Hiatus confirmed as scientists finally admit climate model fail

  • RSS satellites v models

A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing Daily Caller  New Foundationand what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.

This is a huge admission by climate scientists and a big victory for skeptics of man-made global warming who have for years been pointing to a mismatch between climate model predictions and actual temperature observations.

“Overall, the paper is an admission by prominent members of the ‘mainstream’ scientific community that the earth’s surface temperature over the past two decades or so has not evolved in a way that was well-anticipated by either the scientific community and/or the climate models they rely on,” Chip Kappenberger, climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News foundation.

“Something that the skeptic have been pointing out for years,” Knappenberger said.

Knappenberger and fellow Cato climate scientist Patrick Michaels have been prominent critics of climate models relied upon by “mainstream” scientists because they say the models have not accurately predicted global temperature rises for the past six decades.

In a recent paper, Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to predictions made by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists. What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.

Michaels and Knappenberger aren’t alone. Satellite-derived temperature readings have shown a “hiatus” in global warming for at least the last 18 years, despite rising carbon dioxide emissions.

While some scientists have tried to discredit satellite readings, they have been unable to explain the lack of significant warming in recent years.

“When a theory contradicts the facts” you need to change the theory, climate scientist John Christy told Congress in January hearing. “The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”

Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer compile satellite-derived temperature readings at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Their satellite data has shown no warming for about two decades, and has been cited by researchers skeptical of claims of catastrophic global warming.

“The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.”

“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.

Now, skepticism seems to have won the day — at least in terms of convincing other scientists there’s a big problem with climate models.

Fyfe’s study — which was co-authored by Michael Mann of “hockey stick” curve fame — contradicts a study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists claiming there was no global warming hiatus.

“Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming,” Hawkins wrote in a blog post about the study, noting “the most recent observed 15-year trends are all positive, but lower than most previous similar trends in the past few decades” which is a  “clear demonstration that the rate of change has slowed since its peak.”

But even with the admission, some skeptics are still critical because the study’s authors employed research methods they have been critical of in the past.

“All of this said, the authors used techniques to demonstrate a slowdown, that when employed by the skeptics, are harshly criticized,” Knappenberger said. “This seems to me to indicate that the mainstream community gives a free pass to some researchers more so than others.”

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller

Categories

About the Author: Michael Bastasch

Michael Bastasch writes on energy, climate and the environment for the Daily Caller.

  • Gary Hall

    What I continue to find compelling (even more so with this report confirming), is that during the period between 1950 – 2014, some 64 years, during which the consensus supports the view that there is a human
    footprint on global temperature (AGW), we’ve only experienced some 29 years
    (using 1950 as the starting date – though many say more like the 1970’s) of significant warming. Even then, only some the warming is believed to be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

    29 out of 64 years. Less than 1/2.

    And, as CO2 continues to rise, there is less and less GW.

    • Li D

      ” some ”
      Just curious, what are the
      the other components?
      At least you acknowledge warming,
      which puts you waaay in front
      of the dickheads.
      Li D Australia

      • Gary Hall

        The components – long understood now – is right there in the published paper by Fyfe, Michael Mann and crew; since the beginning of any potentially observable human footprint on GW (1950) – 64 years ago, the only period of time with any significant GW (some of which should have a human footprint on it) is between 1972 and 2001 (which they use as their baseline for the analysis). That’s 29 years.

        You can look at any global GW graph and see that during the years from approx the mid 1940’s leading up to 1972ish, the globe was in a slight cooling cycle. And now, once again from 2001 (the satellite data shows a bit longer) to present – the pause in warming (or at least any meaningful GW) has once again continued.

        Only 29 years out of the past 64 yrs (actually longer if you go back into the 1940’s starting date) has brought Mother Earth any significant period of warming.

        And – it’s been great. Now, if we’re really lucky, it will stay around this warm for a couple hundred years, as it did during the MWP, and all those glaciers will continue to retreat a bit or vanish, like they did during the MWP – before the next advance of cold and ice comes again.

        Speaking of some recent glacier history. Remember the Exit Glacier which Obama visited back in Sept? Attached is a graphic from a National Park Service report (The retreat of the Exit Glacier – you can easily search for it – great little read). I added the 1950 delineation line.

        Within the report they describe how a few years back as the glacier retreated, old tree trumps were exposed from under the ice. These trees carbon dated to less than 1,000 years ago. During the MWP, the glacier had retreated far above it’s current terminus and had remained so for a long enough period to allow for trees to take root and to grow to maturity. Then, in about 1,250AD, the warm period ended, and the glacier began to advance again – and continued to until perhaps the early 1,800’s.

        Similar evidence of the same, all around the globe – of the same period and events.

        We’re not to that place yet.

        • Gary Hall

          Oops – the graphic:

          • Evan Jones

            You need to consider that while the 1976 – 2007 interval has a hefty component of natural positive PDO, the flat intervals should have been cooling intervals.

            If you take that into account, the Arrhenius experiments seem to be borne out — ~+1.1C or so per doubling — which is the raw CO2 forcing.

            And CO2 re-radiation has actually been recently observed in the atmosphere by satellites. The basic theory seems pretty sound to me.

            But there are obviously no net positive feedbacks to triple it, as the CMIP models assert. That’s the biggest fly in the ointment for the alarmists (not to mention the maladjusted surface metrics).

            • Ali_Bertarian

              the Arrhenius experiments seem to be borne out — ~+1.1C or so per doubling — which is the raw CO2 forcing.

              That claim is not mathematically compatible with the following:

              “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC, Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2, page 774. (emphasis added)

              • Evan Jones

                So it is. Much of the flap comes from ignoring first-order cycles like PDO (AMO, NOA, etc.) and drawing trendlines that blow off such issues.

                CO2 does appear to be a mild thumb under the scale. Even most hardened skeptics in the scientific community will go that far. It is a relatively small thumb. But not nothing.

                • Evan Jones II

                  Evan, you asserted that you are unable to afford a real climate studies education at the University level. This, according to you, was because of lack of funds. Odd that a person like yourself would rather volunteer their time on a science project instead of investing their time otherwise.
                  Recognizing, as Dr V pointed out, you spend the most of your time in the Watts Up With That circle of Lukewarmist religion. I have provided here a lecture/talk by Professor David Battisti,
                  David Battisti is The Tamaki Endowed Chair of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and a fellow at the American Geophysical Union. His research interests include understanding how interactions between the ocean, land, atmosphere, and sea ice lead to climatic variability at timescales that vary from seasonal to decadal timescales,[1] as well as the paleoclimate. He is also interested in how climate variability (including El Nino) affects food production.[2]
                  He received his PhD in 1988 at the University of Washington Department of Atmospheric Sciences.[3] He has published over 100 papers in peer-review journals in atmospheric sciences and oceanography.
                  He also helps organize an annual set of climate dynamics courses

                  This video is what you need to study to rectify your misunderstanding of climate dynamics, so you stop this foolish comment posts once and for all.
                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPfJvZ9TfPQ

                  • Evan Jones

                    I not only don’t have the money, I also don’t have the time.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Just watt I thought, not only are blind, dense, and dumm, but a waste of time and space.
                      The cheque is in the mail…LOL. You are indeed a credit to your rat pack.

      • Evan Jones

        Positive PDO from 1976, heeling over in 2001 and flipping to negative in 2007 explains the pause. That does two things. Negative PDO (not aerosols) also explains the 1950s-1970s pause and the following positive PDO explains the “double warming” from 1976 – 2001. This supports raw (sic) CO2 warming — but also puts paid the net positive feedbacks that were supposed to triple it.

