today.

            And some did not and went extinct.

            “Cold is the enemy of life, Dave. Not warmth”

            Says who? The 3 B people who live in the tropics?

      • Herr Morgenholz says:

        BOOM!

        Any questions?

      • Lewis says:

        David,

        Very subjective. Winging it are you? Again?
        This, of course, is your definition. In fact it turns out that the temperature chosen is the one we happened to have 20 years ago. Why? Because, because, because, because… etc.

        If the alarmists, aka radical environmentalists, had existed 20,000 years ago, they would have chosen the temperature then. Why? Because it’s not about climate or temperature, it’s about control.

    • You are arguing against your own figment of your imagination. No serious scientist says that humans caused the statistically significant global warming trend by heating the atmosphere with space heaters or any other direct heat source. What a waste of so many words for a rant against a strawman, i.e., for nothing with substance.

  23. Chuck Dewey says:

    If you want another example of lack of rising ocean levels look this up: The Panama Canal spans Central America and connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. locks are used to raise and lower ships to meet ocean levels at both ends. The height of the ocean at both ends has not changed in the 100 years the canal has been operating. Since the canal is near the equator, this is where it should be more noticeable due to the earth being “thickest” there, but no increase is measurable

  24. Ernest Bush says:

    All of a sudden it’s nice to be in that green area down in Arizona’s most southwest part. It’s headed for 66 degrees here today with lots of sunshine.

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, winters in Arizona are great. Summers not so much. When I lived in Tempe, they once had to close the Phoenix airport when the temperature hit 122 F, because they didn’t have good information on how well planes fly when it’s over 120 F.

  25. David Appell says:

    It’s weather, not climate.

  26. Matt says:

    How did that same “science” work on polling data here in the US. Science isnt perfect especially when you have people interpret them.

  27. Dennis says:

    Any more of this weather and I am going to freeze to death. I just wish Global Warming wasn’t so cold.

  28. Rocky says:

    Al Gore and Obama’s global warming is killing my utility bill. It was -25F here the other night. It was -44F in parts of the states. Drill baby, drill !

  29. Richad_Iowa says:

    Just think how cold it would be without Global Warming.

  30. Bob says:

    SuspiciousObservers.org for up to date real science with real published science papers available and plenty video for those who can not read.

  31. sergiodilaurenti says:

    Sent Al Gore’s ass to the North Pole

  32. sergiodilaurenti says:

    Al will report shortly on the warming

    • David Appell says:

      Why are you people so obsessed with Al Gore? He just communicates the science (and quite well, at that), he doesn’t determine it.

      • sergiodilaurenti says:

        It is because of Al’s second coming as the Climate Change Messiah at the Sundance festival with his 2nd part of the scam.

        • sergiodilaurenti says:

          David, please let me take a stab at where you stand, not scientifically but politically.
          You are still crying over the election of Trump as President of the United States of America. You also find reasons to believe you have been cheated in this election, electoral college thing or the Russians. You believe that the government’s role is to redistribute the wealth and set very strict regulations about getting and using energy. Do you also believe that the Earth should be better off without people? How much did I get right?

          • Lewis says:

            Speaking for David, at his request. You’re 110% correct, but not right. I’m right, but not always correct.

          • David Appell says:

            Having to make up lies about your opponent, in order to manufacture a response, is very very lame.

            Clearly you can’t discuss the science.

            Lies are all you have left.

        • David Appell says:

          So you resent that Al Gore says that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, as the science shows, and it’s warming the planet?

          What other features of reality do you have problems with?

          • sergiodilaurenti says:

            David, I don’t have any problems, actually I am celebrating the greatest election results of my life. You however still refuse to answer my direct questions. Please answer the following questions:
            Are you still crying over the election of Trump as President of the United States of America?
            Do you also find the reasons for his election to be the electoral college thing and Russians interference?
            Do you believe that the governments role is to redistribute the wealth and set very strict regulations about getting and using energy?
            Do you also believe that the Earth should be better off without people? Please answer my questions if you want to have a conversation. Thank you very much.

          • David Appell says:

            serg: you questions are off-topic.

            Try again.

        • David Appell says:

          Serg: this blog is about climate, not whatever politics you need to hurl.

          Stick to the science.

          • sergiodilaurenti says:

            I am on topic. You refuse to answer my direct questions because you are a leftist/socialist/saul alinsky ideologue. Your obsession with this subject is because of who you are, ‘progressive’ anti-western, anti-american slug. Please tell us all, so we can understand you: do you love America?

          • David Appell says:

            Your questions have absolutely nothing to do with climate science.

            Go blather elsewhere.

  33. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Remember a couple of weeks ago when the North Pole hit 0C,32F, for a very brief period and most of the corporate media was in a mild frenzy about how hot it’s getting up there. They seem to be vewy vewy quiet about this cold snap. Seems to be happening every year and getting colder. Maybe NASA will be truthful and not say that this is the hottest January on record.

  34. sergiodilaurenti says:

    Just in: Al Gore reports from a cave that is surprised there are still White Bears, and the White Bears report that they are shocked to see someone with a bigger ass and belly. The white bears are jealous because Al can go through a longer hibernation than them.

  35. Sven says:

    Not just the US
    Moscow celebrates despite coldest Christmas night in 120 years

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/58708d26c4618835418b45d1/amp?client=safari

  36. GW Skeptic says:

    Global warming is a farce perpetrated on mankind to extract wealth from developed countries and share it (pennies on the dollar) to undeveloped nations, the balance goes into the coffers of the global elite corporate banisters. That is the inconvenient truth!

  37. GW Skeptic says:

    BANKSTERS

  38. a p garcia says:

    NOAA: Its sauna weather

    • David Appell says:

      Is it snowing in England?

      Why not mention that just one person said that — hardly representative of all climate scientists.

    • barry says:

      Could also mention that the same person said it will still be snowing, just not as often. But one would have to concentrate hard enough to read the whole article to discover that.

    • I just want to point out that the cited statement, “Snowfalls are just a thing of the past”, is the headline of the news paper article. There is no indication in the article that this was an actual quote by a scientist.

      It’s also in contradiction what the actual article says, which states in the second sentence that snow was starting to disappear.
      https://web.archive.org/web/20091230061832/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

      Curiously, this second paragraph is missing in the wattsupwiththat-version.

      That the snow was starting to disappear isn’t the same statement as in the headline.

      Further down a scientist is quoted, according to whom heavy snow events will become seldom, but will still occur:

      “Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”

  39. Kent says:

    Must be global warming…..

  40. Tom says:

    The sea level IS the sea level.

    It is ridiculous to quibble over minutia if you can’t even agree on that.

  41. Professor Doctor Metz says:

    I’m not going to take any chances: I’m going to panic, starting Now: AIEEEEeeeeeeeee

    There. I feel better now. ☺

  42. High water is a relative measure,
    it’s the
    result of uplift versus erosion. Also water volume and shape of the basins. Ice and thermal expansion determine water vol., plate tectonics determine basin volume.
    There is no way to calculate ever changing basin vol. Beside that the biochemical feedback mechanisms of the earth are huge and beyond modeling. Thus rising water has little meaning in the debate unless your neck is just above water.

  43. Buzz says:

    Damn global warming.

  44. barry says:

    We’ve still got a lot of visitors from the political blogs here owing to the re-post from a conservative site a couple of months ago.

    What science discussions we had are now pretty much drowned out by dreary political partisanship.

  45. Buzz says:

    What happened to the mini ice age that was coming that these “climate change experts” warned us of in the 1970’s?

    • David Appell says:

      There was no consensus on global cooling in the ’60s and ’70s. Unlike today, it was a time before satellites were routinely provide loads of observational data, and scientists were not very sure what was going on. A literature survey of that time found there was no cooling consensus:

      “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 13251337, 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

      • Kloud says:

        News flash….that nuclear power station that you can see rise in the east and set in the west controls most of this stones weather you like it or not.

        • David Appell says:

          Kloud says:
          “News flash.that nuclear power station that you can see rise in the east and set in the west controls most of this stones weather you like it or not.”

          The Sun is well known to be unable to account for modern warming.

          In fact, over the last several decades it is causing a slight cooling.

      • BBould says:

        It’s funny how a few papers in the year 2000 can cast doubt on what everybody in the 70’s was told by the news media and Gov. Heck with one click I found this “On September 11, 1972, Cronkite cited scientists predictions that there was a new ice age coming. He called that prediction from British scientist Hubert Lamb a bit of bad news.” Mind you this was on the national news. There are 100’s of articles as well as news talking about the upcoming global cooling.

        In 20 years if I’m still alive I’ll probably read from David A. that global warming wasn’t true either and he has a paper to prove it.

  46. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Anti-racists say there is a RACE problem that can only be solved when the third world pours into EVERY White country and “assimilates.”

    What if I said there was a RACE problem that could only be solved if hundreds of millions of non-Blacks were brought into EVERY Black country? How long before people realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem, but the conclusion to the BLACK problem?

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

  47. The education level of the US population is a disgrace, if as many still don’t know the difference between weather and climate, and believe that a cold winter day in the United States refutes the global warming trend.

    • Buck Turgidson says:

      The NYT and the entire mainstream media think that a warm day affirms the “trend.” they also told us that drought in Texas was now a permanent feature (it ended a couple of years ago) and the same w the CA drought, which is ending right now. Droughts come and go and they were much deeper and longer than before the middling increase in CO2 levels in the past 100 years. Sorry guys CO2 isn’t the climate control knob. If you had studies any climate science you would know that. But I know, you are mad that Trump won….

  48. John Sturtz says:

    Appelman: Please explain how plants utilize CO2. Please explain how plants produce oxygen. Please explain how CO2 could possibly be toxic. The last person of your ilk whom I confronted with these questions got hysterical and said, “Go ahead, hold your breath, the CO2 will kill you if you don’t exhale!” Screw all the silly data that no one can agree on.
    Biology 101 Appelman – do you even understand the basics?
    What should alarm you is the fact that plants produce oxygen
    which is extremely explosive.

  49. Lewis says:

    According to: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=4

    The northern hemisphere has the 2nd or 3rd most snow cover this past fall since 1967. 2014 had the most and 2015 is in 6th place.

    Is that a sign of global warming?

    • David Appell says:

      Trend in NH snow cover over Rutgers’ full record = -24.1 Kkm2/yr.

      Total change = -1.2 Mkm2.

      • Lewis says:

        David,

        If you will look at the graphs for anomalies for Fall, Winter and Spring for NH you will find the graphs go up to the right for fall and winter and down for Spring.

        You provide no link for your numbers. Are you making them up?

      • Lewis says:

        I found your numbers. Interesting how they do that. They average Fall, Winter and Spring and Summer. I referred specifically to fall.

        If, however, you look at Fall and Winter extent, they are growing. It is only in Spring they are falling. I referred to this previously, finding it curious.

        Winter, for instance is in 17th or so place for extent, at 45+ mSKM, while fall is in 3rd place at 21+ mSKM , and spring at 27+ mSKM.

        My question, and David’s, typically irrelevant, aside, does not address it, is: why would fall and winter extent be growing while spring is falling?

        • barry says:

          A warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour, hence more rain in certain areas. When it’s cold enough this rain is snow.

          So I would say that precipitation has increased in the form of snow, hence more snow cover. In the spring and summer months the snow melts out more quickly due to a warmer atmosphere.

        • David Appell says:

          Trend in NH snow cover over Rutgers full record = -24.1 Kkm2/yr.

          Total change = -1.2 Mkm2.

    • Re: Increasing snow cover in Northern Hemisphere fall.

      “Is that a sign of global warming”

      No, that is not a “sign” of global warming by itself. Nor is it in contradiction to global warming. Such increase in snow cover could have various causes.

      One possible cause is that the planet was cooling at the surface and in the troposphere, generally, i.e., global cooling, with longer and stronger winters, coming with more snow. We know, however, that is not the case. Both surface and troposphere show a statistically significant warming trend over multiple decades.

      Another possible cause is that the amount of water vapor in the troposphere has been increasing, leading to more snow fall, as long as it is cold enough that precipitation falls as snow. An increasing intensity of the hydrological cycle and an increase in the atmospheric water vapor have been predicted to come with global warming, and data also show such a water vapor trend.

      Another possibility is a shift in the Northern Hemispheric circulation patterns, bringing more frequent and/or stronger Arctic air outbreaks and more snow to the continental regions. Such shift may be due to unforced natural variability, which doesn’t mean it was in contradiction to global warming. It also may be linked to global warming. The Arctic has shown a warming trend above the average global warming trend. And Arctic sea ice is in a strong decline. There are some studies arguing that the sea ice decline leads to a change in the Northern Hemispheric circulation patterns. But this is not clear yet.

      The seen change in fall snow cover may be due to a combination of the second and the third mentioned process.

      BTW: In contrast to fall, snow cover in spring shows a strong decline:
      http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2

      The overall snow cover change over the whole winter is much less or even negative. Perhaps, the effect of declining sea ice on circulation is largest in fall because Arctic sea ice has its minimum in September and, hence, the largest energetic effect of sea ice decline on the circulation pattern is found in fall?

      I also want to commend you for asking a question that actually belongs to the realm of science, in contrast to all the ideologically motivated nonsense, ranting, and outright stupidity that comes from many other commentators here.

  50. David says:

    42noon at 10pm. That’s a 10 drop since 8pm. I see the revised forecast for us here in Orlando area is low of 30.

  51. cactusclyde says:

    There is a co-relation between climate change and human sacrifice. Check the historical records. It was part of their religion. Do I really need to /s?

  52. sergiodilaurenti says:

    David Appell, i believe you are a TROLL, unless you prove me wrong. I have asked you before simple questions and you have refused to answer, so now I will limit my inquiry to a very simple question for you to answer, it is a yes or no question: do you love America?

  53. sergiodilaurenti says:

    I will post my previous comment to you for all to see: Are you still crying over the election of Trump as President of the United States of America? Are you also finding reasons to believe you have been cheated in this election, because of the electoral college thing or the Russians? Do you believe that the governments role is to redistribute the wealth and set very strict regulations about getting and using energy? Do you also believe that the Earth should be better off without people?

  54. sergiodilaurenti says:

    I understand your answer that you just gave me: you don’t care about me nor about America. Please understand that America and myself also do not care about you either. So I will no longer interfere with your posts, because I believe in our freedom of expression. Do your best you can David.

    • David Appell says:

      Stop your obnoxious lying. I wrote none of this to you — you made it all up.

      I’ve been clear here: I’m not interested in your nonclimate questions.

      • Jimlab says:

        Speaking of making things up, Algore just bought a home on the beach in So. California. Seems he is not the least bit worried about snow melt. Hmmmmmmmmmm!

        • Kloud says:

          Algore is an ernourmous super massive a-hole….. he created his own weather you like it or not….

  55. You have to love David Appell, our resident troll. His blog is called Quark Soup but nobody goes there any more owing to his refusal to permit rational discussion.

    IMHO he is a great asset on this blog as he pushes the loony globalist agenda with all its absurdities. While he won’t learn a thing here, he will help us remain on the attack until “Stupid Government” that gave us “Renewable Energy” is consigned to the dustbin of history.

    • David Appell says:

      GC: why can’t you control your emotions?

      You are obsessed with me and can clearly only answer with personal attacks, never replying to the scientific points.

      Are personal attacks really all you have in your intellectually arsenal?

      Seems so.

  56. sergiodilaurenti says:

    David, about your climate crap: eat healthier to lose weight, you must exercise to get in shape and try to be nicer to others. It will help everyone’s climate.