        Those feedbacks have simply not shown up in the data and showing up in the data is what positive feedbacks do.

        So we have a modest (hugely beneficial, so far) lukewarming, much of it likely anthropogenic, yes. But, as Sr. Osborne points out (correctly), CO2 effect has diminishing returns. Large ones (~+1.1C/doubling). We may (possibly) double, but we will never, ever redouble.

        The land surface metrics are also in severe question and appear to have been highballed by closing on double, thanks to the faulty design of CRS equipment and poor microsite, both of which are brushed aside.

      • Brin Jenkins

        Way ahead of one in Australia perhaps?

      • Muhammad Abbass

        It takes a rare breed of dickhead to maintain there is something strange or necessarily our fault that the climate changes, since little man, it has been doing that ever since the planet evolved.

    • Dano2

      Hilarious. It failed the giggle test.

      Best,

      D

      • Evan Jones

        He who giggles last, googles best.

        • Evan Jones II

          True, Evan, very true….
          Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:
          That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
          That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
          That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
          Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
          That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
          The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
          They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
          They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
          The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
          The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
          The expansion of the Hadley cells.
          The poleward movement of storm tracks.
          The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
          The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
          The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
          That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
          References
          Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools
          Manabe and Wetherald 1967
          Manabe and Stouffer 1980
          Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006
          De F. Forster et al. 1999
          Langematz et al. 2003
          Vinnikov and Grody 2003
          Fu et al. 2004
          Thompson and Solomon 2005
          Nights warm more than days
          Arrhenius 1896
          Dai et al. 1999
          Sherwood et al. 2005
          Winter warms more than summer
          Arrhenius 1896
          Manabe and Stouffer 1980
          Rind et al. 1989Balling et al. 1999
          Volodin and Galin 1999
          Crozier 2003
          Polar amplification
          Arrhenius 1896
          Manabe and Stouffer 1980
          Polyakov et al. 2001
          Holland and Bitz 2003
          Arctic warms more than Antarctic
          Arrhenius 1896
          Manabe and Stouffer 1980
          Doran et al. 2002
          Comisa 2003
          Turner et al. 2007
          Pinatubo effects
          Hansen et al. 1992
          Hansen et al. 1996
          Soden et al. 2002
          Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures
          Rind and Peteet 1985
          Farreral et al. 1999
          Melanda et al. 2005
          Temperature trend versus UAH results
          Christy et al. 2003
          Santer et al. 2003
          Mears and Wentz 2005
          Santer et al. 2005
          Sherwood et al. 2005
          Water vapor feedback from ENSO
          Lau et al. 1996
          Soden 2000
          Dessler and Wong 2009
          Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds
          Fyfe et al. 1999
          Kushner et al. 2001
          Sexton 2001
          Thompson and Solomon 2002
          Hadley Cells expand
          Quan et al. 2002
          Fu et al. 2006
          Hu and Fu 2007
          Storm tracks move poleward
          Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003
          Yin 2005
          Tropopause and radiating altitude rise
          Thuburn and Craig 1997
          Kushner et al. 2001
          Santer et al. 2003
          Seidel and Randel 2006
          Tropical “super greenhouse effect”
          Vonder Haar 1986
          Lubin 1994
          Constant average relative humidity
          Manabe and Wetherall 1967
          Minschwaner and Dessler 2004

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, to quite a bit of that.

            Now, if they had only gotten the amounts right, instead of off by a factor of three. #B^)

            • Evan Jones II

              Evan, this propaganda you and your denial machine are spewing, is causing great harm.
              I already proved by court documents it is being funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry directly to your hands,regardless of your repeated pleas of denial. I suppose when one is caught in one lie, it multiples further on until it becomes the norm and morphs into the homogenized.

              • Evan Jones

                Even using K-15, they got the amount wrong.

                They had the basic science pretty tight from the start and a fair amount of statistical-historical evidence for raw CO2 forcing, which is an upward thumb under the scale, be it in periods of natural or other-anthropogenic warming or cooling).

                Basic observational result: CO2 increase since 1950 has turned what would naturally have been close to a sine wave into a sort of 30-year stepladder.

                But there was a variable unknown (anthropogenic aerosols), and a flawed assumption (positive feedback). The cause is right, the amount is wrong.

                Going by known raw CO2 forcing, we should top out under +2C, still in net benefit territory in terms of both the environment and human endeavor. I doubt we will ever see 800 ppm. Probably we will have left CO2 in the dust long since, at least for the electricity-generation game, writ large. (We could even do it now with safe nukes.)

                There are three aspects to all this: Scientific, demographic, and political (which is fluff).

                For the post 1950 interval (the CO2 Age, if you like), skeptics (including lukewarmers) are wrong to stress that there was only one 30-year stretch with a strong trend. Likewise, alarmists are wrong to chalk the 1950-1975 flat-to-cooling up to aerosols. Areosols are a sword that cuts both ways. ENSO/PDO must be accounted for — by both sides. PDO will eventually flip back and we will likely see a 30-year warming period akin to the 1976-2007 interval. Then back to flat. Rinse and repeat.

                Bottom line? A tad over a degree C per century and only if technological progress somehow comes to a screeching halt. And only for one more century, even then. This whole big flap is a legit concern, but not a crisis.

                • Evan Jones II

                  Stop already…you are in over your head with stringing up sound bites of meaningless jargon that is cherry picked propaganda. Boy, talk about obsessive, compulsive, neurotic behavior. These fossil fuel agents sure knew their proflic makeup when they hired you, Evan. What a nuttjob.

                  • Evan Jones

                    Acutaly. it becomes rather obvious by just looking at the observations (however adjusted; raw won’t do).

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Actually, if it is that obvious why is it not already published?! Is this fella something else or watt? Boy, you must be be getting some bonus from Willard this quarter pay period.

                    • Evan Jones

                      It is not only published, since 2011, it is the 95% consensus in the peer-review journals. (If one put’s one’s stock in consensus.)

                    • Evan Jones II

                      http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160303-eric-holthaus-global-warming-unleashing-on-us-in-a-way-it-never-has-before.ece
                      also means that for many parts of the planet, there basically wasn’t a winter. Parts of the Arctic were more than 16 degrees Celsius (29 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than “normal” for the month of February, bringing them a few degrees above freezing, on par with typical June levels, in what is typically the coldest month of the year. In the United States, the winter was record-warm in cities coast to coast. In Europe and Asia, dozens of countries set or tied their all-time temperature records for February. In the tropics, the record-warmth is prolonging the longest-lasting coral bleaching episode ever seen.

                      The northernmost permanent settlement, Norway’s Svalbard archipelago, has averaged 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal this winter, with temperatures rising above the freezing mark on nearly two dozen days since Dec. 1. That kind of extremely unusual weather has prompted a record-setting low maximum in Arctic sea ice, especially in the Barents Sea area north of Europe.

                      The data for February is so overwhelming that even prominent climate change skeptics have already embraced the new record. Writing on his blog, former NASA scientist Roy Spencer said that according to satellite records — the dataset of choice by climate skeptics for a variety of reasons—February 2016 featured “whopping” temperature anomalies especially in the Arctic. Spurred by disbelief, Spencer also checked his data with others released today and said the overlap is “about as good as it gets.” Speaking with the Washington Post, Spencer said the February data proves “there has been warming. The question is how much warming there’s been.”

                    • Evan Jones

                      Ever look into the effects of “The year without a summer”?

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Heh,heh, but we have the arctic with no winter, he he
                      But, but, the weather stations are not properly sited, heh,heh,

                      InAlaska says:
                      March 12, 2016 at 3:50 am
                      “Should be fun this Summer seeing what happens in the Arctic. Lined up to be a potentially record melt year.”

                      I live in the Arctic and I can tell you that is is HOT up here. No reason to wait for summer. It already feels like summer now.
                      Stilgar Wilcox says:
                      March 12, 2016 at 5:23 am
                      “It already feels like summer now.”

                      Definitely a bad omen, InAlaska.

                    • Evan Jones

                      http://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png

                      This is the extent of ice extent loss since 1979 (NORSEX). 2.6% annualized/decade. And 1979 was a naturally high year, coming off of a negative PDO.

                      Neither are we at record lows at this point.

                      So, as usual, there is a loss, just not nearly as great nor as fast as the models have projected.

                    • Ali_Bertarian

                      “But, but, the weather stations are not properly sited…”

                      It’s worse than that. Here is the global land temperature data from GHCN for the year 2015 (see the map below):

                      All the gray areas have no temperature data.

                      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global- http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a45b16b94a1c366d502854059671649a6379f8824340b476a9ea488d9790a9b7.gif

                      maps/201513?products[]=map-land-sfc-mntp

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Yes it is….much, much worse. Evvie…now watt? We need ocean temperatures!

                    • Ali_Bertarian

                      Why certainly, we can get ocean temperatures, and that can distract you from the fact that most of the land “data” do not exist. Great science you got there. Would you take any FDA-approved drugs based upon data that were half estimated?

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Evvie and Ali read this
                      http://www.immortal.org/24831/co2-levels-jumped-3-05-ppm-2015/

                      Remember the post of CO2 rising 3.76 ppm yoy February 2015 to feb. 2016?
                      Well, a new article today reports the CO2 ppm level for the year of 2015 went up 3.05
                      That’s a new record folks!
                      Just a couple years ago on Neven’s arctic blog I wrote a post saying it wouldn’t be long before CO2 levels increased by 3 ppm in a year, and I was lambasted for a failure to understand it had only gone up 2 ppm in a couple of recent years. I took my medicine because those people supposedly know so much more. Well, it turned out I was correct. Up over 3 ppm in one year and it already occurred in 2015. First time ever in modern human history. Keep in mind it took until the 70’s before it breached 1 ppm added in a year. So we are at a rate of 3 times that much increase.

                      At 3 ppm it would only take 33 years to equal another 100 ppm added to the 404 currently and we’d be at 504 ppm. Hopefully predictions of financial collapse are correct and we will never breach 500 ppm.

                      As carbon sinks like the oceans phytoplankton decrease and the forest get felled, the rate of CO2 ppm will increase to 4 then 5 ppm added a year. When it’s 5 it will only take 20 years to add another 100 ppm. Ouch!

                      So, Evvie claims C02 for now has little effect on the ecosystems….now watt does he claim by the exponent increase? Let him tell us all when those feedbacks kick in all is well!
                      Good luck with that guys!

                    • Ali_Bertarian

                      The little I read of your comment indicates that you didn’t care to reply to what I wrote, so I won’t bother to read your comment.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Good, don’t and stay away.

                    • Curious

                      What was it George Washington Carver said about the FDA? Oh yes: “Gentlemen, I give you Thalidomide”

                    • Ali_Bertarian

                      Yes, and the more common problem is the number of deaths or frequency of morbidity due to delays in the approval of drugs. The delay in the approval of beta blockers resulted in the deaths of more than 30,000 in the 70s, because of the myth that the government bureaucrats are better at prescribing drugs than real doctors are.

                    • Curious

                      A real doctor at a major hospital prescribed sulfa for my wife even though her emergency room intake form had NO SULFA in red ink stamped on it. That is not an FDA-approved off-label Rx.

                    • Ali_Bertarian

                      Does that mean you trust yourself and your wife to the bureaucrats at the FDA? Or do you still go to real doctors?

                    • Curious

                      We don’t go to that one. And we research the medicines we use. If you notice commercials for medicines that are FDA approved usually consist of 13 seconds of benefits and 47 seconds of side-effects. Whish usually end with “or death”.

                    • Ali_Bertarian

                      True. But not all of the warnings are immediately viewed as bad. “Erections lasting longer than 4 hours may require immediate medical attention.”

                    • Curious

                      Would that be something addressed by the head nurse?

                    • Curious

                      I forgot to say that she almost died that night at home from anaphylactic shock due to the sulfa drug.

                    • Ali_Bertarian

                      That’s crappy sloppy. Sounds like a law suit.

                    • Curious

                      She didn’t want to sue. We weren’t married yet, so I had no standing.

                    • Jay Stevens

                      No such thing as “scientific consensus”. Something is either true or not. It is not dependent on how many people believe it.

                    • Evan Jones

                      There is such a thing. But such a thing does not always turn out to be correct.

                    • Jay Stevens

                      So we are cooking adjusting data again.

                    • Evan Jones

                      What our team is doing is more like uncooking. But there are artifacts in the raw data that need adjusting. it’s just that it needs to be done right.

                    • Jay Stevens

                      Who decides?

                      Someone who tosses all the data that does not support his hypothesis?

                    • Evan Jones

                      That’s whatfor god made peer review. And, yes, I know about the problems. Been there. Had data yanked (B44s and station curators). And a ringer slipped into peer review of Fall (2011). But be realistic. The first thing a good manager want’s to know when he gets a new pitcher is how good is his spitter and his balk move.

                      Yet peer review is the best game in town. And the straightest. It is self-correcting; sustainable (given time). Besides, I think I can beat ’em using the sneaky strategy of playing it straight-up.

                      There is another factor at work here, too: Independent review has manifestly improved as a direct result of the internet, so don’t sneer at it (as a concept) writ large. A lot of papers have fallen flat and headlong within a month of publication, often less.

                      So fiddle with peer review, in light of all that? Fine. Be my guest. Because it always comes back to bite you. Independent review will put the feet to the fire. A paper’s got to pass two tests: Ivory Tower (peer review) and Real World (independent review). And, like your teach told you, if you cheat, you’re only cheating yourself. The Real World will out. That one they got right. It’s getting harder and harder to withhold data and methods. (If you want to be taken seriously, that is.)

                    • Evan Jones II

                      You still harping about peer review? That paper is so soggy and wet and just melting down the drain with the new record breaking data!!!
                      Hey, best you save all of yourselves a lot of enbarrassment and call it a day.
                      You milked it for all you could up to now, Evvie.
                      http://bellona.org/news/climate-change/2016-03-new-temperature-records-reached-arctic
                      – An increasing number of highly recognised climate scientists that Bellona cooperates with, are expressing the same worries. Many highly-ranked institutions conclude that there is an even more pressing need for climate action than what the IPCC has expressed, argues Hauge.

                      The IPCC includes only what is scientifically proven. As there are uncertainties concerning the effects of the slow moving processes such as melting of ice, marshlands and tundra areas, these have to a small extent been considered in the Panel’s final conclusions.

                      – We can expect some uncomfortable adjustments in the IPCC conclusions in the upcoming years, however we must see the urgency now already. This makes me even more motivated to contribute to solving the climate problem, says Hauge.

                      2015 became the warmest year ever measured. The difference from the last record measured was the longest ever. Some of it is caused by the weather phenomenon El Niño, however NASA clearly underlines that the main cause is human activity.

                      – This should worry us, adds Hauge.

                      But Evvie worried? Not a chance because his Dada , I mean is Willard says so.

                    • Evan Jones

                      The paper has nothing to do with current records. It is to do with equipment issues.

                      And even so, warming is a mere 1.2C/century since 1950, current records included.

                      Will you be singing the same tune the next La Nina, which NOAA predicts for this fall? I expect not, as you twist with the wind. (As for me, I’ll just be saying it’s a natural cycle and the cooling is temporary.)