  57. barry says:

    While looking for a history of US cold spells in Winter – to see if there is a trend in those – I cam across the coldest spell in winter across the US ever. In 1899

    https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/america-coldest-outbreaks

  58. barry says:

    Last Winter was the warmest on record for the US.

    So it’s not terribly surprising that this Winter is colder.

    But has anyone put this cold spell within the context of the longer instrumental record?

  59. ren says:

    The current temperature in the Southeast USA.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00856/zohuprmsetjo.png

  60. Kloud says:

    Wow, You guys really take this to the next level……the comment section is much better then the damn article. Algore invented the entire internets so you know he is very inconvenient for starters. He electric bill for his mansion is like $14,000 a month so his carbon footprint is enormous as his ego. He sold his fake news cable channel to Al Jeriza alibaba and made serious bank! The US population is 300 million -/+. The world 5,000,000,000,000.00 if every punk out there farted we would have global stank….

    • Buck Turgidson says:

      That’s why Al Gore has decided to stop flying and driving anywhere, will transport only by bicycle or horse, and is doing his meetings only by Skype. Oh wait, Algore didn’t decide to do that and is going to keep flying his personal jet and maintaining one of the world’s carbon footprints. Becuase carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas that is going to kill us.

  61. Kloud says:

    This just in…. the cooling is a result of Chuck E Schumer shutting “TFU” up for 24 hours….the hot air coming out of his pie hole caused a polar vortex of BARRY Soetoro proportions

  62. Buck Turgidson says:

    Al Gore just invested in ocean front property b/c sea level is going to risk, like 8 feet, in…. well soon! It is -1 on the upper Mississippi River this morning, we would love some global warming out here. Oh, but weather does not disprove global warming when it’s cold, the media only talks about drought and heat waves and boiling oceans, I forgot. I think the boiling oceans hysteria came from the climate hysterics dear leader emperor 57 states

  63. Buck Turgidson says:

    It never will snow again ever — the NY Times ran an “The End of Snow” article — and of course California will revert to permanent desert. We’re doomed, I tell you, doomed.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-atmospheric-river-prepare-20170105-story.html

  64. ren says:

    The current temperature in the southern United States and northern hemisphere.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00856/ribe6n58z0aj.png
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00856/1hj5gy39qzek.png

  65. Ernest Lane says:

    How does this happen if there’s man-made global warming?

  66. Ernest Lane says:

    And whenever I hear any of that global warming stuff, I am reminded of a TV show a while back that, among other things, mentioned the “hundreds” of ocean floor steam vents. If the Earth itself is hot enough to make those, and volcanoes, anything that takes place on the surface of the Earth (or above it) just doesn’t matter in that regard.

    Another show about a relatively complete wooly mammoth found in Siberia said Siberia had a “lush, subtropical climate” back when it died.

    And then, of course, there’s the sun.

    • Spitsbergen was once warm enough to support alligators:

      “Millions of years ago, Svalbard experienced much warmer climates and was forested, even though it was located at around the same latitude as at present. For a phase of several hundred thousand years at the boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene (55 million years ago), Svalbard experienced subtropical temperatures with palms and alligators. Although not generally as warm as this, Svalbard remained mild enough temperatures for forest through most of the Cretaceous and early Tertiary period up until at least 30 million years ago. In February 2008, the University of Oslo announced the discovery of the largest dinosaur-era marine reptile ever found – a pliosaur estimated to be almost 15 m (50 ft) long ( Pliosaur discovered – Science daily).

      This all happened before SUVs were invented.

  67. Vincent says:

    Wow! In less than 24 hours after this latest article from Roy, there have been over 300 posts.

    What concerns me is that someone has used my name, Vincent, to make a post earlier in the thread. Surely on any forum there should be a system which does not allow the duplication of names, whether actual names or pseudonyms, otherwise confusion results.

    This is my first post in this particular thread, and I did not write the following:

    ————————————————————
    “”Vincent says:
    January 7, 2017 at 6:55 AM
    And STILL you are promoting Global Warming as an existential threat? How much colder must it be before you realize that your models were wrong?

    Reply
    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
    January 7, 2017 at 6:56 AM
    Me? I havent been

    Reply
    TXEX says:
    January 7, 2017 at 8:37 AM
    Vince Dr Roy is one of the good guys.
    —————————————————————

  68. http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2017.png

    Where is all the global warming?

    Now with the sun just entering a very quiet phase within the next 6 to 12 months not only will this pause continue but a decline in global temperatures will be taking place.

    To have year 2016 no warmer then year 1998 says to me a pause has been in place for the last 20 years more or less.

    If it were AGW as being the cause for global temperatures the global temperatures would show a steady slow rise once ENSO/VOLCANIC activity were removed. That is not the case the global temperatures have been steady since 1998.

    • http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2017.png

      Where is all the global warming?

      Showing a graph that goes merely from October 2016 to mid-January 2017 is quite pointless as basis for a statement about whether there was a global warming trend or not. The numbers in the graph state, though, that the 2-m temperature anomaly in 2016 was 0.46 deg. C above the 1981-2010 climatology.

      “To have year 2016 no warmer then year 1998 says to me a pause has been in place for the last 20 years more or less.”

      The graph under the link doesn’t show that it was not warmer in 2016 than in 1998. Also, making claims about a trend based only on two data points that have been cherry picked from a time-series with many more data points is statistically meaningless. It’s totally unscientific.

      “If it were AGW as being the cause for global temperatures the global temperatures would show a steady slow rise once ENSO/VOLCANIC activity were removed. That is not the case the global temperatures have been steady since 1998.”

      There isn’t any scientific publication (known to me) where the validity of this assertion has been shown. However, according to the analysis by Foster and Rahmstorf for data from 1979-2010, the background global warming trend continued after 1998 unabatedly, if one accounts for short-term variability by ENSO, aerosols, and solar activity which can obscure the longer-term warming trend:

      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta

    • The models all failed. Now it is time to admit it and start looking for a better theory than one based on trace gases such as CO2.

    • David Appell says:

      “Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”

      – Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
      http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

  69. Greg Harvey says:

    David Appell You asked what evidence do we have that Climate Change is a Hoax…Why not use the scientist that changed their data so the numbers match the narrative or NOAA only using certain Buoys to take temperature so they can claim man made Global Warming Just the idea that they tried to change the name to “Climate Change” from Global Warming because we are in a cooling trend… I would say that in itself would be more than enough evidence…

    • I think you don’t really understand the meaning of the word “evidence”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Greg…”NOAA only using certain Buoys to take temperature so they can claim man made Global Warming”

      They have done much more than that. They have slashed 5000 weather stations from a global pool of 6500 stations being sure to exclude stations that showed cooling and replacing them with interpolated and homogenized synthesized values from the remaining 1500 using a climate model.

    • David Appell says:

      Greg Harvey says:
      “David Appell You asked what evidence do we have that Climate Change is a HoaxWhy not use the scientist that changed their data so the numbers match the narrative or NOAA only using certain Buoys to take temperature so they can claim man made Global Warming”

      Prove it, Greg.

      You can’t.

    • David Appell says:

      Greg Harvey says:
      “Just the idea that they tried to change the name to Climate Change from Global Warming because we are in a cooling trend”

      1) What cooling trend?

      2) From Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s memo “Words that Work:”

      “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.”

      “Frank Luntz “Straight Talk”: The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America” – memo to Bush Administration on communicating environmental issues, 2002
      http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001330.php

  70. Buck Turgidson says:

    NOAA should be shut down for the fraud and farce that is has become. Tell them all to clean out their desks and go home, and cut their gov’t pensions. tell the ‘scientists’ to consider themselves lucky for not having fraud charges brought against them. It’s another agency in which the taxpayer gets fleeced and with very little return on investment. Their main output seems to be to push emperor obozo’s and algore’s “global warming” dreams and hysteria. and of course to push for their utopian “green energy” nonsense, in which 747 are going to be powered by green algae.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        It’s an excellent thing that you aren’t in charge, and have no power whatsoever!

        Ah well, that’s democracy for you. Can’t keep everyone happy, can we?

        Cheers.

        • Buck Turgidson says:

          I think you need to write the US Treasury a few more checks

          • Buck Turgidson says:

            and I am incredibly happy and delighted at the outcome of the prez elections, and the prospect of seeing junk science removed from the fed gov’t. Let the junk scientists play around with their dreamy climate models, but on their own dime.

          • How it will it be decided what is “junk science” and what is legitimate science? What are the criteria for such a decision? And who will decide what is “junk science”?

          • Steven Thury says:

            Everything liberals involve themselves with is junk. Easy as pie.

          • An “argument” on the level of an imbecile.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “An argument on the level of an imbecile.”

            Maybe he’s trying to make it easy for Liberals to understand….

          • David Appell says:

            Steven Thury says:
            “Everything liberals involve themselves with is junk.”

            Steve, do you honestly not realize how….well….how dumb and irrelevant replies like your’s appear?

            Any moron can insert the name of their ideological opposition and make a little smear about them with the unspecific word “junk.”

            Without more, you just look dumb and awkward, totally irrelevant to the discussion, making it clear you understnand nothing whatsoever about the subject.

            You really should think about this. Or, if you don’t have that courage, keep hiding your identity.

        • This comment doesn’t make any logical sense in reply to my diagnosis about the smear and lies. Whether I was in power or not, or you find this was an excellent thing are without any relevance and inconsequential for the diagnosis.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Your supposed diagnosis was completely irrelevant. “Smear and lies” is a meaningless phrase imparting no information, except possibly an indication of the level of your intellectual vacuity.

            Rational discussion usually involves some logical reasoning to support assertions.

            Keep writing “smear and lies” in reply to anything you desire, if it makes you happy. Or you could write “bananas and creosote” for a change. Just as much information imparted.

            Cheers.

          • “Rational discussion usually involves some logical reasoning to support assertions.”

            Exactly. And evidence for the validity of the assertions. Reason and evidence are required in reply to something that itself is based on reason and evidence. Nothing of this was present in the comment to which I replied. It only contained smear and lies. Thus, there is no need to reply more than stating that. You don’t seem to understand that.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Jan,

            You wrote –

            “It only contained smear and lies.” Your opinion, I opine.

            On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician who claims to be a scientist. Michael Mann is so thick that he apparently didn’t know that he didn’t actually share a Nobel Prize with anyone – even a Nobel Peace Prize!

            A pair of bearded balding bumblers? You might well say “bananas and creosote”, or “smears and lies”! Facts are facts, and fools remain fools. You’d have to be pretty foolish to believe the Earth’s surface hasn’t cooled over the last four and a half billion years, CO2 notwithstanding.

            Fashions change. Maybe belief in the CO2 GHE is going out of fashion. Time for some new lunacy to divert us? How about resurrecting the luminiferous ether – or maybe the amazing healing powers of vitamin C in mega doses!

            I know, I know – all smear and lies! Good for you!

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            “Maybe belief in the CO2 GHE is going out of fashion.”

            Evidence rules, as always:

            https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

    • ren says:

      CO2 is present at the surface of the Earth in the form of gas. It does not have such properties as water. It does not accumulate the energy required for the change of state. In addition, the amount thereof is negligible in the atmosphere. Water vapor in large quantities is produced in the equatorial regions of the ocean (El Ninio). CO2 is dispersed and moves depending on growing season.

    • Under a Trump administration there is a good chance that useless government departments and ones that do actual harm may be defunded. It is something to look forward to…………maybe we won’t have long to wait.

      With regard to the scientific fraud at GISS you are not going to get your money back and it is not realistic to expect that Hansen and Schmidt will lose their pensions. At least GISS should be shuttered and then Gavin will have to look for honest work.

      • There are historic examples for such authoritarian measures, where scientists were purged based on made up accusations because they published findings from their scientific research that were not in agreement with the economical, political, or ideological interests of the ones in power. Examples are the Church in the middle ages, which wanted to preserve its dogma, the German Nazis with “German Physics”, and Joseph Stalin with Lysenkoism.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Buck…”Their main output seems to be to push emperor obozos and algores global warming dreams and hysteria.”

      There’s recent evidence that Obama’s admin kept vital points of his climate agenda from Congress. His admin had a top scientist fired for revealing more to Congress than what Obama wanted.

      NOAA was under investigation for scientific misconduct before the election and I would expect that investigation to proceed post-election without interference from Obama.

  71. Ed Vanove says:

    For those of you who still have your heads in those nether dark places where you keep them to avoid reality, look up “Precession of the Equinoxes” for an explanation of what IS occurring (and not alterable by the Climate Warming/Changing (of COURSE it’s changing, idiots!, that’s what climate does!!) and you’ll have a clear understanding of why the “Settled Science Sychophantic Stupids” are on the wrong end of the thermometer.
    But then, you’d have to have gone to Elementary School and actually LEARNED something from your Science lessons on what makes the four seasons while there.
    Considering the product our “Schools” graduate, I’m of the thought that they didn’t make it past third. At least on merit.

  72. Buck Turgidson says:

    I will decide what is/is not junk science. Fears of global calamity by tiny increases in a weak greenhouse gas that have almost no discernible effect on climate, and are causing forests and grasslands to expand, will be declared junk science. These are clearly rantings of madmen and any and all gov’t / taxpayer funding they receive will be terminated. Fortunately we are going to have adults in charge of our administration again in a few days, and much of this will come to pass.

    • You certainly have the right to your personal opinion, but my question was rather who at the government level with any power to make a determination about this judges what science allegedly was “junk science” and what was valid science and what were the criteria based on which such a determination was made. Note, this question is not about who decides what science is going to be funded, since it could be decided that perfectly valid science is not being funded.

      Your criterion is your own personal incredulity with respect to findings from science. This is quite obvious.

      However, in science, what scientific findings are valid is not determined by political committee. It seems to me, though, that you believe that political and ideological beliefs determine what science is valid, and consequently you are in favor of some form of Lysenkoism with respect to science.

      • Buck Turgidson says:

        The big climate Armageddon keeps not happening. Additional CO2 is expanding forests, grasslands, and increasing ag production. Where are these major climate catastrophes? Sea ice has decreased, but Greenland ice sheet just added a tremendous amount of ice the past month. NO major hurricanes in the continental US for 10 years (just the opposite of the hysteric fiction of the we’re all doomed crowd). Sea level is barely rising, still on the rise after the last Ice Age, local subsidence is much more of a factor in relative sea level rise than anything. We are told that snow is going to disappear and 49 US states have been <32 F today. Yet we keep being told that more CO2 is going to cause all these things that have been forecast for decades, but never materialize. We are told this by people who have done absolutely zero to reduce their own personal CO2 footprint. When they act like it's a problem, so will I.

        • “The big climate Armageddon keeps not happening. Additional CO2 is expanding forests, grasslands, and increasing ag production. Where are these major climate catastrophes?”

          Please cite some predictions from the scientific literature with proof of original source with respect to which you claim that they have not been occurring. I principally don’t reply do these kind of assertions like yours, which don’t come with any references to back them up.

          • 1. You apparently don’t know the meaning of the word “scientific literature”. Didn’t you suggest further in one of your comments above that you had studied climate science? And now you come with a news paper article instead?

            2. The NYT article talks about the prospectives for ski resorts all over the world by mid of the century to the end of the century in the context of global warming. We are in the year 2017 now. What is the link to the NYT article supposed to prove with respect to your previous comment?

            In one of your comments above you already had lied about the content of the NYT article, claiming that this article stated it would never snow again. There is no such statement in this article.

            Yes, exposing the lack of substance of the claims by the likes of you is like shooting fish in a barrel.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Jan, are you in denial that Alarmists have implied that “children will never see snow again”?

          • Are you trying to lecture me what I had to learn? What are your qualifications to believe that you were in the position to do that?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Jan, who are you addressing?

          • I’m addressing you. This was supposed to be in reply to your other comment. I mistakenly pressed the wrong reply button.

          • Jimlab says:

            Jan,

            You remind me of someone with some common sense. Few in the climate arena.

            Jim

          • David Appell says:

            Jim, science and “common sense” don’t always have much overlap. That’s why science is so powerful and common sense often so wrong.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Jan: “However, in science, what scientific findings are valid is not determined by political committee.”

        Jan, we’re so glad to see you willing to throw out the “97%” nonsense. Now, you’re trying to learn some actual science.

        • See above. Caught the wrong reply button there.

        • I repeat from above, are you trying to lecture me what I had to learn about science? What are your qualifications in science to believe that you were in the position to do that?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Jan, soothe those feathers, gal.

            I’m just happy you recognize that actual science is NOT established by committee. It’s established by verifiable proofs.

            My qualifications? Advanced knowledge of physics.

            (Hope you can press the right “button” this time.)

          • About whom are you specifically talking, who supposedly claimed that the validity of science was established by committee? Any quotes with proof of source?

            Also, I would not phrase it in the way that the validity of science was established by “verifiable proof”. I would say it’s established by the scientific community, based on the scrutiny of the presented scientific evidence, which has to be testable and reproducible. One may call this “scientific proof”. Which is not the same as mathematical proof or absolute truth.

            And what exactly did you mean with your condescending, “Jan, were so glad to see you willing to throw out the 97% nonsense. Now, youre trying to learn some actual science.”

            Are you referring to something that I stated? What do you know about me that motivated you to such a statement?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Jan, let’s take it slow, one step at a time.

            You stated above: However, in science, what scientific findings are valid is not determined by political committee.

            I applauded your recognition that a “committee” has little value as compared to mathematical proofs. Translation: A faked 97% consensus is meaningless.

            Are you offended that I salute you for your own words?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            JDHuffman…”Jan, lets take it slow, one step at a time”.

            You could slow it down till it’s stopped and Jan still won’t get it. Jan has a myopic, religion-based view of science and he doesn’t want to get it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Jan…”About whom are you specifically talking, who supposedly claimed that the validity of science was established by committee? Any quotes with proof of source?”

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

            http://www.rossmckitrick.com/ipcc-reviews-and-critiques.html

          • What specific statements in the texts under the link? I don’t know which ones you mean. Please cite them here.

          • barry says:

            It’s surprising how many people attribute stuff to you that you’ve never said.

            It’s because they imagine you’ve said it in their minds – because they prefer *you* to make the conversation they’re used to dealing with.

          • JDHuffman,

            You made a condescending statement, now you try to paint it differently. Enough about that.

            “I applauded your recognition that a committee has little value as compared to mathematical proofs. Translation: A faked 97% consensus is meaningless.”

            You seem to have understood that I favored “mathematical proof” over “committee”. Then you haven’t understood what I said. There is no mathematical proof in science. Or absolute truth. There is only evidence, and an attempt to achieve an approximate understanding of the object of scientific research. I didn’t say “committee”, I said “political committee”. In some sense, the scientific community is also a “committee”. A “committee” that applies scientific criteria to evaluate the validity of science done by its members. The validity of a scientific theory always has also a subjective component, the inter-subjective acknowledgment among scientists that the theory was valid.

            To be very specific, with “political committee”, I mean for instance people like Lamar Smith and his House committee, who postulated peer-reviewed and published scientific research to be invalid, which allegedly would warrant an investigation for “fraud”, because he said so.

            I also don’t think that “scientific consensus” was meaningless. It’s meaningless only in a scientific discourse among scientists. Using such as an argument in a scientific discourse would be just argumentum ad populum. Scientific consensus is just something that emerges when a scientific theory is convincing for most scientists, based on the presented evidence. However, it’s not meaningless for the public and for politicians. They ought to know what the expert opinion on a specific topic is, especially when it is relevant for society and possible consequences in politics and for the public. And also how the support for a specific scientific explanation is distributed among the experts. When most experts support one explanation, and only a small minority another one, how do you decide as layperson to whom to listen, without having the same insight into the field as the experts do? Layperson’s dilemma. And we all are laypersons in most fields.

          • Bart says:

            “When most experts support one explanation, and only a small minority another one, how do you decide as layperson to whom to listen, without having the same insight into the field as the experts do?”

            You look for clues. When it is asserted that “most experts support one explanation”, but the surveys are dodgy at best, when the reputations of formerly highly regarded experts are trashed and their publications blocked, when the soi disant “experts” are caught presenting misleading graphs and other evidence time and time again, when you consider the history of politicized “science” and the not-so-great track record of “expert opinion”, when you observe the same behavior associated with religious doomsday cults of days of reckoning repeatedly proclaimed and then rescheduled, then you start to develop a healthy skepticism.

            When you are technically adept enough to understand the arguments being made, and can observe how flimsy the proffered evidence is, then you know the game is rigged to a preconceived conclusion.

    • David Appell says:

      Buck Turgidson says:
      “Fears of global calamity by tiny increases in a weak greenhouse gas that have almost no discernible effect on climate”

      Why haven’t you looked at the evidence?

      Such as: Philipona et al GRL 2004: https://is.gd/ePKTwX, Feldman et al Nature 2015: https://is.gd/vIWMxr

  73. Steven Thury says:

    It’s January and its cold. This has been going on for thousands of yrs.
    Stupid Liberals messing things up as usual.

  74. The Hamm's Bear says:

    Every year for the next 11,000 years the Sun will gradually move farther away from the Earth during winter. Chicago in the year 6000AD, -50F average nighttime January, +115 average daytime July. We will have a nation-wide glacier in Canada that will come close to their large southern cities. I can imagine most people migrating just like the birds.

  75. Silvio Dante says:

    I’ve got a feeling nothing will matter past April 3, 2017

  76. Buck Turgidson says:

    The climate hysterics are masters at the “might” “could” “maybe.” The narrative is Armageddon is coming. “The End of Snow!” (well, maybe, but it could!). Then if they are called on it later, they say”

    In one of your comments above you already had lied about the content of the NYT article, claiming that this article stated it would never snow again. There is no such statement in this article.

    • Buck Turgidson says:

      Since when is the NYT not the moat authoritative source on every topic under the sun?

  77. ren says:

    Making the best of the intense sea-effect/stau-effect snow in Pescocostanzo, Abruzzo, Italy yesterday (Jan 7). Video: Gianpiero Giugliano
    https://twitter.com/severeweatherEU
    Huge accumulation of #snow on Evia island in #Greece this afternoon! 8.1.17 Via our partner page @severeweatherEU 18/30 #eustorm
    https://twitter.com/EUStormMap/status/818115598425198594/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

  78. ren says:

    This sudden rise in temperature in the highest layers of the stratosphere is a warning from the sun. Polar vortex react.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.png

  79. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    I can just say that it is a tough job to convince peoble that it is caused by Global Warmimg.
    Luckily the meme was changed to Climate Change which works whatever happens.
    Look out your window and you can see the changing climate (if it is not covered with snow).

    • barry says:

      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

      Inaugurated 1988

      • JDHuffman says:

        Like Svend told you, “climate change” works whatever happens.

        • barry says:

          Try to follow the conversation. Svend told us Climate Change is the new meme. The new meme that began 28 years ago….

          • JDHuffman says:

            Like Svend told you, climate change works whatever happens.

            (It’s not that hard to understand, unless you are purposely trying to confuse yourself.)

          • barry says:

            Ah – I see why you didn’t understand what I said. You’re a broken record posing as a rational being.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

        Please note that the IPCC stated in TAR (2001) that future climate states CANNOT be predicted. So, they went about using climate models to ‘project’ scenarios they thought MIGHT happen based on probabilities of probabilities generated by the models.

        They have yet to project anything meaningful, completely missing the 15 warming hiatus they declared from 1998 – 2012.

  80. Snowman says:

    Come on up to Craig Colorado where we enjoyed -37 would take your 60 any time.before out getting a tan running around almost buck naked.

  81. barry says:

    Come down to Australia. We’re getting some hot weather here for some reason.

  82. ren says:

    Let’s look at the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-93.68,64.93,393
    It promises to be hard winter.

  83. pochas94 says:

    I don’t see the big deal. I can remember -15F the first week in January a couple of times here in Michigan. What’s keeping those minimum temperatures up? CO2?

  84. Cloudbase says:

    Why are you asking Roy. I thought you knew it all. 😃

  85. Steven M Kraut says:

    All blue except for Florida, which is where I am. So stay warm, if you can!
    😎💓🇺🇸!!

  86. pochas94 says:

    Rain tomorrow. Typical Michigan weather.

      • pochas94 says:

        That’s cold?

        • ren says:

          “Several inches of accumulating snow will extend across the upper Great Lakes and the upper reaches of the Northeast from Monday night to Tuesday.
          A general 3 to 6 inches of snow will fall from eastern Minnesota to the northern part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. In this area, locally higher amounts to near 10 inches can pile up.”

          • Buck Turgidson says:

            But we’re not going to get as much snow any more, it will mainly be rain — as the climate Armageddon bedwetters have been telling us for decades. Less snow, more rain, more floods, we’re all doomed. Their claims keep not materializing and they look like a bunch of damned fools. Evidence and facts are nothing to these activists, however, they 2X down and just keep ranting. I’ve given up trying to discuss their nonsense w them, they could not care less about facts and I’ve gotten tired of having to constantly duck while their arms wave around all over the place. That and the spittle.

          • pochas94 says:

            As of 9:30 am we got 6 inches, expected to change to rain by days end. Temp = 31 F. Central MI.

  87. pochas94 says:

    Ok, if you have to find some cold air…
    https://www.iceagenow.info/winter-storm-warnings-nova-scotia-p-e/#more-19746
    Feel better?

  88. Buck Turgidson says:

    Feel that global warming! Coldest air in 20 years in continental US. But it’s the end of snow and the oceans are going to inundate all of Florida (this is why Al Gore recently purchased oceanfront property) and all of the lower-elevation ski areas will be out of business (any day now).

    Here is another insane rant from the insane ranters at the NY Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html

    Climate change is killing children. These people need medication, along with the rest of the climate Armageddon crowd — who don’t change their carbon footprint one iota, but want you to live in a tent. To save the world. Absolutely nutters…..

  89. Greg says:

    I’m not an expert on climate but I have one question for all of you experts. What is the “OPTIMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”? And if you somehow know this, why is that temperature optimal??

    • barry says:

      There’s no such thing.

      Climate always changes, it’s the rate that is the concern. Development, agricultural and water infrastructure has been built with 20th century climates presumed to continue indefinitely. We presumed, when we built our houses and cities by the sea, that the seas would remain at the same level.

      Ask what the OPTIMAL RATE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE should be, and sane people would answer: extremely slowly.

      • Bart says:

        Temperatures changed just as rapidly in the early part of the 20th century as they did in the later, but the former at least was definitely not driven by industrialization.

        There have been many rapid changes in the past. Look up the Younger Dryas some time.

        The “unprecedented rate” meme is just that, a meme to spark panic among those who are unfamiliar with the subject matter. Like a used car salesman warning that his sale prices won’t last, and someone else may scoop up the car you want if you wait to think it over. It is a sales tactic. Nothing more, nothing less.

        • Nate says:

          Younger-Dryas rapid climate change led to mass extinctions, and (probably) end of Clovis people.

          • Bart says:

            And, we would have been powerless to prevent it. As we are powerless to prevent natural climate change today.

          • David Appell says:

            If climate is changing naturally today, what are the factors forcing it to warm? Where is all the added heat coming from? Hmm?

          • Norman says:

            Bart

            It would be wise to ignore David Appell on this point. I went at length and gave him many different possibilities but he really is not interested. He is a “carpet bombing” troll who has little interest in finding the truth in a complex scientific issue. If you notice what he does, after a thread is exhausted he posts around 10 times. I think (no evidence to support this, just an idea) he gets paid money for each post on Climate skeptic blogs.

            I would respond to his questions if he showed even the slightest desire to seek the truth (he reminds me of the other troll from the other side, g e r a n. Who trolled anyone with a different view than his own.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, all you did was throw out some very speculative ideas. Not one of them had any evidence behind it. They weren’t remotely scientific.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            They were very scientific and far from speculation.

            I gave you detailed calculations that could explain heat accumulation in the ocean. Albedo changes are unscientific because no one has accumulated empirical data to determine if the global albedo has changed 1% since 1850. The concept is quite scientific, if the albedo changed 1% since 1850 (was less) then it would explain all the observed global warming during that time period.

            I am really starting to doubt you took any science classes at higher education levels based upon the nature of your posts. You really do not seem to possess a logical science based thought process.

            The other points I made is that you can accumulate energy at the surface if one of the cooling mechanisms is reduced (surface cooling mechanism like evaporation or thermals).

          • David Appell says:

            If if if if if.

            You presented no evidence that the planet’s albedo is changing. I presented evidence (Arctic ice, greening) that if it IS changing, it’s probably getting lower, a positive feedback on warming.

            That’s not science, Norman, it’s just speculation.

            Meanwhile we have very good data showing that greenhouse effect is expanding, and at precisely the emissions frequencies of manmade GHGs.

            If you can’t do at least an order of magnitude calculation for your proposals, you’re just imaging things. For some reason you don’t like AGW, so you’re just throwing out a batch of ideas in the hope something sticks.

            (And do you really think you’re the first person to have thought of the possibility of a changing albedo??)

          • Bart says:

            Norman – Aye.

          • David Appell says:

            In fact, Norman, given the decline in Arctic sea ice extent, and the decline in northern hemisphere snow cover, you can make some reasonable calculations of the resulting decline in albedo. (Especially for Arctic SIE.) Just use the trends, the albedos of sea ice and open ocean, or snow and tundra, and the sunlight incident on the Arctic over a year, using its varying zenith angle.

            Let me know what you get.

            Eisenman et al found Arctic SIE melting equivalent to 25% of CO2’s global forcing. Cite above.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Against better judgement I will respond to your post about snow and ice and albedo.

            YOUR POST: “In fact, Norman, given the decline in Arctic sea ice extent, and the decline in northern hemisphere snow cover, you can make some reasonable calculations of the resulting decline in albedo.”

            It is clearly true that Northern Hemisphere snow cover declined from from the 70’s norm in a steep fashion in 1988, after a few low years it picked up and has remained nearly flat-line since.

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-snow-northern-hemisphere

            Arctic Sea Ice also shows a sudden loss then a more flat pattern which is no longer descending since around 2005
            http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

            All this makes sense with the CERES data on total energy received by the Earth showing no changes since around 2000.

            Maybe cloud cover did change from the 70’s to the 80’s (decline in thicker clouds) and it led to a warming jump. I have not found cloud cover graphs before the last 10 years or so in which they are relatively flat.

            For albedo, clouds will have a much greater impact if they change.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Please look at this Global Energy Budget graph:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

            It shows clouds (and atmosphere) reflecting 77 W/m^2 of solar incoming.

            The Earth’s surface only reflects 22.9 W/m^2. Changes in clouds effects would have a much greater impact than Arctic Ice or even Snow.

            If you look around you might get similar numbers. Northern Hemisphere Snow Ice extent (25 million snow + 14 million sea ice). Maybe 40 Square Km of snow and ice. If the Southern Hemisphere is equivalent you might have around 80 million square kilometers of snow and ice (although globally it would be much less since one hemisphere has a lot of melt).