                  • Sandra M Pennoyer

                    Fossil Fuels saved the whales.

                • Curious

                  The magic words. Not a crisis.

              • Evan Jones

                Evan, this propaganda you and your denial machine are spewing, is causing great harm.

                We do our best, thanks.

                • Evan Jones II

                  Yes you do, no doubt, earning every penny of that Quid.

                  • Evan Jones

                    The quid not being money. Unfortunately.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Wattever it is, you sure are rolling in it!

                    • Curious

                      OK. I just noticed the names. You guys a father and son team or what?

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Frick and Frack more like it….if I told you the real story, you wouldn’t believe it.
                      Evan Jones is a team member of the Willard denial rat pack only purpose is to derail public policy in regard to curtail fossil fuel consumption. Him and I been at it for a number of years. Just giving him a taste of watt they dish out day in day out. Evan claims to be mister innocent and is pursuing pure science. In reality the opposite is watt they are doing. Hence is title,Dr. Spin and Twist.

                    • Curious

                      Have fun

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Sure am…best waste of time ever….stay curious

                    • Curious

                      I understand the DEA is looking at Disqus with a view to putting it in the Class V narcotics list.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Hmmm, is it now? You don’t understand, it’s not like crack…I don’t get a rush out of this at all, more personal with my pal Evan….he is an oddity that needs to be cracked!

                    • Evan Jones

                      I do what I do. (He follows me around doing what he does.)

                    • Evan Jones II

                      You got of all wrong again Evan…this is not following at all…you got it all backwards (again). I am leading you are the one resisting….remember what you were told…we will meet in a room on no darkness.

                    • Evan Jones

                      You’re right that I follow. The data is what I follow.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Keep lookin up…

                    • Evan Jones

                      Try looking down.

                      At the heat sink you are standing on.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      The heat is there too, going down into the ocean waters….energy can’t be destroyed just converts me laddie

                    • Evan Jones

                      Indeed it does. Other things, too.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Eure does, from usuable to unusable, order to disorder….bingo brother spoon feeding baby Evvie

                    • Evan Jones

                      It passes the time.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      More like passing air

                    • Evan Jones

                      These things will pass.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      California had been hoping that by this time of year, rains from a record-strength Pacific El Niño would bolster state water supplies and help it recover from a devastating, four-year-long drought.

                      Instead, the state has seen record heat and a prolonged dry spell in the month of February that, if continued through the end of winter and spring, could spell the end of any meaningful chance El Niño ever had of dragging California out of drought.

                      February 2016 may have been the hottest February ever recorded in California, with an average high temperature of 77.5 degrees, according to an analysis of temperature data conducted by the Los Angeles Times. Temperatures across the state soared into the high-70s to mid-80s as a high pressure system moved over Southern California and Nevada in early February, and led to an unusual heat wave that repelled El Niño-fueled rainstorms.
                      http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/03/01/seeking-el-nino-rain-drought-weary-california-gets-record-heat/

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      All energy will eventually be dissipated we can agree on that.

                      I am unable to agree that the insignificant effect of a slight increase in a minor gas can cause warming when C02 is released by heating water. (An effect of heat)

                      It can not also be the cause of water heating.

                      Can you explain the mechanism?

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Must be the interpretor that is corrupted

                    • Curious

                      Causes addictive behavior. Just a joke.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Does it now? Just a joke..or is it truth?

                    • Curious

                      Probably leans to the right looking at your 2nd question.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Me thinks it is just the wind blowing

                    • Evan Jones

                      Not actually. I am a Big Government liberal, and a defender of the Great Society.

                      But that has little to do with science and the data.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Sure you are, especially having that super cheap rent controlled apartment for decades in NYC.. As the old saying goes…ignore watt I do, just pay attention to watt I say

                    • Evan Jones

                      No, not rent controlled. Sweat equity. But cheap. (Besides, nearly all liberals support rent control. Whatever objections I have to it are the unintended consequences, not its objectives.)

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Let me quess, you are the buildings pest control guy, yep, that explained it all right. Too much pesticides to the brain. Poor thing you are

                    • Curious

                      Interesting set of disjointed facts.

                      Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs have cost, collectively, about $15 trillion since 1965.

                      George Bush’s (and Obama’s) Afghanistan and Iraq wars have cost, collectively, about $5 trillion since 10/07/2001.

                      The National Debt was:
                      Source – https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

                      $317,273,898,983.64 on 06/30/1965. (approximate start of the Great Society)

                      $907,701,000,000.00 on 09/30/1980. (approximate end of Carter’s presidency)

                      $2,602,337,712,041.16 on 09/30/1988 (approximate end of Reagan’s second term)

                      $4,064,620,655,521.66 on 09/30/1992. (approximate end of GHW Bush’s presidency)

                      $5,674,178,209,886.86 on 09/30/2000. (approximate end of the Clinton second term)

                      $5,807,463,412,200.06 on 09/30/2001. (approximate start of Afghanistan war on 10/07/01)

                      $10,024,724,896,912.49 on 09/30/2008 (approximately the end of the GWB presidency.)

                      $16,066,241,407,385.89 on 09/30/2012 (approximately the end of the first Obama term.)

                      $18,150,604,277,750.63 on 09/30/2015 (the end of Federal FY2015)

                      Each and every president since pre-Johnson has (at least) left about twice as much debt as his predecessor. Some, like Reagan, didn’t quite double it in 8 years. Johnson about tripled it.

                      The whole point of this is that without the load of social programs like the Great Society, we would not have this debt for our great-grandchildren to pay.

                    • Evan Jones

                      Nonetheless, all that has little to do with CO2 or climate science.

                      The issue has become polarized, yes, but not all liberals are alarmists and not all conservatives are skeptics.

                      There is a lot of yammering about the unrelated politics in all this. But it has little to do with the data and its many methods and adjustments.

                      Look at Lomborg, a hard left Danish liberal who accepts the IPCC. Yet he has his own take on the demographics, a take most distressing to his liberal brethren.

                    • Curious

                      IPCC is a farce. Bad science reshaped by manipulation into good headlines. A worldwide tax on a necessity. That’s certainly a way to go.
                      Next will be the urine contamination of the environment which will result, after peer-reviewed studies by the ICPP (International Commission on pee-pee) in a tax on drinking water.
                      I did not realize that this discussion was about AGW or ACC if it’s getting cooler or staying the same. If it was, my bad.
                      This conservative is a skeptic.

                    • Evan Jones

                      IPCC sure is a farce compared with what it thinks it is. But it is not an entirely lost cause (maybe). And AR5 backtracked a lot from AR4, in any case.

                    • Gianinatio

                      You see it’s statements like this which reveal the true nature of a person. I can’t recall another “liberal” ever referring to themselves as “Big Government”. Obviously, through ready analysis of data, conservatism gives us as big or bigger governance than liberalism. Why else do we feel the need for a trillion dollar military, for invasion into womens private parts, and peoples bedrooms, etc?

                      Thus it’s become clear by watching one person over time, that they feel the need to insinuate lies into their (attempted) logic in order to try to win the day. INDEED Such intellectual dishonesty, if it’s even fair to use such an adjective, has no place in science. One then wonders whether science has ever been the goal. Well, we know from prior data it hasn’t since science doesn’t begin with the end in mind and then reverse engineer itself to produce that end. Probably a good reason not to involve game makers in the serious business known as science.

                    • Evan Jones

                      I can’t recall another “liberal” ever referring to themselves as “Big Government”.

                      Well you have, now.

                    • Gianinatio

                      Nope. Only ever heard one…and that one remains to be proven.