            Clouds make up 60% of the global area (510 million km^2 times 0.6)= 306 million square kilometers covered by clouds. Clouds can come close to the reflectivity of snow and ice depending upon the type of cloud. So if you can see changes in clouds could easily explain the warming and loss of snow that took place from the 70’s to the current era (with no current changes taking place in snow cover and not much in sea ice except yearly weather driven phenomena…kind of like now it is pouring in California and just a few months ago it was in a terrible drought)

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “If the Southern Hemisphere is equivalent you might have around 80 million square kilometers of snow and ice….”

            Norman, come on, it’s not nearly equivalent. This is well known and obvious. Do I really need to spell it out?

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “Northern Hemisphere Snow Ice extent (25 million snow + 14 million sea ice).

            I am pretty sure NH snow cover includes Artic SIE. Check with Rutgers to be certain.

            “Maybe 40 Square Km of snow and ice.”

            You mean Mkm2.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            Norman says:
            “I gave you detailed calculations that could explain heat accumulation in the ocean.”

            No, you did not. You tossed some numbers around, who knows where they came from, but you in no way explained ocean heating, which by now is over 300 trillion watts just for the top half alone.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart: Again, if climate is changing naturally today, what are the factors forcing it to warm? Where is all the added heat coming from?

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, just more unproven speculations and ifs, ifs, ifs.

            Where is your evidence and the data??

            Why are you ignoring Pistone et al, who use actual DATA?

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “So if you can see changes in clouds could easily explain the warming and loss of snow that took place from the 70s to the current era.”

            Ifififififififififififififififif

            Where’s your data? Where’s your proof?

            Do you think you’re the only person in the world to ever have thought about this.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “I would respond to his questions if he showed even the slightest desire to seek the truth (he reminds me of the other troll from the other side, g e r a n. Who trolled anyone with a different view than his own.”:

            Stop whining Norman, and try to stick to the science. Otherwise you just look like a chump who is afraid to address questions.

          • Bart says:

            “Bart: Again, if climate is changing naturally today, what are the factors forcing it to warm? Where is all the added heat coming from?”

            From the Sun, of course. Almost all of the heat for the surface comes from the Sun. How that heat is distributed is a very complicated problem. There are cycles of storage and release. Such cycles are endemic to any large and variegated thermal system, based on the modal expansion of the governing partial differential equations.

            Neophytes look for direct cause and effect. Experienced professionals know about system responses, and look for more subtle influences. You are naive and inexperienced, and draw conclusions based on your ignorance.

      • Chris Hanley says:

        … OPTIMAL RATE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE should be, and sane people would answer: extremely slowly …

        ‘Jolly hockey sticks’.

    • coturnix19 says:

      Whatever is most convenient for people to live it, e.g. around anywhere between 15-20C. It seems though that since what matters in the end is *local* climate and not global climate, the distribution of temperature and moisture/rainfall regimes is just as important as the global temperature. The global temperature alone is a very poor proxy for evaluating goodness of the climate, and alone means nothing. The only thing we can say that as long as global temperature keeps within certain range, anywhere between 5 and 25C (or more narrowly, 10 and 20C) it is fine.

      • Nate says:

        Coturnix, agree up to last sentence. Not sure how u conclude a 10C range for global is fine? A drop of 5C below present coincided with thick ice sheets covering much of europe and n america.

        • coturnix19 says:

          That’s the range that would still allow for some sensible are of earth to remain habitable… pretty much what the earth had been oscillating within during the phanerozoic; ok, maybe i was way too generous, but the global mean temperature fell as low either +8C or +6C (not sure if i remember for sure), close enough to +5C.

          • David Appell says:

            The problem is more the rate of today’s change — very fast compared to most of the past — not so much the absolute temperature.

          • David Appell says:

            coturnix19 says:
            “…pretty much what the earth had been oscillating within during the phanerozoic…”

            Do you think maybe human civilization and agriculture is just a BIT more complicated than during the vast majority of the phanerozoic?

            Just a bit?

          • No, i don'tcoturnix19 says:

            No, i don’t think so. I do agree that fast *unpredictable* climate change (be it natural or not) is a serious risk, but for now humans did managed to adapt to any climate precisely because of our complicated and fragile civilization. and no, the climate change doesn’t seem particularly abrut to me, if u actually read some actual historic account u’d see that so far, up to now the purported ‘catastrophic human induced climate change’ didn’t really show anything that it doesn’t naturally do, not with regard to speed nnot xtent of the change. It may still in the future though, which wouldn’t change the only reasonable approach to it: adapting is cheaper, unless we’re talking of warming in excess of 10C or something.

          • coturnix19 says:

            weird, ;i accidentally typed into the wrong field

          • David Appell says:

            No, i don’tcoturnix19 says:
            “…and no, the climate change doesnt seem particularly abrut to me….”

            Today’s rate of warming is about 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last glacial period 25 kyrs ago.

          • coturnix19 says:

            Today, it is forecast to warm from -13C to 0C IN 12 HOURS where i live. Gawd, we’re gonna die.

            Sorry, but ‘todays rate’ doesn’t count; it must be calculated over similar (long) periods of time since it is know to everyone that climate and weather gets more erratic on shorter scales down to days. It is just the way it is, you simply can’t know if any recently observed changes are just internal variability or part of the trend until long after the fact…. but yeah, if it is calculated over the last few years it was quite impressive. What was it, like .5*C in a 4 years per dr. spencer’s graph? horrible, but i don’t care and neither should you

  90. Buck Turgidson says:

    What can one say, the underwater basket weaving majors who frequent this site never got exposure to the concept of a non-falsifiable scientific hypothesis. Or science. Or a hypothesis. They excel in afactual venting, spittle, and arm waving (look out for those wild waving arms).

    • Dr No says:

      2017 is still expected to be among the hottest years in more than 130 years of record keeping, according to a forecast from the U.K. Met Office.

      Give us your forecast loudmouth.

      • Bart says:

        So what? Temperatures have been rising since the LIA. But, the rise is not tracking the forecasts based on CO2 forcing. There is no evidence to establish it as anything more than natural variation.

        • Nate says:

          Bart ‘the rise is not tracking the forecasts’ ‘There is no evidence’

          For me what is particularly convincing was that rather bold predictions were made about the entire globe’s climate, based on an AGW model, well before they had occurred in 1981:

          http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

          -Surface temperatures would rise out of the noise of natural variation beginning in 80s and becoming significant by early 2000s (check)

          -Predicted magnitude of rise matched (within error) with observed surface warming in early 2000s (check)

          -Predicted strong decline of arctic sea-ice by early 2000s (check)

          -Predicted changes in regional weather patterns, like expanding deserts (partial check, not decided)

          -Predicted accelerating sea-level-rise in 2000s (check)

          • Bart says:

            -Surface temperatures would rise out of the noise of natural variation beginning in 80s and becoming significant by early 2000s (check)

            Uncheck. The rise halted in the 2000s, and the rise from 1970-2000 was almost precisely the same as the rise from 1910-1940, about 0.6 degC. They were both due to the rising phase of the underlying approximately natural 60 year cycle, which has been in evidence now for over two cycles.

            -Predicted magnitude of rise matched (within error) with observed surface warming in early 2000s (check)

            Uncheck. The forecasts covered every potential result. This is the Texas Sharpshooter’s fallacy.

            -Predicted strong decline of arctic sea-ice by early 2000s (check)

            Uncheck. The world has been warming naturally since the end of the Little Ice Age. That is why it is called the end of the Little Ice Age. In a warming world, you expect sea ice to decline. It’s tautological. But, as the rise preceded significant CO2 increase, human use of fossil fuels is not indicated as a causative factor.

            -Predicted changes in regional weather patterns, like expanding deserts (partial check, not decided)

            Decided. The Sahara is greening. Regional weather patterns are always changing.

            -Predicted accelerating sea-level-rise in 2000s (check)

            Uncheck. There is no evidence of accelerating sea level rise. It is at the same rate as it has been for centuries. Again, as the rise preceded significant CO2 increase, human use of fossil fuels is not indicated as a causative factor.

          • Bart says:

            “the underlying approximately natural 60 year cycle” = “the underlying natural approximately 60 year cycle”

          • Nate says:

            oh and:

            -enhanced warming at high latitudes (check)

            -enhanced warming of West Antarctic ice sheet and destabilization of its ice sheet (check)

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/full/ngeo1671.html

          • Nate says:

            I see how this goes I check it, you uncheck it. I think we live on different planets.

            ‘The rise halted in the 2000s’

            Dont see a halt here, do you? Remember prediction was for SURFACE record.

            http://tinyurl.com/znztk5m

            and the rise from 1970-2000 was almost precisely the same as the rise from 1910-1940, about 0.6 degC. ‘

            No not the same–See above graph-READ the paper– the early century rise is explained as part co2, part recovery from SIGNIFICANT early century volcanoes.

            ‘Texas sharpshooter’ Not remotely. Most probable curve was the dark line. It matches observations pretty amazingly well. READ the paper.

            ‘There is no evidence of accelerating sea level rise’

            Just cuz u say it does not make it so. Plenty of evidence, but you need to look at it. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.abstract

            ‘warming naturally since the end of the Little Ice Age.’In a warming world, you expect sea ice to decline. Its tautological.

            Awfully wrong, sea ice decline accelerated STRONGLY in last 2 decades

          • Bart says:

            “Dont see a halt here, do you?”

            Actually, yes. You’re a victim of end effects because the record ends in a monster El Nino, and you have smoothed to an extent that it hides the decline that began in the early 2000’s, right in sync with the peak of the ~60 year cycle. Not very honest of you, I’d have to say.

            “No not the same…”

            Almost precisely the same. If you remove your excessively long smoothing (mean) filter, it is quite apparent. I would link to it, but Dr. Spencer seems to have enabled a filter on comments so that you cannot link directly to Double-U-Eff-Tee, or even use the acronym in comments. Don’t know why.

            “… the early century rise is explained as part co2, part recovery from SIGNIFICANT early century volcanoes.”

            Sure it is. This is rationalization. Hand waving. And, just a tad (by which I mean, blatantly and overwhelmingly) too convenient.

            “Most probable curve was the dark line. It matches observations pretty amazingly well.”

            You can match it “amazingly well” just the same by calculating the natural trend up to the time of writing, and extrapolating it forward. This doesn’t actually mean anything.

            “Plenty of evidence, but you need to look at it.”

            If you torture the data long enough, you can make it confess. But, it’s just more handwaving and “adjustments”. It’s always the same. The raw data tell one story, then the climate mafia gets their hands on it, and “adjusts” it until it sings their tune. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s being done out in the open, right in front of our eyes.

            “Awfully wrong, sea ice decline accelerated STRONGLY in last 2 decades”

            And, before that, we have indications that it decelerated strongly, and the satellite records started at a high point. Sea ice goes up, and it goes down. It’s a natural, cyclic phenomenon, driven by temperatures and winds.

          • Nate says:

            Like to see the indications that ‘we have’ about sea ice.

            You seem awfully confident in your assertions about 60 y oscillations. Lets see the evidence.

            My decadal smoothing is perfectly valid to look at long term trends. It smooths all el ninos la ninas, that is the point.

          • Nate says:

            No u absolutely cannot match the trend 80-2010 based on previous which was flatish 45 to 75.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Rationalizing’. You mean explaining. What do you think science is? Look, everyone agrees that natural variations are occuring. The paper attempted to account for temp record of the prevous decades. What else would you want?

          • Bart says:

            “Like to see the indications that we have about sea ice. “

            You can find them. You would probably argue they are not reliable, so not much point in my searching to find them again. Bottom line is, we do not actually have a lot of reliable data. Not enough to conclude that sea ice is disappearing. It appears to be holding steady in the last 5 or so years. Will probably start increasing now that we have entered what should be the downswing of the ~60 year cycle.

            “You seem awfully confident in your assertions about 60 y oscillations. Lets see the evidence.”

            It’s been extraordinarily regular. Go to the Double-U-Eff-Tee site, plot HC4 (HAD CRoUTons doesn’t even seem to get past the filter – weird) from 1900, and detrend by 0.75. You will see roughly two cycles of a very regular, almost triangular, wave of about 0.4 degC peak-to-peak. The current El Nino peak is fading fast. I expect temperatures will drop to be in line with this pattern soon.

            Of course, regime changes can occur, so past performance is no guarantee of future results. But, I consider it most likely that the temperature record will evolve going forward as that underlying trend of about 1 degC/century combined with the downswing of the cycle, leading to a generally cooling pattern for the next couple of decades, in complete contradiction of the AGW hypothesis.

            By that time, AGW will be a thing of the past, and another precautionary tale in science about the perils of seeing what you want to see in the data, without taking account of alternative explanations.

            “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” – Richard P. Feynman

            “My decadal smoothing is perfectly valid to look at long term trends. It smooths all el ninos la ninas, that is the point.”

            It only smooths them if they are completely contained within the data set, so that there is time for an ENSO pulse to fade out. Otherwise, you get a spurious indication of a general trend near the end points. See Feynman quote above.

            “No u absolutely cannot match the trend 80-2010 based on previous which was flatish 45 to 75.”

            Never said you could. I said: “… the rise from 1970-2000 was almost precisely the same as the rise from 1910-1940, about 0.6 degC.”

          • Nate says:

            So the last point in my chart contains 10 y, which includes a big el nino plus 2 large la ninas plus some smaller stuff. Fairly representative. Yet it is well above previous peak at 98. So the trend continues it would appear, you cannot prove otherwise.

          • Nate says:

            The filter, paste url in tinyurl.com

            I agree there are apparent pdo or amo contributions to temp that have long periods. But a long term trend is still needed to explain the data.

          • Bart says:

            “Rationalizing. You mean explaining.”

            No, I mean rationalizing. Or, explaining a narrative, if you prefer.

            Science is not about dreaming up something you think is plausible, and then going out and finding evidence that is consistent with your narrative. That is the road to confirmation bias, and erroneous conclusions.

            On the contrary, it is about considering all possible explanations, and attacking them all with equal vigor to expose the weaknesses in the arguments. Those that survive live to see another day. But, none are accepted as “truth” until they have survived that process, and been confirmed as uniquely explanatory.

            AGW is not even remotely at that level.

          • David Appell says:

            “Considering all explanations” is exactly what climate science has been doing in the last 200 years, and what it will continue to do.

            But only one cause explains modern warming: aGHGs.

            And on one here has ever offered the slightest bit of evidence to think otherwise.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            ‘It only smooths them if they are completely contained within the data set, so that there is time for an ENSO pulse to fade out. Otherwise, you get a spurious indication of a general trend near the end points.’

            This makes no sense. You are saying my smoothing would be ok if I waited until ENSO fades out? No. There is no ‘right time’ to end smoothing in data with noise. This is disingenuous of you.

            You are thinking of a smoothing end-effects where the number of points averaged drops at the end, that is not what happened here, the number of points is constant throughout.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            See below-response, in next thread by mistake.

            Let me address another critique of yours regarding the prediction of rising temperatures-that fit observations after 1980:

            ‘You can match it amazingly well just the same by calculating the natural trend up to the time of writing, and extrapolating it forward. This doesnt actually mean anything.’

            No that is utter fantasy. Id like to see you try. Here is the data up to the time of writing:

            http://tinyurl.com/juep9eo

            I claim BS on this one.

          • Bart says:

            “This makes no sense. You are saying my smoothing would be ok if I waited until ENSO fades out? No. There is no right time to end smoothing in data with noise.”

            Wrong. This is very basic, and betrays your lack of experience.

            “Id like to see you try.”

            Elementary. A ~60 year cycle completes in the era 1910-1970. Fit a line to this, and extrapolate it forward. This is the long term trend in the data, with a short term ~60 year cycle superimposed upon it.

          • Bart says:

            Here is the ~60 year cycle in bold relief. If the pattern continues, we should see reversion to it once the El Nino has worked itself out. Wait and see…

          • Nate says:

            ‘Wrong. This is very basic, and betrays your lack of experience.’

            I have explained to you why I think you are wrong about this:

            ‘You are thinking of a smoothing end-effects where the number of points averaged drops at the end, that is not what happened here, the number of points is constant throughout.’

            Also:

            ‘So the last point in my chart contains 10 y, which includes a big el nino plus 2 large la ninas plus some smaller stuff. Fairly representative. Yet it is well above previous peak at 98. So the trend continues it would appear, you cannot prove otherwise.’

            Your response is name-calling, rather than explanation. Lets see a real response.

            BTW, time-series analysis is part of my day job.

          • Bart says:

            When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

          • Nate says:

            In a hole-no I feel fine-you?

            So I must assume you cannot really explain your end-effects problem. I call BS on that one..

          • Nate says:

            ‘Here is the ~60 year cycle in bold relief.’

            Yes I see the cycle. Agree that there are quasi-oscillatory natural contributions to the temperature. Seems correlated to PDO to me. PDO has been low and increasing, so may produce HIGHER trend going forward.

            You have detrended with slope .76. I do that here with the full record:

            http://tinyurl.com/zac4bsk

            A bowl-shape appears. On face-value this suggests the long term trend is quadratic. Or at least it is an increasing trend.

          • Bart says:

            The data before 1900 have extremely wide error bars. Nothing to hang your hat on.

          • Nate says:

            Bart

            ‘You can match it amazingly well just the same by calculating the natural trend up to the time of writing, and extrapolating it forward. This doesnt actually mean anything.’

            Id like to see you try.

            ‘Elementary. A ~60 year cycle completes in the era 1910-1970. Fit a line to this, and extrapolate it forward. This is the long term trend in the data, with a short term ~60 year cycle superimposed upon it.’

            First, that is not doing what you said you could do which is simply extrapolating the trend. You now say that must also add a cyclic part on top.

            Second, in 1981, the record of previous decades was a rise followed by flat period. So you, at the time, would have forecast ‘the next decades will be a repeat’ i.e. same rise followed by flat. Honestly??

            Why not a decrease followed by a flat? Or continued flat with wiggles?

            There would be no sensible reason to make such a forecast at the time. I claim monday morning quarterbacking on that one.

            Instead, what the paper did was make a forecast based on a model, which in turn was based on atmospheric physics and extrapolated CO2 rise. All in all a better approach that worked as well as could be expected.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            How does your LIA recovery plus 60 y model account for these land-only series?

            http://tinyurl.com/h5urbtg

          • Bart says:

            I’ve been saying forever that the underlying pattern is a long term trend plus an approximately 60 year cyclic component. I have been watching this debate since the late 1990’s. At that time, a lot of us were saying there was a ~60 year cycle in the data, which accounts for the lull in the 1940-1970 era.

            Some one of those popinjays like Tamino or somebody actually posted an analysis insisting it wasn’t there, that it was just an artifact of a short span of data. But, in the mid-2000’s, the turnaround came, right on schedule. The cycle really cannot be denied now. It warmed 1910-1940, it slightly cooled 1940-1970, it warmed 1970-2000, and we are at the top of the cycle now, waiting for the transient El Nino to dissipate, and start a gradual cooling again.

            It is a repeating pattern that was set in place long before CO2 could have been the cause. That’s what the data show. Keep watching, and see what happens.

          • Bart says:

            “How does your LIA recovery plus 60 y model account for these land-only series?”

            Trend + ~60 year cycle. You can do this yourself. Data are very poor quality pre-1900. There is no point in using them.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “The cycle really cannot be denied now. It warmed 1910-1940, it slightly cooled 1940-1970, it warmed 1970-2000, and we are at the top of the cycle now.”

            What crap.

            You are assuming, with no proof or evidence whatsoever, that the temperature in all theses stages is due all to, and only to, this alleged 60-yr cycle.

            That’s in contradiction to the science: solar intensity changes, aGHGs and volcanic clearing in the first half of the 20th century, and aerosol cooling from 1940-1970, before national clean air legislation.

            You are also conveniently leaving out the 60-year cycle of the PDO, which works is in addition to the AMO.

            What is the (global mean surface) temperature’s sensitivity to the AMO’s amplitude and to the PDO’s amplitude?

          • Bart says:

            You don’t need to know how a diesel locomotive works to know you better get off the tracks when it is bearing down on you. The data show a very regular ~60 cyclicality. It is likely to extend into the future. Watch and see what happens.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Here is same BEST data detrended as you have done, only I have a 5 year running average, to remove high freq noise.

            http://tinyurl.com/jpever5

            Clearly your cyclic fit does not account for the data of last 40 y.

          • Nate says:

            Figured out the order matters in woodfortrees. This one in same order as yours:

            http://tinyurl.com/zj6lb4o

            Still your cyclic model is a poor fit.

            The difference from previous was the subtracted linear trend, which matters not wrt to cyclic portion.

            Also, i see no reason to arbitrarily cut at 1900, Best goes back to 1800, with gradually increasing errors.

            Your linear plus cyclic simply cannot account for dramatically increasing trend that we see (even considering increasing errors):

            http://tinyurl.com/ha2snpu

          • Bart says:

            You are performing excessive smoothing on the data, and falling prey again to end effects and the arbitrary frequency response of the averaging filter. Your eyes can do a better job of discerning the pattern. Just look at it. It’s right in front of you:

            http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/Bartemis/media/land_zps2kqkuw9d.jpg.html

            Why are you trying to convince yourself that your eyes are lying to you?

            As for data before 1900, the error does not go up gradually, it goes up rapidly. The number of stations reporting drops off sharply prior to 1900. These data are a hodgepodge from poorly cited, poorly monitored, and poorly distributed outlets. Just look at how they flail around! You are only fooling yourself by attempting to divine anything from them.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Why do you prefer to look at data with more high-frequency noise, other than that it helps mask the poorness of your fit?

            It is perfectly acceptable practice to do running mean to see long term, or low frequency behavior. (see UAH 13 mo ave) In this case my running mean is 5 years and we are looking at 100 y or 200 y records.

            ‘falling prey again to end effects and the arbitrary frequency response of the averaging filter’

            If there were any important end effects, which there are not in this case, they would be over < 5 y. Does not damage any comparison to your model which has a 60 y period.

            Even post 1900 the shape, after detrend:1, can be best described as flat 1900-1940 followed by a large U 1940-2000, that continues upward thereafter.

            Sorry that just doesnt fit your model.

          • Bart says:

            “Why do you prefer to look at data with more high-frequency noise…”

            Because it is information-rich. When you remove information, by filtering out both “noise” and signal, you are getting biased information.

            “… other than that it helps mask the poorness of your fit?”

            It’s a good fit, on original, high-information, data.

            “If there were any important end effects, which there are not in this case, they would be over < 5 y."

            The end effects warp your perception. The data are generally poorer quality the farther back you go. Your mind can perceive this and compensate, but a filter applied to the data eliminates the information which provides that contextual perception.

            In addition, these data are not uniformly sampled. I am not sure how Double-U-Eff-Tee takes this into consideration, but the filtering observably produces dramatically different results depending on start and end dates.

            For example, move your start date up to 1930, and watch what happens. You should see something like this. Big difference, huh?

          • Bart says:

            Note: That last plot deviates because the detrending is done over a different timeline. But, it just goes to show you, if you pick the right detrend amount, you can get the ~1940 and ~2010 peaks to line up. And, when you look at the unfiltered data, you can see that the variability is large enough that a similar slope can be extended back to 1910 or so within the margin of error.

        • David Appell says:

          Bart says:
          “The world has been warming naturally since the end of the Little Ice Age.”

          Prove it.

          • Bart says:

            Prove that the end of the LIA was natural? What do you think it was due to? They didn’t have SUVs in the mid-19th century.

            For that matter, what do you think the beginning of it was due to? Do you simply deny any natural variability whatsoever? Did the LIA even happen in your world?

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Prove that the end of the LIA was natural?”

            No — read more carefully.

            Proof that the world has been warming “naturally” since the end of the Little Ice Age.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Did the LIA even happen in your world?”

            It wasn’t global, according to the data:

            “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or 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

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Do you simply deny any natural variability whatsoever?”

            Dumb question.

            “Prove that the end of the LIA was natural? What do you think it was due to?”

            It wasn’t due to the sun — the Earth’s climate’s sensitivity to solar irradiance is too small. It was probably due to volanoes and associated negative feedbacks:

            “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
            DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full

          • Bart says:

            “It was probably due to volanoes and associated negative feedbacks”

            Sure. Always an ad hoc explanation at hand, eh? But, you’re sure late 20th century warming is from CO2.

            These are “Just So” stories you tell yourself so that you can believe what you want to believe. It isn’t science. It is pre-Enlightenment primitivism.

        • Nate says:

          Bart,

          I think you do need to be concerned about your own warning ‘If you torture the data long enough, you can make it confess’, in trying to prove that the data are consistent with a linear trend plus a 60 y oscillation. I just don’t think the fit is convincing.

          Perhaps do a curve fitting, and check goodness of fit. Compare to quadratic or exponential. I would go to 1880 since all the data sets go back at least that far.

          Filtering effects, yes they COULD distort the data, but do they with these parameters? You can try this, I did: in Excel or similar create a 60 year (720 mo.) period sine wave or triangle wave. Apply a 5 year centered running mean to it. Plot them. You see for the triangle wave, slight rounding of the peaks occurs. For sine wave, not much happens. For both, the 60 year period is readily apparent. Add noise if you like.

          I also don’t think there is any a-priori good reason to assume such a model will explain all. I don’t know that PDO or AMO are periodic, maybe quasi periodic, then you have other aperiodic natural (and human caused) forcings to consider: eg. solar and aerosols.

          • Bart says:

            Nate – It is true that the SNR here is so low that conclusions necessarily carry a measure of subjectivity. We are talking about average changes in the 10ths of degC. The ASHRAE standard for temperature stratification in buildings is 3 degC between just your head and your feet!

            However, the signal is well defined in the global data, less so in the land data. This suggests it is perhaps an oceanic phenomenon and, indeed, we find it in the AMO.

            The bottom line is, there is no reason to prefer the CO2 explanation over the natural one at this time. There are other portents that confirm to me that the natural one is the correct one. But, I do not expect them to convince you, and do not want to open up a whole other line of debate at this time.

            We will know in the next year. Keep watching that detrended chart. I expect the long term evolution to return to the ~60 year pattern after the El Nino fades. That will presage a couple of decades more of cooling temperatures. If that happens, AGW is kaput.

  91. Buck Turgidson says:

    2016 was a hot one no doubt about it. How a forecast that 2017 will be cooler. Name calling only shows that you are losing your argument and act like a 10-yr old. Grow up, and stay in school. Take some courses in physics and arithmetic while you’re at at.

    • Dr No says:

      Try learning some grammar. Your sentences are appalling.
      “How a forecast that 2017 will be cooler.” ??? can’t make sense of that
      “Name calling only shows that you are losing your argument and act like a 10-yr old.”
      I think that should be “acting”.

      • Buck Turgidson says:

        Dear English Major, I don’t spend a lot of time on perfect grammar on this site, here I’ll throw in a too-long poorly worded sentence here to give you something to do from your mom’s basement today. did I miss a hyphen there. Don’t end your sentences in prepositions, you little gnat. Your response deviates from climate science and moves into grammar, I’ll let you win, that’s not why I’m here.

        • Dr No says:

          The point of the matter is that I assume your sentence:
          “How a forecast that 2017 will be cooler.”
          should read
          “How about a forecast that 2017 will be cooler?”
          represents an answer to my question.
          Correct me if I am wrong, but you are predicting 2017 will be cooler than 2016 – yes?

        • David Appell says:

          So easy….

          Buck Turgidson says:
          January 10, 2017 at 4:55 AM
          “Name calling only shows that you are losing your argument and act like a 10-yr old.”

          Buck Turgidson says:
          January 10, 2017 at 5:24 AM
          “Dont end your sentences in prepositions, you little gnat.”

  92. Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

    I see that Dr. Roy has done his best to downplay the fact that his own data shows that 2016 was the warmest on record. Next, I expect him to start claiming that global warming is a Chinese hoax.

    • Bart says:

      It is not “downplaying” to note that the margin by which it is warmer is insignificant, certainly well below what would be expected if the models were correct, and CO2 were relentlessly driving the warming. It would be dishonest to ignore that context, and paper over the fact.

      What will you say when temperatures plunge next year, as they assuredly will with the waning of the latest El Nino?

      • Buck Turgidson says:

        GCM forecasts from ~20 years ago of future avg global temps were wildly incorrect, and there is a well-known figure showing dozens of model projections going 3, 4 degrees C up up up — and then a dark black line showing reality, which barely climbs over the time series (~20 years). In other words, a big “F” for the modelling dreamers and tens of millions of tax $$$ down a rathole. Don’t expect the true believer warmist hysterics here to pretend to have seen that, however. They will get huffity puffity about ‘peer reviewed’ articles in junk science propaganda journals, or whine that you that your sentence had a misplaced semi-colon that has affected their grammatical sensitivities. Advance warning for billowing clouds of smoke and hot air, and wild gesticulations and arm waving!!

        • Dr No says:

          Calm down and take your pills.
          If it makes you fell better let me reassure you there has been no nasty warming, it is all made up to scare naughty children.
          Go to sleep like a good denialist and tomorrow when you wake up everything will be just like it was in the 1950’s.

          • Bart says:

            Well, you’re about half right, anyway. It is intended to scare those who are mentally children, effectively with tales of monsters under the bed.

          • Dr No says:

            “..who are mentally children”
            Yep – that describes the majority of posters here.

      • David Appell says:

        UAH’s own press release says 2016 was warmer.

        “2016 Edges 1998 as Warmest Year on Record,” UAH 1/4/17
        http://www.newswise.com/articles/2016-edges-1998-as-warmest-year-on-record

        The real question is, why is Roy trying to spin it differently?

      • David Appell says:

        61% chance 2016 was the warmest year.

        Why didn’t Roy include that?

        Why is his blog’s headline so different from UAH’s press release headline?

  93. ren says:

    The low pulls cold air over the Great Lakes. Rain will freeze.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00857/omm7kua76lv5.png

  94. ren says:

    “The overall pattern first appears to be mild for much of the nation during the latter part of the month, unless the polar vortex comes into play.
    “There are some indications that the polar vortex may weaken enough to allow a southward discharge of arctic air prior to the end of the month,” according to AccuWeather Lead Long-Range Meteorologist Paul Pastelok.
    “Even in cases when there is certainty about the weakening of the polar vortex, you never know for sure where the discharge of cold air will be directed, such as western versus eastern U.S.,” Patelok said.
    If the polar vortex remains strong, then it will keep the arctic air locked up in the Arctic and more places in the lower 48 states may trend warmer rather than colder late in the month.
    “We believe the eastern part of the U.S. will trend colder and stormier again toward the end of the month, but the question is how much,” Pastelok said.”