                    • Evan Jones

                      All and all it is an interesting experience. I have learned more from him than he suspects (and I am not referring to anything dark or pejorative).

                    • Evan Jones

                      Evan….he is an oddity that needs to be cracked!

                      You are not the first who has tried.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Go feed you pet rats some cheezos, that’s your crack, LOL

                    • Evan Jones

                      Stay curious about both sides.

                      They may not even be the sides you think they are.

                      The real (i.e., peer-review journal) debate is not between those who deny AGW and those who don’t. It is between lukewarmers and strong-warmers with a bit of solar on the side.

                      This debate is subtle and elusive. It is over TCR vs. ECS. Feedbacks. ENSO. Equipment. Siting. And all sorts of means and metrics. And data and stats, offsets and trends, and neither last nor least, adjustments, smoothing, joining, kriging, infill, and other inference.

                      It is not over “if”. It is not even a lot about “how”. It is about “how much”. “How fast”.

                      My advice is that if you are going to fight in a war (on either side), know your battlefield.

                    • Evan Jones

                      Well, he was doing pretty good there for a while, actually, before going completely off the rails. Not a lot unlike the AGW movement writ large.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Evvie…seems the climate data ain’t so lukewarm as you all proclaim, is it now?
                      That 4,000 plus hours of slavin for Willard was just a waste.
                      So funny, loser

                    • Evan Jones

                      Run whichever series, drop in a linear trend and answer that for yourself.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Watt or what? The English language is so rich with oar, or or whore. Duel, dual, jewel.

                      I would also like to conserve fossils fuel by efficiency and all energy recycling. Curtail sounds dire to me have you had thoughts of suicide before?

                      On non de plumes, why not just use your own or do have you something to conceal behind Evan’s real name? That seems timid to me.

                    • Evan Jones

                      The intangible results are sufficiently gratifying.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Yep, especially when you ignore the tangible evidence.

                    • Evan Jones

                      Like heat sink or CRS-bias?

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Hmmmmm, suppose you are just not paying attention there, Evvie. Seems you bypass all the comment posts that have been given you over the years by myself and others.
                      That is why you are not just a lukewarmer, but more accurately, a denier.

              • Herb1949

                Great harm??

                Any way you slice it, a warmer earth is good for mankind. Longer growing seasons, more tillable, less sever winters to kill people. Pretty much ALL good.

                • Curious

                  One problem: mosquito and other disease vector populations increase when the temperature is above hatchling survival minimums. That allows the spread of known and new diseases.
                  But the warming occurs naturally. AGW’s incremental effect is negligible.

                  • Evan Jones

                    Arguably true in a non-tech context. But in 1800, both Alaska and Siberia were so thick with mosquitoes, it was near-intolerable. Not any longer, and not as a result of nature.

                    Insect-borne diseases are way down in any/all even partially developed nations.

                    • Curious

                      Know why mosquitos are way down in Siberia and Alaska? DDT. Know what the nations of the world have agreed is not to be used anymore for insect control? DDT. There is an increase in such things as dengue, Malaria and now Zika in the western hemisphere that will continue until they re-enable DDT’s use or come up with as effective an insecticide. Sterilizing male mosquitos and ticks won’t do the job.
                      Are you aware that once fertilized, a female bedbug lays 5-10 eggs per day for the rest of its life? Fertile eggs. And they are on the rise. They are not vectors (so far) for any disease, but could be. Their proboscis is equipped with an anticoagulant injector just like mosquitos and ticks. They just don’t have the gripping power to take a big drink from a mobile host.

                    • Evan Jones

                      I know, I know. I could add some. But I didn’t want to go there.

                  • Arationofreason

                    Tell that to the people in Alaska.

                    • Curious

                      I did.

                      “Know why mosquitos are way down in Siberia and Alaska from the 1900 level??

                      DDT.”
                      When I said that.

                • Evan Jones II

                  Sure Herb, you forgot to add this too…something you yourself wrote
                  Finally, a church conference that has the backbone to stand up to the homosexual onslaught

                  • Brin Jenkins

                    What has this to do with Man Made Climate Change? unless it anal friction.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Another low life response

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Your opinion which I don’t share, keep your deviant preferences for elsewhere please.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Keep your trap zipped up, bye

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      poof, and he disappeared.

                    • Evan Jones

                      Yes, another low-life (yet accurate) response.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Coming from one that literally shares a room with low life rodents that is no surprise!

              • Evan Jones

                Send more funding. My Big Oil check musta got lost in the mail.

                • Evan Jones II

                  They know you ain’t worth a check….it was never in the mail.

          • ninetyninepct

            We are so glad you provided the condensed version.

            • Evan Jones II

              You are most welcomed. But as you can see those in denial refuse to acknowledge.

          • RealOldOne2

            ROTFLMAO @ your delusions! You are one seriously ignorant FOOL!

            Climate models predicted that if we added 580 billion tons of human CO2 to the atmosphere (over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750) from 1997-2016, the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would increase by ~0.5C, or 0.28C/decade.

            Well we did add that much, and the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere didn’t increase at all (0.002C, or 0.001C/decade. A total FAIL by the climate models.

            Lean&Rind(2009) predicted: “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic forcings and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperatures by 0.15 +/- 0.03C, at a rate 50% higher than IPCC projections.”

            Well the anthropogenic forcings did increase greater than projected and solar irradiance did increase as solar cycle 24 transitioned to its max, but acutal temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere (where warming is supposed to be the greatest) COOLED by 0.14C!

            A total FAIL by the climate models.

            ps. Your whole list is pure baseless, evidence-free bull$hit propaganda.

          • J T

            Rubbish!

            • Evan Jones II

              Take out the trash

      • J T

        I was wondering if His Douchesty would weigh in. You did.

    • Peter Osborne

      Yes, the so called greenhouse effect is logarithmic. Regardless of the source, the limit of heat that CO2 can add to the planet is very close to being reached. In the geological past,, the atmosphere held 3,000 ppm and more, now it is only 380 to 400 ppm….we’re safe from disaster in that area fore sure.

    • maltow
  • Li D

    ANYONE who reckons temps are at the
    same level as 15 years ago is away with
    the faeries.
    Thats what a pause means. Standing still.

    I have never seen a chart showing this.
    The shitty Heartland Monkton chart dosnt
    even show it.
    If it did, the static line would be at 0C.
    Its not. Its ABOVE it. Idjits cant even
    understand their own crap lying chart.

    What for Bastasch? What for you
    keep talking crap? Always again and again!
    Someone paying you to talk crap?
    Money aint worth more than
    integrity.

    Bastasch, go and have a gander at
    ocean heat content and write about that eh.
    And try not to imply some crap NASA are
    communists
    conspiracy wank when you do.

    Are ya up for it? Can ya do a straight
    bit of journalism sans conspiracy on
    ocean heat content?
    Li D Australia

    • Pam Dunn

      Thanks for proving that you are a total moron with your nonsensical illogical and completely unreadable load of BULLSHYTE. How sad when someone suffering from Recto-cranial insertion syndrome displays their ignorance in public as you have done. Now Back to your Methane sniffing so the atmosphere doesn’t get polluted.

      • Li D

        You must be fun at parties.
        Denier scum.

        Li D
        Australia

        • Brin Jenkins

          probably not yours.

      • Wiz

        ROTFLMAO If “If you “JUST HAD A THOUGHT” wasn’t funny enough Pam, this one takes the provebial cake. Keep up the good work. LOL. my side hurt, stop it. AH HA HA HA

  • Dano2

    15 year hateus? I thought it was 18 years 5 months…or some exact cherry-picked date. Which is it?