    The speed of the solar wind will now drop quickly and you will see another wave in the stratosphere.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JFM_NH_2017.png

  95. Buck Turgidson says:

    Here it is, this is it for sure, the end of snow (!?) …. global warming melting everything and taking out ski industries around the world. We’re all doomed.

    http://www.9news.com/mb/weather/another-colorado-ski-resort-closes-because-of-too-much-snow/384814140

  96. Buck Turgidson says:

    Not really and actually kind of a lame effort. How about that snowpack on Mt Kilimanjaro that algore said was going to permanently disappear? Wrong again.

  97. Stevek says:

    Well happy I put the covers on the outdoor hose faucets. No busted piping. Got down to 17 here in college station a few days ago.

    The pool pumps kick on automatically when close to freezing. They were running for a couple of days.

  98. ren says:

    Nearly vertical temperature rise in the upper stratosphere. The polar vortex can again be broken.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.png

  99. ren says:

    Deadly blizzards and dangerously low temperatures continue to grip large parts of Europe, leading to at least 33 deaths in four days. While northern Europe is used to subzero temperatures, the extreme conditions have hit areas of southern Europe more used to mild winters. Temperatures in some parts of Greece plunged to as low as –18C, while some of its islands – home to thousands of refugees, many living in tents – have seen more than a metre of snow.
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/photos-extreme-winter-weather-that-gripping-much-europe-1600135
    Death toll 61, homeless and migrants at risk as deep freeze grips Europe
    Plunging temperatures and blizzards have wreaked havoc on much of the continent putting refugees, the homeless and the elderly in danger and suspending river shipping.
    https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/10/death-toll-61-homeless-and-migrants-at-risk-as-deep-freeze-grips-europe.html

  100. Nate says:

    Bart,

    ‘The raw data tell one story, then the climate mafia gets their hands on it, and adjusts it until it sings their tune. Its not a conspiracy theory. Its being done out in the open, right in front of our eyes.’

    If so then you should be able to tell us what theyve done wrong. In this case the paper is looking at sea-level rise of last two millenia. What did they do wrong?

    You should not assume that every paper you see that does not confirm your beliefs must be improperly done. This is just admitting that you are no longer objective.

    • Bart says:

      No, it is admitting that I am aware of how the sausage is made. Do you even know what an isostatic adjustment is?

    • Nate says:

      Of course. Why do you ask? Again, whats your issue with what theyve done?

      • Bart says:

        Splicing new data, subject to dodgy “adjustments”, onto an old record. An excellent way to fool yourself, even if you are honest. And, there is no reason to expect honesty from the “hide-the-decline” and “Karlization” crew.

        • David Appell says:

          Just vague weasley words that aren’t a critique in any way. It’s sounds like something Trump would say.

          • Bart says:

            That’s because you are not a technically adept person. To us, that is a blinking array of red lights on a STOP sign.

          • David Appell says:

            Again, weasel words. That’s all you’ve ever offered here on any comment. You’ve shown no signs at all of being “technically adept” at anything, except how to insult people, or that you know the science.

      • wert says:

        Why do you ask? Again, whats your issue with what theyve done?

        Oh I love your true American style. Let’s use it.

        I tell you what. You look into the eyes, and spot a liar. Easy as that. No need search for the lie or painfully locate it from an unpublished appendix of a paywalled paper.

        There are, of course other easy ways to spot a liar. Like use of ‘unprecedented’ for something usual or spin words like ‘catastrophe’ added with weasel words like ‘might’.

        The field is rich with liars. Defund, I say. Defund UN, defund NOAA. Make them explain. Then defund again if weaseling. This is the time to end spin and lie.

        • Nate says:

          Wert, ‘look into the eyes and spot the liar’

          I suggest you do just that. Sit down and have a beer with a climate scientist, look into their eyes and tell me what you see.

          I think you’ll find that they are regular people, just trying to do their jobs, for which they have spent many years training. Not liars, not pedofiles, not in it for the money.

          Or check the eyes of this climate scientist in the video…

          http://tinyurl.com/jkd3h96

  101. ren says:

    Product shows the average solar radiation absorbed (W/m2) in the earth-atmosphere system. It is derived from AVHRR Channels 1 and 2.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00858/2xt29osl1a54.gif

  102. ren says:

    It is already visible sudden increase in temperature in the stratosphere, from the highest to the lowest layers. The speed of the solar wind drops strongly.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.png
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb9065.png
    http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/pm_2week.imagemap?335,110
    This is reflected already on the rise in temperature in the Arctic.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png

  103. ren says:

    Let’s look at the forecast of the polar vortex at 17.01. Children in the UK will see a lot of snow.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/01/17/1200Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=13.18,76.12,342

  104. Gordon Robertson says:

    Just finished a book by ultra-marathoner Pat Farmer in which he claimed to run from the North Pole to the South Pole. I say claimed because it’s obviously not possible to run all the way due to obstructions like the southern ocean in between.

    The important thing is that he began his journey at the North Pole in early April of 2011. There was an estimated 3 metres of ice on the North Pole a fact borne out by the fact that a large helicopter landed on the ice carrying the 5 man team with all their equipment. The Russians had a temporary observatory nearby on the ice.

    They walked all the way to Ellesmere Island, several hundred kilometres and it was solid ice all the way except for where ice islands were running past other ice driven by tremendous currents in the ocean below. They were able to traverse these breaks of several feet using kayaks which doubled as equipment storage devices.

    When are the idiots who claim the Arctic is free of ice going to be officially exposed? Large swaths of ice do melt during the Arctic summer but here we are in early April 2011 with 3 metre thick ice all the way from the North Pole to the Canadian mainland.

    The ice is dynamic, a floating mass on the Arctic Ocean which lies up to 4000 metres below the ice. It is continuously in motion, being driven about by ocean currents and atmospheric winds. When large chunks of the ice collide, the ice is thrust upward, creating tiny mountains up to 20 metres high.

    During the melt, ice is driven southward into the Atlantic Ocean where it melts. That was proved by an earlier expedition to the Pole by Ranulph Fiennes who rode a huge chunks of ice from the NP down to the area west of Greenland where his expedition ship picked him up off the ice.

    • Dr No says:

      ha ha ha
      Typical ramblings from an armchair “expert” who thinks research involves reading about the adventures of others.
      Maybe that is all they stock at the old people’s library?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Dr No…”Typical ramblings from an armchair expert”

        Really got you with the facts, eh? When an alarmist gets caught out on fact, he reverts to childish behavior.

        The party ‘walked’ from the North Pole on 3 metre thick ice to the Canadian mainland IN EARLY APRIL 2011.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Dr no…

        BTW…only idiots get caught up in appeals to authority. When you have 5 real people walking on real ice from the North Pole to Ellesmere Island in early April, it kicks all your peer reviewed propaganda squarely in the pants.

        Anyone whose criterion for science is peer review is an idiot.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dr no…”…who thinks research involves reading about the adventures of others”.

        When the research tells you the ice is disappearing on the Arctic Ocean, and 5 people walk from the North Pole to Ellesmere Island in early April dragging 100 kg kayaks packed with equipment, what does that tell you about the research?

        Of course, there are always idiots like you who believe everything written on a research paper just because it’s a research paper.

        This guy and his support team, who walked from the NP in early April, if he had read your research papers he’d have concluded it was not possible since all the ice was gone. Fortunately he had not read the propaganda and went ahead and did it.

        His sources were people like his guide who do it all the time. Don’t you think the researchers might have checked with a guide or had the guts to go to the NP in winter and find out for themselves?

        The researchers to whom you refer are blatant liars who are spreading propaganda to create the impression that Arctic ice is disappearing. They are obviously extrapolating a couple of months in the Arctic summer to the entire Arctic year during which ice lies 3 metres thick over all of the Arctic Ocean.

        • Dr No says:

          Don’t let facts get in the way:
          “In the Arctic, temperature has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and could increase by another 8C (14F) by the end of this century. The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate12% per decadethat suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. The impacts of dwindling ice cover in the Arctic are far-reaching, from species endangerment to enhanced global warming, to the weakening or shut-down of global ocean circulation.”
          https://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no …”The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate…”

            Yeah…3 metres of ice at the North Pole and all the way to Ellesmere Island and Greenland, where it increases to more than 4 feet, as of Jan 2017, is sure a fast melt. What’s even more incredible is that the 3 metres has formed since last summer.

            Once again, the paper you site is a lie.

        • Dr No says:

          “Dont you think the researchers might have checked with a guide or had the guts to go to the NP in winter and find out for themselves?”

          If you can drag yourself out of your armchair, I suggest you come with me and we check it out for ourselves. Don’t forget to pack a warm rug, a hot water bottle, gloves and your favourite hat. We can also bring your nurse if you like. Be warned, toilet facilities are a bit primitive.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ren…thanks for graph of sea ice thickness. Right in the middle of that circle is the North Pole and it says about 3 metres or more. Our resident town fool, Dr No, wants to go up there to check it for himself.

            It’s also solid ice from the NP to land. Of course, every paper he selectively reads, claiming there is no ice up there, confirms in his addled, alarmist half-brain that no ice exists up there.

            What I’d like to do is drop him off at the NP by helicopter and see how long his hot air keeps him alive.

          • Dr No says:

            Who would you trust? – an ultra marathoner or a professional scientist like Peter Wadhams:

            “Peter Wadhams has spent his career in the Arctic, making more than 50 trips there, some in submarines under the polar ice. He is credited with being one of the first scientists to show that the thick icecap that once covered the Arctic ocean was beginning to thin and shrink. He was director of the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge from 1987 to 1992 and professor of ocean physics at Cambridge since 2001. His book, A Farewell to Ice, tells the story of his unravelling of this alarming trend and describes what the consequences for our planet will be if Arctic ice continues to disappear at its current rate.

            You have said on several occasions that summer Arctic sea ice would disappear by the middle of this decade. It hasnt. Are you being alarmist?
            No. There is a clear trend down to zero for summer cover. However, each year chance events can give a boost to ice cover or take some away. The overall trend is a very strong downward one, however. Most people expect this year will see a record low in the Arctics summer sea-ice cover. Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer and by that I mean the central Arctic will be ice-free. You will be able to cross over the north pole by ship.”
            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year

          • Dr No says:

            ” What Id like to do is drop him off at the NP by helicopter and see how long his hot air keeps him alive.”

            What Id like to do is drop GR off at the NP next summer by helicopter and see how long he survives in the water.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            On the other hand,

            “One talk was given by Prof Peter Wadhams, who is known for his statements that the Arctic ice will disappear completely around 2015, often promoted unquestioningly by irresponsible journalists.”

            And if not not 2015, then 2016, or 2017, or 2035, or . . .

            In the meantime, the sky might fall, the wolf might really come, and the dead might be resurrected!

            This is science?

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no…”There is a clear trend down to zero for summer cover”.

            Read the fine print. It says a decline in summer ice. It says nothing about the rest of the year. There is propaganda out there that the Arctic is ice free all year round.

            I have acknowledged summer ice disappears over most of the Arctic Ocean, always has, always will.

            When Ranulph Fiennes hiked to the NP he walked from Ellesmere Island to the Pole. They tried skidoos at first but could not get them past the large pressure ridges that predominate closer to shore and thin out nearer the Pole. So they walked.

            After reaching the Pole, the ice was breaking up in March around the Pole and he ended up sailing on a large chunk of it down to the Greenland area where he was taken of by his support ship. Pat Farmer was just lucky to have continuous ice from the NP to the mainland in early April.

            The experience by Fiennes proves that ice moves from the Arctic in large chunks into the North Atlantic.

            Here’s another one of those factual reports you hate. Circa 1940, the RCMP boat, the St. Roch, was piloted by Captain Henry Larsen of the RCMP from Vancouver to Halifax and back. On the trip east, Larsen was trapped in ice off the northern coast of Canada and it took two years to make the trip to Halifax. On the way back they sailed straight through in 86 days.

            In his book, Larsen explained that sailing through the Arctic Ocean depends on prevailing winds and ocean currents, which can blow ice around and cut you off. That’s in the summer.

            In the winter, there is no way through the Arctic whatsoever. These stories of opening the Northwest Passage to sailing traffic is sheer delusion. You ‘might’ get through in the summer window but the other 10 months of the year you can forget it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no…apparently Wadhams is known for his propaganda and whining.

            https://cliscep.com/2016/08/18/more-idiocy-from-john-vidal-and-peter-wadhams/

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “This is science?”

            It’s one person’s opinion.

            If you mistake that for “science,” you don’t understand how science works.

  105. Gordon Robertson says:

    Please note that when scientists talk about an ice free Arctic they are talking about summer and that does not mean totally ice free. As long as the Arctic cools as it normally does in winter, for 10 months of the year, there’s no way there will ever be an ice free Arctic year round.

    • Dr No says:

      “theres no way there will ever be an ice free Arctic year round.”
      Who said that it would?
      Answer=nobody.

      Wadhams specifically said:
      “Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer and by that I mean the central Arctic will be ice-free.”

      (Why am I wasting time debating with fools and their red herrings?)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dr no…”Wadhams specifically said:
        Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer and by that I mean the central Arctic will be ice-free.

        (Why am I wasting time debating with fools and their red herrings?)”

        Why are you debating at all, you never read what is said?

        Once again, and this is from your own quote…”…I think it will be free of ice in summer…”

        I said, as long as the Arctic winter features severe temperatures in the winter (10 months), the Arctic will never be ice free ‘year round’.

    • Dr No says:

      “apparently Wadhams is known for his propaganda and whining.”

      What a great response ! (not).
      A classic case of shooting the messenger.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dr no…”apparently Wadhams is known for his propaganda and whining. What a great response ! (not). A classic case of shooting the messenger”.

        Shooting the messenger is a reference to someone like you speaking on behalf of Wadhams and someone like me calling you an idiot. When Wadhams himself makes ridiculous claims, as in the link I supplied, he’s a propagandist and a whiner.

        Even Gavin Schmidt claims he’s wrong. How bad is that?

        Here’s the link again:

        https://cliscep.com/2016/08/18/more-idiocy-from-john-vidal-and-peter-wadhams/

        • Dr No says:

          cliscep.com is a site for denialists, amateurs, conspiracy theorists and right wing nut jobs.
          Try citing a decent source next time.
          And, please, no more books about adventurers from last century.

      • wert says:

        No,

        the wound was self-inflicted.

        Now it IS interesting if the Artic happens to open by September, but that has less meaning than our left-leaning activists tend to claim.

        Wadhams is a wacko.

  106. David Appell says:

    Roy, what is the secret to getting comments published here.

    Anymore only about 1/4th of those I make appear. The rest just vanish.

    Or is this by design?

    • My guess is that Roy can only tolerate a limited amount of BS here.

      Or perhaps Roy deletes your more stupid comments to protect you from well deserved ridicule.

    • Bart says:

      Don’t be paranoid. Mine vanish if I make reference to, or include links to, sites that apparently have been loaded into the filter.

      I do not know why he has banned Double-U-Eff-Tee, though. It merely carries data, and makes no stand on the issues.

  107. Norman says:

    David Appell

    I knew responding to you would be quite the waste of time. You are completely dishonest and also seem quite stupid or thoughtless.

    In post above (not sure why I am responding to you, you are not at all concerned with finding truth or science, you are a paid troll whose job is to disrupt thoughtful process)

    YOUR phony post (maybe the goal is to get someone upset with your dishonest ploy so when they toss an insult you claim some type of childish victory).

    YOU: “Norman says:
    Norman says:
    I gave you detailed calculations that could explain heat accumulation in the ocean.

    No, you did not. You tossed some numbers around, who knows where they came from, but you in no way explained ocean heating, which by now is over 300 trillion watts just for the top half alone.”

    Either you are an idiot or dishonest or probably both. From the other thread where this discussion took place I posted the link twice!!

    Here is the link again for the third time.
    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-05/1148725781.Es.r.html

    Since you are dishonest and an idiot with extreme laziness along with it I will post the section from the link that contains the information I was using.

    “Earth’s hydrologic cycle was reported in a 1989 Scientific American article
    (J.W.M. laRiviere, 261 (3), 80-94), which I will summarize here.
    Evaporation takes place over the oceans and continents. Over the oceans,
    this amounts to 425,000 cubic kilometers per year. ”

    Do you see the number 425,000 cubic kilometers per year?

    Also you seem to lack your own thought process. You can only evaluate something if it completely agrees with you own beliefs and is peer reviewed and you cannot follow logic thought on your own.

    Okay, idiot, there are different ways heat can accumulate in an object (in this case the oceans).

    To spell it out for your limited thought process.

    1) You can increase the incoming energy (the only one you seem capable of understanding)

    2) You can leave the incoming energy the same and reduce the outgoing rate of energy (you really have a hard time with this one)

    3) With variations that would be too complex for you to evaluate and understand…you can decrease incoming energy but if you decrease the outgoing energy more than the incoming, you can still accumulate energy in the object.

    4) You an increase the incoming energy and also increase the outgoing energy but if the outgoing energy increase is less than the incoming energy the amount of energy in the object will accumulate.

    5) With your limited ability to reason you should quit posting on Roy’s blog and talk just to your cat who would still think you clever and intelligent since it does not have the higher reasoning to see you are an ignoramus with a deep dishonest streak.

    You have to live with your dishonest personality.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman says:
      “I knew responding to you would be quite the waste of time. You are completely dishonest and also seem quite stupid or thoughtless.”

      Stop making excuses for your inability to answer legitimate scientific questions.

      And stop the insults. It makes you look insecure, and childish.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman says:
      “4) You an increase the incoming energy and also increase the outgoing energy but if the outgoing energy increase is less than the incoming energy the amount of energy in the object will accumulate.”

      Am I supposed to be impressed because you quoted the First Law of Thermodynamics?

    • David Appell says:

      Norman says:
      “5) With your limited ability to reason you should quit posting on Roys blog and talk just to your cat who would still think you clever and intelligent since it does not have the higher reasoning to see you are an ignoramus with a deep dishonest streak.”

      More insults, Norman.

      Too bad if my replies and questions cause you so much anxiety. Deal with by producing better science. Or any science.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman says:
      “Okay, idiot, there are different ways heat can accumulate in an object….”

      I once thought name calling was beneath you, Norman.

      Except maybe, it seems, when you’ve faced with good, tough questions?

    • Norman,
      Amen! Given David Appell’s moral shortcomings you can’t persuade him. He can’t handle the truth or even recognize it.

      • Norman says:

        gallopingcamel

        He has stated he has a PhD in theoretical physics. That trumps my BA in Chemistry. You would have to be fairly bright to attain such a degree. I have hope that the scientist (one who seeks the truth) in him will emerge if he sees enough science based comments. I get a little annoyed with his posts from time to time that seem dishonest but I have a lot of hope that a gifted scientist is lurking behind the posts. He must have a deep love of science to work hard enough to spend the time and effort to get a higher level degree.

        • David Appell says:

          Dishonest how?

          Or do you label “dishonest” as anything you disagree with?

          Prove it or retract the your ugly claim.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Maybe you are a brilliant scientist but you have trouble with English comprehension.

            Here are my exact wording: “I get a little annoyed with his posts from time to time that seem dishonest”

            “seem dishonest”

            It is when I post a link telling you where I got 425,000 km^3 evaporation from then you claim I did not provide such information, then I posted it again and you still made that claim. That is dishonest in my opinion. You are attempting to discredit my posts in the minds’ of ignorant readers even though you know full well I provided the information you claim I did not. How is that not dishonest???

        • Bart says:

          “He has stated he has a PhD in theoretical physics.”

          Maybe he does. His outlook does appear to consist of spherical cows.

        • David Appell can’t grasp physics I learned in high school so like you I was suspicious of his qualifications. I did take the time to research his background. He has a physics degree and has published at least one peer reviewed paper.

          Most of my life has been spent building things including the world’s brightest gamma ray source:
          http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php

          Even though I got into academia (where the publishing of papers matters) in my dotage I participated in the writing of many peer reviewed papers. For example:
          http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/504613/
          http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/988166/

          I apologize for the fact that most of my papers are still behind paywalls but none of this is relevant because my involvement in “Climate Science” is on an amateur level. I would be no more qualified to have an opinion on climate science than David Appell but for the fact that I ate lunch with people who are highly qualified, such as colleagues at the Nicholas School of Climate Science, Nicola Scafetta and Robert G. Brown.

      • David Appell says:

        GC: Now it’s moral shortcomings, huh?

        Is that really the worst you can accuse me of? I think it’s not.

        The lengths some people will go through to avoid admitting they are wrong……

  108. Norman says:

    David Appell

    More moronic comments from you with no real desire to share knowledge or understanding.

    YOU: “Norman says:
    So if you can see changes in clouds could easily explain the warming and loss of snow that took place from the 70s to the current era.

    Ifififififififififififififififif

    Wheres your data? Wheres your proof?

    Do you think youre the only person in the world to ever have thought about this.”

    NO, I do not think I am the only person who has though about this!! When did I even come close to giving you such a false notion? You attribute all warming to Carbon Dioxide without considering any other mechanisms that could result in a warming surface. I have already told you that I could not find the data about the clouds, but clouds changes can produce effects equal to all that you believe only carbon dioxide can cause.

    You really are dense or intentionally dishonest to act like you do not understand my point. Climate Scientists mostly study the effects of carbon dioxide on warming and do very little research in the other areas. Why? Maybe the Government is not funding such research hence little data in that area.

    Don’t be so dishonest and dense. Open your mind a little. You are as closed in your blind beliefs (completely unscientific thought process) as the most radical deniers are in their beliefs.

    I have no strong belief one way or the other. I am seeking the truth as objectively as possible. I wish you would do the same.

  109. David Appell says:

    Norman, you clearly want to avoid reality and think that manmade CO2 doesn’t cause warming.

    But your proposals of albedo changes or dragons or leprechauns not only lack evidence…

    …but they don’t disprove the role of CO2.

    You’d need to also prove that anthropogenic CO2 *doesn’t* cause warming. But all the science in the last 170 years shows clearly that it does.

    Why are you so against admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?? What is it about that fact that bothers you so much personally?

    • AlanF says:

      The science only shows that under certain assumptions CO2 could possibly be responsible for or a fraction of the observed warming. The science is based on the unproven assumption that the warming in the recent past is attributable to increased CO2 (at least in part) and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

      Sounds a bit circular to me.

      • David Appell says:

        AlanF says:
        “The science only shows that under certain assumptions CO2 could possibly be responsible for or a fraction of the observed warming. The science is based on the unproven assumption that the warming in the recent past is attributable to increased CO2 (at least in part) and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”

        Nope. Nope. And nope.

        If you don’t think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you have no right to even be commenting here, or anywhere.

    • Norman says:

      David Appell

      YOUR Post: “Norman, you clearly want to avoid reality and think that manmade CO2 doesnt cause warming.”

      I do not believe I have ever made such a claim. The question is how much. I can see on this webpage:

      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

      Direct measurements of downwelling IR which is a combination of GHG’s and clouds. I do understand carbon dioxide does produce some warming of the surface. The thing I question here is how much and to what extent and how bad will such effect be.

      Your other point is not so valid. It is a false argument tactic.
      Here you post: “But your proposals of albedo changes or dragons or leprechauns not only lack evidence”

      Albedo effects are quite real and they are changing, the Earth’s albedo is not static and it would not be in the same basket as dragons or leprechauns. The lack of evidence is because it is not available to me at this time and I have not been able to find any links to it. It might be out there but I have not found it. But the false argument is to lump fantasy items in with something quite real and measurable.

      • David Appell says:

        Norman says:
        “The thing I question here is how much and to what extent and how bad will such effect be.”

        But you’re not questioning it with science, evidence, and data.

        Instead you’re just throwing out all sorts of ideas, including the kitchen sink, in the hope something might stick.

        In the meantime, the science says manmade factors explain all of modern warming. There isn’t a natural cause in sight — and you haven’t provided evidence of any.

      • David Appell says:

        Norman says:
        “Albedo effects are quite real and they are changing,”

        Provide the evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • David Appell says:

        Norman says:
        “The lack of evidence is because it is not available to me at this time and I have not been able to find any links to it.”

        OMG.

        For me it’s the same with dragons. The lack of evidence is because it is not available to me at this time and I have not been able to find any links to it.

    • David Appell thinks CO2 causes “Global Warming” and physics says he is right.

      The problem is separating the effect of CO2, which may be smaller than we can hope to measure using the best tools we have, from the many “Natural Factors”.

      If CO2 was a significant factor we would be seeing evidence of “Global Warming” over the last 18 years. Instead there is no warming so people like Appell talk about “Climate Change”:
      https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-calculations/

      David Appell has already seen the above links but some of the faithful here may like them more than he does.

  110. Norman says:

    David Appell

    Your final comments in your most recent post:
    “Youd need to also prove that anthropogenic CO2 *doesnt* cause warming. But all the science in the last 170 years shows clearly that it does.

    Why are you so against admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?? What is it about that fact that bothers you so much personally?”

    I do not hold such opinions and I am not “so against admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas”. I think that might be the thoughts of Mike Flynn or some others. It is not my position on the topic.

    • David Appell says:

      Then what do you calculate for CO2’s climate sensitivity?

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        I have not attempted to calculate the Carbon Dioxide climate sensitivity. Not sure I plan on it in the future. And it would seem a wasted effort to submit it in a post on this blog in response to your question since you would not accept it unless it agreed with what you believe it is. Others have done the calculation and come up with a wide range of possible answers. One more attempt will not do much more in this area.

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

        Seems between 1.5 C and 4.5 C is the accepted range with some models predicting much higher values than these.

        In the wiki article they describe how Carbon Dioxide doubling will increase the downwelling IR by 3.7 W/m^2 which they calculate will result in a 1 C increase. The point I have been making is that the surface of the Earth is already at a plus 105.4 W/m^2 radiation balance. It would heat considerably if radiation alone controlled the surface temperature

        (Using this global energy budget graphic:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg)

        The reason the surface is not frying at this time is because evaporation and thermals remove nearly all the 105.4 W/m^2 from the surface and distribute it into the upper levels of the Troposphere. The entire troposphere is warmer (the moist adiabatic lapse rate is considerably lower than a dry one which keeps the whole troposphere warmer).

        My point is if you increase or decrease the radiant energy without considering changes in the other energy distribution mechanisms will not lead to a valid scientific study.

        Mr. Appell. If you studied science at a higher level you know you have to control for all variables that influence what you are observing. With an increase in global surface temperature or ocean heat content you cannot just look at radiation and make a valid conclusion of what is going on. You have to monitor all variables that have an effect on the temperatures you are observing. Even if longwave radiation increases by 3.7 W/m^2 you could not establish how this will change the surface temperature without understanding how this one increase will effect the other mechanisms. If the radiant increase causes evaporation rates to increase you may not see any surface change in temperature.

        • David Appell says:

          Norman says:
          “Mr. Appell. If you studied science at a higher level you know you have to control for all variables that influence what you are observing.”

          Norman, I have a PhD in theoretical physics.

          So get off your f-ing high horse and start thinking and start providing data.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Since you have a PhD in theoretical physics why is does it seem a bad idea to look at all the possible variables that influence surface temperature? GHE is one but it is not the only one, why reluctant to look at the others and really consider their effects.

            What data are you requesting I provide?

            You do not seem to like anything I have provided to date. Provide specifics on exactly what you are requesting. I did show you that Northern Hemisphere snow cover is not currently changing (up or down) why isn’t it shrinking now?

          • David Appell says:

            It’s NOT a bad idea. Climate scientists have, of course, been doing it forever.

            Where’s your evidence?????????????????????

            You never have any. Just wild ideas. Wild ideas aren’t enough. They don’t prove anything.

            Honest question: do you understand how to provide support for a hypothesis?

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “I did show you that Northern Hemisphere snow cover is not currently changing (up or down) why isnt it shrinking now?”

            I don’t know — why?

            Over the full record, NH snow cover is decreasing at a rate of -24.1 Kkm2/yr

            Monthly NH snow cover
            Source:
            http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=2

        • David Appell says:

          Norman says:
          “I have not attempted to calculate the Carbon Dioxide climate sensitivity.”

          Then you know nothing.

          You’re desperately searching for some other cause, ANY OTHER CAUSE, of modern warming.

          *But there isn’t one.*

          Your failure to provide evidence for one, or more, shows that clearly.

          You want to blame dragons, when the answer is right before you. But you don’t dare look at it. Why is that? Do you have something against warming by carbon dioxide (and other aGHGs and factors)?

        • David Appell says:

          Norman says:
          “In the wiki article they describe how Carbon Dioxide doubling will increase the downwelling IR by 3.7 W/m^2 which they calculate will result in a 1 C increase.”

          Another big mistake, Norman.

          That number — should be 1.2 C — is WITHOUT any feedbacks.

          But feedbacks exist, and are already happening.

          That brings climate sensitivity up to 2-4.5 C.

    • Dr No says:

      Game, set and match to David Appell.

  111. Norman says:

    David Appell

    I was trying post a quote from the paper but it would not take allow it, I tried to put spaces in between different words but no luck.

    In the paper the Authors make the claim that the change in cloud albdeo in a few decades was equal to an increase in solar energy reaching the surface of 6.8 W/m^2 while CO2 effects since 1850 add up to 2.4 W/m^2. The albedo effect of a few decades is almost 3 times the energy input to the surface as longwave backradiation from carbon dioxide.

    Since I am unable to post the quote directly you will have to click the link and find this yourself.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, the science is looking more and more like the cloud feedback is positive:

      Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.

      Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.

      Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,
      Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
      DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.

      Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.

      Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earths energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, if there’s a 6.8 W/m2 increase in downwelling solar radiation, that should be very easy to measure.

      Where are those measurements?

      In contrast, what I’ve seen are mostly results about solar dimming.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        With your solar dimming are you talking about the solar flux at the TOA of around 1364 W/m^2? It may be going down slightly. That is not what the authors are talking about. They are talking about how much solar energy is being absorbed by the surface. I will keep looking maybe I will find some information to support the increase of 6.8 W/m^2 solar energy to the surface because of reduced cloud albedo during the time frame of 1985 to 2000.

  112. Norman says:

    David Appell

    The paper in the link above was to satisfy your demand for evidence of cloud albedo effect and give an actual number to the effect. Happy reading.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, your paper’s abstract found “…a steady decrease in Earths reflectance from 1984, to 2000, with a strong climatologically significant drop after 1995.”

      Why are you assuming this is all due to clouds, and not due to, say, declining Arctic sea ice and/or the greening planet?

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        The paper gives the change in reflectance as 6.8 W/m^2. Tamino on Open Mind has done an extensive calculation to determine the change in global energy budget from the loss of sea ice at 0.13 W/m^2. Much smaller than the 6.8.

        The loss of Arctic Sea ice over the decades would only make up about 2% of the calculated reflectance change.

        https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/sea-ice-insolation/

        Link to Tamino’s calculations on his blog Open Mind.

        • David Appell says:

          Where are the measurements of +6.8 W/m2 of solar insolation?