    Best,

    D

    • Brin Jenkins

      The truth, Global Warming by man made C02 is a hoax. Just admit it and feel the lies and guilt lifted from you shoulders.

      • Dano2

        You have zero evidence it is a hoax. You just had a psychological tic to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay.

        Best,

        D

        • George Matyas

          If satellite data is inaccurate for earths temp. How can you believe that satellite data that determines earth revolutions, and other movements are accurate. We have no way of accurately reporting anything and the accuracy of our data does not go back only a few hundred years. after that its all guess work. Your blind belief that someone has all the answers is amazing.

          • Dano2

            Sure, sure.

            Best,

            D

          • Brin Jenkins

            Amazing and misguided.

        • Brin Jenkins

          You still have no viable explanation for C02 being the cause.

          • Dano2

            You still lack talent and capacity to grasp I’ve already met your puerile and petulant little demands. Maybe you just have zero memory capacity? Is that it? You can’t remember which petulant little demands were fulfilled?

            Best,

            D

          • Evan Jones

            I think there is good evidence for CO2 warming. (But it just ain’t that much warming.)

            • Evan Jones II
            • Evan Jones II

              The 10 indicators are:

              Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
              Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
              Air temperature over the oceans.
              Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
              Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
              Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
              Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
              Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
              Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
              Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.
              Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.

              Basic rebuttal written by James Wight
              https://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

        • Evan Jones

          FWIW, I don’t think it is a hoax either. But there are severe errors that stick out like a fish in a tree when one examines the individual station data (both raw and in varying stages of adjustment). Scientists make errors all the time. Error is not fraud, it’s just error.

    • J T

      Either one makes you a fool.

      • Dano2

        Uh-huh. Sure, sure.

        Best,

        D

      • Brin Jenkins

        True. He has no explanation other than the mantra.

  • http://www.lermanet.com ArnieLerma

    Homicide detectives look for MMO METHOD MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY

    Besides the FINANCIAL opportunity of the Global Carbon credits scam, uranium futures prices and regulation (more government employees) there is another possible MOTIVE for propagating HUMAN induced warming…because good men need a good reason to do evil…

    **IF** a man is convinced that HUMAN induced global warming means the end-of-the-world… he just might consider a proposed HUMAN solution, to maintain the American Empire and serve the Eugenics agenda…a HUMAN solution called LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR… and the NUCLEAR WINTER that would cause..

    Even a limited exchange would create enough atmospheric soot loading to induce a global winter due to one single word that did not exist when Nagaski & Hiroshima were nuked… that word is PLASTIC.

    • Evan Jones

      1.) I doubt it.
      2.) Geoengineering is an unacceptable risk except as a last, sesperate resort.
      3.) There have been strong net benefits from both the mild warming and additional CO2 so far. Both environmental and in terms of human endeavor. Cooling would have very bad results.

      • Don

        Nevertheless cooling is coming and it has little or nothing to do with man. Governments (If they weren’t so corrupt) should be planning for the future on a large scale. I mean there is a serious water shortage in California but the democrap run State government still dumps HUGH amounts of usable fresh river water into the Pacific. I think California’s water shortage has much to do with the El Nino effect and the moving of the jet stream. Israel has developed some great technology for de-desalination plants on a large scale. I think they are building one in San Diego right now. Several decades ago in Phoenix I saw front yards that had no grass to water. Instead they had crushed rock with small flower beds and often cactus for plants. It looked beautiful and just think how much water would then be saved to use for more important things like food, washing dishes and showers. Building cisterns on a large or small scale might also make sense. Are all those millions of swimming pools necessary?
        The Israelis have also pioneered and improved on drip irrigation on a large scale so large that they export produce. Imagine that, with the water shortage they have to deal with.

        • Evan Jones

          Yes, it appears to be a Modoki. But I don’t think desal is necessary. Just a few more reservoirs would more than do the trick.

          As to whether we are in for cooling, time will tell. But even if warming continues on it’s current modest track, I still see no cause for alarm.

  • Larry

    I would love to re post this on https://www.facebook.com/newlittleiceage but the nice chart does not come with it, and I am tired of the Eifel Tower.

  • Dano2

    Models look pretty durn accurate.

    Best,

    D

    • thegreyfox53

      ALL models are inaccurate to varying degrees … all running too hot.

      This graphic is widely available if you search for “climate models”

      • Dano2

        Yes, this graphic that we know Christy made up to deceive. Everyone is aware of this deceptive graph, thanks! It’s all denialists have!

        best,

        d

        • thegreyfox53

          Hardly, but if it pleases you to think so … you carry on.

          Personally, I am quite happy with all the other evidence, such as satellite measurement which shows insignificant global increase in temperature for the last 18 years (below) …. if you seriously think that is all “denialists” have, then you are sadly out of touch

        • thegreyfox53

          Even the IPCC’s own graph ( up to the year 2010 ) mirrors Christy’s lies !! 🙂

          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

          • Dano2

            No upper air analyses at that link. Did you paste the wrong one?

            Best.

            D

            • thegreyfox53

              no … that’s the IPCC version of the one I originally posted, which you called “Christys lies” and “all that deniers have” … the truth is that they are VERY similar.

              • Dano2

                The one you originally posted (the Christy) has nothing to do with any graphic at that Guardian column. Can you grasp why?

                Best,

                D

                • thegreyfox53

                  As they both contain graphic representation of temperature anomaly versus time and plot actual versus models, you are going to have to explain … I am sure you will come up with something

                  Best

                  T.

                  • Dano2

                    Temperature anomaly trend of what?

                    Best,

                    D

                    • Evan Jones

                      In the above example, I think it is tropical (where AGW was supposed to have the most effect). He has other graphs for global. Those show slightly less deviation, but only slightly.

        • Evan Jones

          Every time I see that I hear huge insult accorded to Christy (my co-author-in crime), and very little substance to challenge the actual graph(s).

          The model trends are severely highballed, and recent peer-review literature is bearing that out.

          • Evan Jones II

            Anthony’s published paper, Fall11, and the unpublished and seriously flawed paper that Anthony announced with gusto when he turned his back on the BEST study. This was after he was “prepared to accept” it. In his still unpublished paper, Anthony forgot that time of observation bias needed to be allowed for in US records. (He’s had poor Evan Jones slaving away for the past three years or more, but so far nothing more has emerged.)
            http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/rud-istvan-disputes-anthony-watts.html

            Slave away you big dummie

            • Evan Jones

              Four years. And huge results have emerged.

              I was a co-author of Fall (2011). It had the same flaws that the original 2012 release had — and then some. But, as the results were uncontroversial, no one seemed to care about them in Fall (2011). Not even during peer review.

              the current effort has addressed all of those flaws, and the hypothesis is as solid as a rock. Over 99% statistical significance.

          • Evan Jones II

            It also means that for many parts of the planet, there basically wasn’t a winter. Parts of the Arctic were more than 16 degrees Celsius (29 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than “normal” for the month of February, bringing them a few degrees above freezing, on par with typical June levels, in what is typically the coldest month of the year. In the United States, the winter was record-warm in cities coast to coast. In Europe and Asia, dozens of countries set or tied their all-time temperature records for February. In the tropics, the record-warmth is prolonging the longest-lasting coral bleaching episode ever seen.

            The northernmost permanent settlement, Norway’s Svalbard archipelago, has averaged 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal this winter, with temperatures rising above the freezing mark on nearly two dozen days since Dec. 1. That kind of extremely unusual weather has prompted a record-setting low maximum in Arctic sea ice, especially in the Barents Sea area north of Europe.

            The data for February is so overwhelming that even prominent climate change skeptics have already embraced the new record. Writing on his blog, former NASA scientist Roy Spencer said that according to satellite records — the dataset of choice by climate skeptics for a variety of reasons—February 2016 featured “whopping” temperature anomalies especially in the Arctic. Spurred by disbelief, Spencer also checked his data with others released today and said the overlap is “about as good as it gets.” Speaking with the Washington Post, Spencer said the February data proves “there has been warming. The question is how much warming there’s been.”
            http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160303-eric-holthaus-global-warming-unleashing-on-us-in-a-way-it-never-has-before.ece

    • Pam Dunn

      You mean the BULLSHYTE models of the global warming morons living off BIG government grants?

      • Dano2

        No, I mean them thar akrit models, like the ones I showed upthread.

        Best,

        D

    • Evan Jones

      Look again at that graph. The models have a — much — higher trend. Better yet, run the numbers.

      • Dano2

        I’d rather look at something that has passed scrutiny.

        Best,

        D

        • Evan Jones

          Does that mean you’ll be referring to our paper when it has been peer-reviewed and published? (And why do I doubt that?)

          The delay is due to the fact that we pre-released, giving us the opportunity to address criticisms prior to submission. (More papers should do that.)

          • Gianinatio

            Not one of the papers you’ve ever mentioned has made it’s way successfully through peer review…so it’s doubtful that this one will either. I do, however, look forward to the attempt as unsuccessful attempts do help squelch the pseudoscience of climate deniers.

  • Dorian

    Nice to hear reality is sinking in. Now ….
    Mr. Fyfe, does this mean that if you keep on collecting grant money based on climate warming we indict you for fraud? Does this mean that any grant money you have collected are using right now, that you will return it?

    Its nice that you admit there is no global warming, but how about the money you falsely claimed?

    • Ian5

      “Its nice that you admit there is no global warming”

      Fyfe makes no such admission, you are just making stuff up. Bastasch is intentionally trying to mislead and misinform in his rubbish piece disguised as “journalism”. In the actual journal article, Fyfe et al are very clear:

      “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

      • Frank W Brown

        No, their g*ddamned “MODELS” were CRAP and the truth is slowly coming out about their “THEORIES”, which are NOT PROVEN! The SUN controls ALL of the earths climate, PERIOD! Better get out your winter duds, you’re going to need them for the next 50+ years cause the SUN is in hibernation phase currently!

        • Dano2

          Theories not proven!

          I LOLzed! Good comedy!

          Best,

          D

          • Frank W Brown

            Keep deluding yourself, you WILL feel like a total ignoramus when it gets REALLY cold, lemming!

          • J T

            Loser, all your stupidity is now coming to the forefront. But like the screaming baby you are you’ll just cover your ears as usual and go “blah-blah-blah”.

            • Dano2

              Right, sure. Unproven theories, bro-heme.

              Best,

              D

            • Michael Castillo

              Dano is a troll. I’ve learned to ignore him.

          • Frank W Brown

            Yep, certainly keeping my eyes OPEN, unlike you blind libTARDS, AGW is NOTHING more than MONEY, MONEY, MONEY for climate bullshit!

          • wally12

            M.Mann was the one responsible for the lie of the “hockey Stick” and then you defended his false curve. Now when Mann admits that their was a hiatus, you say it is false. So which lie is the correct one?

            • Dano2

              Nothing false about it at all. And you can’t show that it is false. You made it up.

              Best,

              D

              • wally12

                @Dano2: You seem to have a problem communicating properly.. Are you referring to “IT” as the hockey stick or the hiatus or both or none of the above?

                • Dano2

                  I commented on your ‘false’. Can you follow your own argument?

                  Best,

                  D

                  • wally12

                    @Dano2: My take on the “hockey stick” claim is that it is false. My take on the hiatus is that it is true and so has Mann admitted it.

                    • Dano2

                      The Hockey Stick has been shown to be valid in about two dozen subsequent papers.

                      There was a slight slowdown in rate of warming, according to Fyfe et al., no slowdown found in several other papers last year. Mann has not admitted anything.

                      HTH

                      Best,

                      D

                    • wally12

                      @Dano2: You make me laugh. So the little ice age and the medieval warm spell didn’t exist. That temperature follows the rise in CO2 and that the oceans are warming faster than the earth, all the glaciers are melting and the arctic is snow free as climate scientists and Al Gore claimed.

                      Worst!

                      W

                    • Dano2

                      Take up your sad mewling with the scientific community that refudiates your self-identity.

                      Let us know what all them thar scientist say.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Peter Osborne

                      http://www.petitionproject.org/ Well, I’ll go with these people, not Al Gore and Mann, thanks .

                    • Dano2

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      OISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111one

                      That’s my favorite denialist joke of all time! I loveloveLOVE that joke! I LOLz every time I see it, even after all these years!

                      Hoot!

                      best,

                      D

                    • Peter Osborne

                      Not so, it ignores the Medieval Warm period and the “Littler Ice Age”. If you went back further, there is a roman n Warp period and further still, the warm Holocene Optimum. Climate has natural cycles that are based on the amount of energy received by Earth from the Sun. Everything reacts to that incoming energy, there is no escaping that fundamental fact.The Sun has energy cycles from 11 years up to 100,000 years. That makes humanity along for the ride, not driving .

                    • Dano2
                    • Peter Osborne
                    • Dano2

                      What about the ones before your fetish/totem? Do they differ as well?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Peter Osborne

                      Not mine. the graph is Mike’s own. There have been competing and ACCURATE graphing which demonstrate that climate is driven by the SUN, not the trace gas CO2 and more especially, not the still more tiny portion that comes from industry.

                    • Dano2

                      There have been competing and ACCURATE graphing which demonstrate that climate is driven by the SUN,

                      [citation needed]

                      Nonetheless, your Climategate drivel was already pre-bunked. In my second chart.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones
                    • Evan Jones II

                      One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking
                      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AD16nCsvjqs

                    • Dano2

                      Wow. People learn stuff! Who knew?

                      Best.

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      Even before that. Mann “revised” MBH98 in 2008. There was also Moburg’s and Loehle’s reconstructions that came before climategate.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Explain this four eyes Dr Twist
                      Since Spencer is a leading climate science denier, however, he did not urge his fellow deniers to avoid using the likely flawed RSS data. Quite the reverse:
                      But, until the discrepancy is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, those of you who REALLY REALLY need the global temperature record to show as little warming as possible might want to consider jumping ship, and switch from the UAH to RSS dataset.
                      Seriously! Spencer is such a gung-ho denier of climate science he is telling his fellow deniers who want to minimize the reality of global warming that they should not use his own data set, which he and Christy believes is superior, but instead they should use the RSS data, which they believe had a flawed diurnal cycle drift correction.
                      So only hard-core climate science deniers should be surprised to learn that the new study in the Journal of Climate by members of the RSS team finds that the … wait for it … the RSS data had been low-balling recent global warming because of a flawed diurnal cycle drift correction. That study, aptly titled, “Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment,” concluded, “Previous versions of the RSS dataset have used a diurnal climatology derived from general circulation model output to remove the effects of drifting local measurement time. In this paper, we present evidence that this previous method is not sufficiently accurate, and present several alternative methods to optimize these adjustments using information from the satellite measurements themselves.”
                      The researchers then use an improved and optimized adjustments methodology and report:
                      The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other middle tropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. We also show that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy
                      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/02/3755715/satellites-hottest-february-global-warming/

                      Evan, you are now painted in corner, no way out

                    • Evan Jones

                      Gibberish. If you want to know what Roy and John think about the RSS readjustment, just go to Roy’s site and find out.