        • David Appell says:

          Norman says:
          “Tamino on Open Mind has done an extensive calculation to determine the change in global energy budget from the loss of sea ice at 0.13 W/m^2. Much smaller than the 6.8.”

          I trust the professionals more:

          “We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.”

          — K. Pistone, I. Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan (2014). Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 3322-3326.
          http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf

  113. While I love Norman’s energy he won’t persuade David Appell who will never allow himself to be influenced by observations. He thinks that models trump reality.

    • David Appell says:

      What observations am I ignoring?

      • You ignore anything that does not agree with your alternate reality.

        You will be glad to hear that I won’t be wasting time on the “Climate Wars” any more. The war is over and it will be “Drill Baby, Drill” in the USA. In Europe they may choose to continue with expensive “Green Energy” but nobody will care. The European Union is doomed.

        Here is something that may help you understand what is happening:
        https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/a-message-in-two-parts-part-two/#comment-24264

        Many skeptical bloggers have fallen silent because they won. The Globalists on the Left will probably keep on yapping but it won’t matter. It may be time for you to seek honest work.

        • David Appell says:

          Again: What observations am I ignoring?

          No answer?

          • Kristian says:

            You ignore (and/or deny) the unambiguous real-world observations showing how the current positive radiative imbalance at the ToA, leading to a net accumulation of energy inside the Earth system, is caused not by a “strengthened GHE” (as in reduced OLR), but simply by an increase in the solar input (ASR) as a result of a significant reduction in the mean level of reflected SW during the 90s. All the while, the OLR evidently does nothing but track the tropospheric temperatures over time, a mere radiative effect of air temps, and so naturally rose along with them pre 2000 (ERBS Ed3_Rev1) and stayed relatively flat with them post 2000 (CERES EBAF Ed2.8, SYN1deg Ed3A, SSF1deg Ed4A) (HIRS, ISCCP FD).

            And so there is no observational trace from the real Earth system of any “enhanced GHE” from the significant rise in atmospheric CO2 (and WV) over the last 30-35 years, no sign of any reduction in the heat OUT (OLR), only clear signs of an increase in the heat IN (from the Sun) (ASR).

          • David Appell says:

            Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

  114. Norman says:

    David Appell

    If you have the time, read more than the abstract.

    Within the paper itself. (provided the quote will post):
    “These large
    variations in reflectance imply climatologically
    significant cloud-driven changes in Earths radiation
    budget, which is consistent with the
    large tropospheric warming that has occurred
    over the most recent decades”

    • David Appell says:

      Except, Norman, we have good measurements of CO2’s radiative forcing, and its increase agrees with climate models:

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

      You can’t disregard CO2 warming just because you don’t like it. It exists, no matter what else might be going on.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman wrote:
      Within the paper itself.
      These large variations in reflectance imply climatologically significant cloud-driven changes in Earths radiation budget, which is consistent with the
      large tropospheric warming that has occurred over the most recent decades

      Of course clouds affect the radiation budget!

      That hardly means they affect the albedo for sunlight.

      Major boner, Norman.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        I would not think you found a “Major boner”

        Albedo and reflectance are synonymous terms. Look at this link to confirm:
        https://www.powerthesaurus.org/albedo

        The quote “These large variations in reflectance imply climatologically significant cloud-driven changes in Earths radiation budget, which is consistent with the
        large tropospheric warming that has occurred over the most recent decades”

        Would be the same if they substituted albedo for reflectance so it might read:
        “These large variations in albedo imply climatologically significant cloud-driven changes in Earths radiation budget, which is consistent with the
        large tropospheric warming that has occurred over the most recent decades”

        The changes in reflectance are cloud driven.

        • David Appell says:

          Norman, albedo is about EM radiation IN THE SOLAR SPECTRUM.

          Clouds reflect some of that. They also reflect some upwelling IR back downward.

          But albedo is not about IR.

  115. Norman says:

    David Appell

    Again I have to specifically ask you why you are continuing to make the claim: YOU: “You cant disregard CO2 warming just because you dont like it. It exists, no matter what else might be going on.”

    First, in what post did I disregard CO2 warming? Because I am making a claim that there are other factors does not mean I am dismissing one.

    The strangest of all you word choice in this post would be “just because you don’t like it.” Wow that is really odd. First this is science and not a food eating contest or a fashion show. Like or dislike has zero basis. The term like or dislike for the influence of carbon dioxide warming is senseless.

    The papers you supply I have read. They indicate a measured clear-sky downwelling IR signal because of increased carbon dioxide. But clear-sky is only a fraction of real-sky. Also the papers only discuss the increase in radiation. Because of other effects you cannot use a single energy flux and use it to determine temperature. Dr. Roy Spencer has made this claim in other posts. It is not just the energy in that determines the temperature, you must also measure energy out.

    If the 1.82 W/m^2 increase in downwelling IR produces a greater rate of evaporation, the surface temperature may not increase at all, the warming would be spread out throughout the troposphere and cause little surface effect or it could go into the oceans and raise the average temperature by 0.06 C (which is not noticeable my most living systems) and cause no noticeable effect on surface temperatures.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, ALL your posts disregard CO2. You never mentionit. Your entire attitude exhibits that.

    • David Appell says:

      Roy, again my comments are being blocked.

      What is wrong with your blog, and why don’t you care enough to fix this?

      Or is this by design maybe?

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        Are you trying to post links? Or if you use certain word combos it may reject them. I have got rejected items to pass the filters by putting spaces between the letters such as D *o* u* g* C* o* t* t* o* n*. Without spaces the post is rejected.

        Sorry you are having a hard time posting. I am starting to enjoy the interaction with you to work to get at the truth, the ultimate goal of science.

        Spaces alone did not allow it to pass through the filters.

        • David Appell says:

          Yes, but even when I take the links out, or try to abbreviate them, I’m denied. There is no rhyme or reason to it, that I can detect.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            It may not be the links but the word choice that you included. Maybe try to just post a lone link to see if it goes through and make a comment on the link in a new post following the linked post.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, I don’t care. I’m tired of trying to guess what words or links aren’t up to Roy’s standards.

  116. David Appell says:

    Norman, right now I’m blocked from substantial comments here. Sorry.

  117. Norman says:

    David Appell

    Did you miss the article I posted where two people calculated the climate sensitivity of doubling Carbon Dioxide?

    I am not disagreeing that Carbon Dioxide will increase the downwelling IR slightly (mostly clear-sky conditions it seems).

    The stated number for doubling CO2 is given as 3.7 W/m^2 out of the 340 W/m^2 for the current level of downwelling IR.

    If you use these given numbers. Divide 3.7/340 to get 0.01088

    Multiply the effect increase of doubled CO2 on the stated value of GHE at 33 C and you get 0.3591 C or in the ballpark of the paper I linked to that calculated 0.43 C for doubling of Carbon Dioxide.

    I am not ignoring CO2 effect, I just think it is rather small and other mechanisms need to be looked at.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, I didn’t miss that article. As I pointed out to you, they uses a 1-D climate model, not 3-D, and assumed things like clouds were constant.

      Completely unrealistic.

      Why should I believe it, when so many other papers come to very different conclusions?

    • David Appell says:

      And you never did answer how climate sensitivity to CO2 can be about 0.4 C, when CO2 has only increased 45% but warming is already 1 C.

      That doesn’t strike you as strange??

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        I did answer your question on the previous thread.

        YOU: “And you never did answer how climate sensitivity to CO2 can be about 0.4 C, when CO2 has only increased 45% but warming is already 1 C”

        It could indicate CO2 is only responsible for less than a quarter of the warming we are seeing in temperature studies of the the surface temperature. That is why maybe looking really closely at clouds might help explain what is going on. I think the reflectance paper I linked to does this already. Reflectance changes amount to 6.8 W/m^2 while increase in CO2 amounts for 2.4 W/m^2.

        It could be the long term cycles that we have found (PDO, ADO, etc) may alter cloud patterns (not just extent of cloud cover but the type of clouds formed…clouds are very complex in global energy budgets) in large scales causing warming and cooling depending on what the clouds do and with addition of CO2 the baseline will have gone up some from these other effects (natural variables in the climate system).

        • David Appell says:

          Norman says:
          “That is why maybe looking really closely at clouds might help explain what is going on.”

          Turns out this paper is flawed.

          See my link below.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman says:
      “I am not disagreeing that Carbon Dioxide will increase the downwelling IR slightly (mostly clear-sky conditions it seems).”

      Why doesn’t CO2 emit downward just because there are clouds above it?

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, that’s about the crappiest calculation, full of crappy assumptions, that I’ve ever seen.

      Temperature varies as the 1/4th power of radiation. It’s not linear.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        Yes temperature varies with the 1/4th power of radiation and is not linear. That means changes in radiation have less effect on changes in temperature than a linear relationship would generate.

        Okay than maybe you will like this one better.

        Take the 4th root of 340 to get a ratio: 4.294

        Now go with the increase caused by doubling CO2 so you take the 4th root of 343.7 to get a ratio of 4.3057

        Subtract the increased ratio 4.3057 – 4.294 to get 0.0117 multiply the ratio change by 33 to find the new temperature which seems to come up with an increase of 0.3861 C which again seems close to the 0.43 given in the paper.

      • Bart says:

        “Temperature varies as the 1/4th power of radiation. Its not linear.”

        You are not familiar with linearization of nonlinear relationships, and the calculation of sensitivities? Some theoretical physicist.

  118. David Appell says:

    Norman, it seems there are some big problems with your 2004 Palle paper:

    http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~kbian/sgc/ClimateMythSGC119G.html

  119. Norman says:

    David Appell

    In the last paper of your link:
    Palle, E. 27 October 2008

    I looked at the graphs at the end of the article and in Figure 2 (page 22) it still shows that from 1985 to 2000 the albedo dropped by 1% in that time before going back up to around the same level as 1985.

    A 1% change in albedo based on the abledo calculator available:
    http://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/climat/radbal.html

    enough to make a change of 1 C based just upon the difference in albedo from 1985 to 2000.

    Try the number yourself to satisfy your questions.

    • David Appell says:

      From Palle et al, JGR 2008
      http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf

      “In the common period, earthshine, CERES along with ISCCP-FD data show a trendless albedo. However, preceding CERES, earthshine and ISCCP-FD reflectances show a significant increase before flattening and holding the increase. This implies a reduction in the net sunlight reaching Earth.”

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        The Author defines the term “common period” to be: “Over the common period of 1999-2004. This is not 1985 to 2000. Did you look at Figure 2 at the end of the article before making this post from the article conclusion?

        • David Appell says:

          Figure 2 in the 2008 paper shows an albedo that jumps all over the place from 1984-2000. It is far from obvious that the trend over that period is downward.

          But the trend from 2000-2006 is clearly upward. Where is the associated strong cooling?

  120. Norman says:

    David Appell

    “Clouds have a strong impact on Earths radiation
    budget: -45 W m-2 shortwave; +30 W m-2 longwave.”

    The overall effect of clouds present is cooling. More clouds lead to more cooling, less clouds lead to warming of the surface. This article takes in the effect of both loss of SW to the surface and the increase in LW to surface. The NET effect is -15 W/m^2.

    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pres/SchwartzCloudFractionW.pdf

    An interesting article if you like this sort of material.

    It describes how a simple view of cloud fraction does not go deep enough since not only the amount of clouds matter but also the types of clouds since they have different Net effects.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman says:
      “The overall effect of clouds present is cooling….”

      But the cloud feedback on climate change looks to be positive. See the several links I posted above.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        You may want to read your links so you understand what they are saying.

        I looked at one:

        http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/PacCloudFeedback.pdf

        In the conclusion they bring up the point: “The question of whether low-level clouds act
        as a positive or negative feedback to climate
        change has been an issue for decades. The analysis
        presented here provides observational evidence
        that this feedback is positive in the NE
        Pacific on decadal time scales. The only model
        in the CMIP3 archive that properly simulates
        clouds in the NE Pacific and exhibits 2 CO2
        circulation changes that are consistent with multimodel
        mean produces a reduction in cloud
        throughout much of the Pacific in response to
        greenhouse gas forcing (i.e., a positive feedback)”

        Low clouds do not warm the Earth, they cool is. According to their model runs (which is just as speculative as you accuse me of being) the low cloud cover will decrease with doubling of Carbon Dioxide. This is just a guess, not a reality. The low clouds do cool and these links have nothing to do with the point I am discussing. The feedback is positive because they believe a warming world will lead to less low cloud cover.

        • David Appell says:

          Norman, that paper found a positive low-level cloud feedback. Positive.

          “Low clouds do not warm the Earth, they cool is.”

          We’re not talking about the baseline climate, we’re talking about CLIMATE CHANGE.

  121. Stephen says:

    On January 7th my son who lives in Pensacola send out a text to his family, his car doors were frozen shut. His brother and sister in West Virginia had little sympathy for him.

  122. pochas94 says:

    Now you southerners coming north in winter, remember you can get frostbite in 10 seconds, so be sure to wear your Russian fur hat with ear flaps, arctic down – filled parka and insulated boots and gloves, even on the plane. Chap stick and goggles are a must for protection against the icy wind. Don’t remove until safely inside your destination, but keep handy. We experience lengthy power outages which could last days. Have a safe trip.

  123. @Norman,
    David Appell attempted to dismiss your arguments with this:
    “Norman, I have a PhD in theoretical physics.”

    In the real world you are winning this debate hands down. David Appell’s qualifications are suspect. He would not need the “Ex Cathedra” approach if his arguments had any merit.

    You have already nailed David Appell’s main shortcomings that cause most reasonable people to reject his positions:

    1. Poor “Reading Comprehension”. Appell simply can’t understand anything that clashes with his alternate reality.

    2. Appell thinks that anything “Peer Reviewed” is true. Real scientists know that every scientific hypothesis is false.

  124. Kristian says:

    David Appell,

    You consistently and habitually ignore (and/or deny) the unambiguous real-world observations showing how the current positive radiative imbalance at the ToA, leading to a net accumulation of energy inside the Earth system, is caused not by a strengthened GHE (as in reduced OLR), but simply by an increase in the solar input (ASR) as a result of a significant reduction in the mean level of reflected SW during the 90s. All the while, the OLR evidently does nothing but track the tropospheric temperatures over time, a mere radiative effect of air temps, and so naturally rose along with them pre 2000 (ERBS Ed3_Rev1) and stayed relatively flat with them post 2000 (CERES EBAF Ed2.8, SYN1deg Ed3A, SSF1deg Ed4A) (HIRS, ISCCP FD).

    And so there is no observational trace from the real Earth system of any enhanced GHE from the significant rise in atmospheric CO2 (and WV) over the last 30-35 years, no sign of any reduction in the heat OUT (OLR), only clear signs of an increase in the heat IN (from the Sun) (ASR).

  125. baidu says:

    A spokeperson for Whistles pointed out that “The existing shareholders have baidu demonstrated their confidence in the future baidu of the business by invest baidu,5 Top Tips to Being a Mystery Shopper – Get Paid to Shop_58307. ing additional funds to support the acceleration of the strategy. This investment, together with the final repayment of Glitnir’s term debt, has led The Cost Cutting Reusable Polypropylene Shopping Bags_55669.

  126. baidu says:

    A spokeperson for Whistles pointed out that ?The existing baidu baidu,Dry Cleaning Techniques of Carpet Cleaning_37472. shareholders have demonstrated their confidence in the future of the business by investing additional funds to support the acceleration of the strategy. This investment, together with the final repayment of Glitnir?s term debt, has led to som