                      You won’t like what you see.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Apparently, you see watt you only want to see…like always

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Again, not dealing at all with what is, just watt you wish
                      Spencer said the warming observed in the satellite record is due to both human activities and natural causes, but the relative contributions of each is uncertain. His view on this issue is somewhat different from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which have concluded almost all of the recent warming is human-caused.
                      You are the pro on gibberish

                    • Evan Jones

                      Yes, both Roy and John are lukewarmers. I’m probably a little more on the warm side, but not by a lot.

                      Klotzbach (2009) puts surface trend at 10% less than sats. But I find differently. I think land surface should be warmer.

                      The ground itself (even with top-rated micrositing) is, in and of itself, a heat sink. Tmax is spiked (occurring 4 hours after noon) and not all the heat that is retained has been re-emitted by sunrise. Thus, warming will be exaggerated. And cooling will be exaggerated — what goes up must come down. (The only reason poor microsite affects trends is that it is enhancing the heat sink ground effect on trend, which is there already, and universally accepted. Basic physics.)

                      USCRN shows more CONUS LST cooling from 2005-2014 than CONUS UAH6.0, by ~13%. That suggests that actual surface warming was that much higher, rather than 10% lower.

                      So that is the baseline for our CRS adjustment. Unfortunately, the USCRN series was not around until 2005. USCRN is reliable, and needs (at most) minimal adjustment.

                      Even co-authors disagree, you know.

                    • Evan Jones

                      Since Spencer is a leading climate science denier,

                      He is the co-recipient (along with Christy) of the NASA Award for Scientific Excellence.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Did they?….Must have been before this
                      August 12, 2005

                      According to a New York Times article, John Christy along with fellow skeptic Roy Spencer admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer. [6]

                      “These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
                      http://desmogblog.com/john-christy

                    • Evan Jones

                      We call that one “honesty”.

                      The RSS whopping adjustment to their data, near-doubles the trend.

                      The controversy is over the joining of two equipment sets. Mears adjusted AMSU-15 to conform with AMSU-14, which is the opposite of the recent UAH adjustment.

                      Spencer, OTOH, indicates that AMSU-15 is far more accurate than AMSU-14, having experienced near-nothing drift, and it is the former that needs the adjustment.

                      It appears that Mears has done the painting, not Spencer or Chritsy.

                      Even so, the new RSS trend is a mere 0.125C/decade from 1979, well below the various surface metrics, and nowhere near CMIP model projections.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      Here you go about honesty Evan the Twister, this is a post to me from a person that lives in Alaska
                      There was no winter in Alaska this year. Very little snow. Virtually none of the normal winter time temperatures. Warmest winter in 110 years of recorded data according to NOAA. It was pleasant, but also very disturbing if you stopped for a second to consider what it means for our future. We are 40 degrees warmer than normal on any given day in February. So when it is normally 20 below, it is 20 above F. So does that mean when it is 80F normally here in the summer that it’ll be 120F? That will mean death by wildfire, heat prostration, drought and starvation

                      So, he is not just peering on a sheet of so called cherry picked data that is your forte
                      As a matter of FACt here are the facts
                      This year is already on pace to be hotter than the previous hottest year ever recorded, which was 2015. NASA recently reported that January 2016 was by far the hottest January on record. January 2016 blew out the previous record for hottest January (2007) by nearly 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

                      Also in January, the Arctic averaged a stunning 13.5 degrees Fahrenheit above average temperatures, which led to a new record low of Arctic sea ice extent for the month.

                      NASA data shows that the previous 12 months have also been the hottest 12-month period every recorded, using the space agency’s 12-month moving average.

                      It cannot be overstated how shockingly dramatic the changes impacting the Arctic are this winter. We should all be highly alarmed by the fact that throughout the Arctic above 70 degrees north latitude, January temperatures averaged between 7 and 23 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than usual for, most incredibly, the entire month.

                      So, watt does your denial buddies come up with?
                      1982 report by the American Petroleum Institute shows that, even then, the group knew of ACD’s impacts. Their report states that ACD “can have serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival.”

                      The Heartland Institute, a think tank funded by the fossil fuel industry and infamous for backing ACD denial, recently distributed a non-science-based report denying the scientific consensus on ACD to elected officials.

                      And You speak of honesty!?
                      http://www.alternet.org/environment/carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-point-15-million-years

                    • Evan Jones

                      Have you even seen the other constructions? (Even the IPCC has shuffled MBH98 back to the Sudoku page between the crossword and the ads fro Gonad the Barbarian XXX.)

                    • Dano2

                      I’ve included some of them on this board. But thanks for entertaining us with the standard fetish.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      MBH98 is simply no longer accepted by anyone who is serious about any of this.

                    • Dano2

                      Which is why totemizing it is so strange.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      It wasn’t the skeptics that totemized it. It was IPCC AR3. Even the subsequent IPCC reports have shuffled it into scientific oblivion.

                    • Dano2

                      Yet the only people mentioning it are the denialists and fetishizers.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      And why would the alarmists? Seems to me that most of them in the scientific community are trying to bury it and forget it. Even Briffa referred to it as “crap”.

                      A disproportionate number of the remaining bitter clingers are not part of the perr-review game.

                    • Dano2

                      Sure, sure. The totem lives, clearly.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      Let it go. If you stick with MBH98 (or even the 2008 version), you are cruising for an intellectual bruising. It’s as simple as that.

                    • Dano2

                      Why would I want to focus on a first paper when there are sooooooooooooo many newer ones that say the same thing, only better ( the question I quit asking denialists long ago when I realized they needed a totem to fetishize and didn’t require facts to aim their victimization )?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      Newer ones like, oh, Loehle or Ljundqvist? Or something a little older, like Moberg?

                      Wanna discuss Marcott? [heh-heh]

                    • Dano2

                      Whatever totem we need to activate the part of your brain that needs totems.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      Hmm. That’s what one’s wargame opponent says when you are shaking him until all his victory points fall out.

                    • Evan Jones

                      MBH98 is completely falsified no matter how you slice it.

                    • Dano2

                      Irrelevant. Two dozen others finding the same – warmer now than in past.

                      Best,

                      D

          • wally12

            Your statement that theories not proven is correct. All climate scientists models are not proven. Even we skeptics will agree with that.

            • Dano2

              Theories not proven! Someone else making us LOLz! Thanks for keeping the skit going!

              best,

              D

              • Evan Jones

                AGW is a theory. The model projections are hypotheses. Revel in the difference.

                • Evan Jones II

                  So is the theory of gravity, Evan. OK, watt is your point? Obviously, you are attempting to created unfounded doubt. The hypotheses have been backed by real research conducted by real scientists…does one need to keep repeating?

                • Dano2

                  Whatever gives you the good feels.

                  Best,

                  D

                  • Evan Jones

                    The closer I examine the surface data, the better the feels. Try it sometime. As Mosh says, the data is out there Go get it.

                    • Evan Jones II

                      https://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm
                      10 indicators are:

                      Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
                      Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
                      Air temperature over the oceans.
                      Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
                      Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
                      Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
                      Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
                      Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
                      Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
                      Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.
                      Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.

                      Basic rebuttal written by James Wight

          • William

            There is not a shred of scientific evidence that man-made CO2 is causing any change, much less problems, in our climate changes ( which are totally natural, caused by the sun’s activities and the earth’s complex behavior while rotating around the sun). The earth’s climate is on the verge of tipping into another glacial period (ice age) and it could do so at any time.

            • Dano2

              There is not a shred of scientific evidence that man-made CO2 is causing any change

              You were duped.

              HTH

              Best,

              D

            • Evan Jones

              There is pretty good evidence for the AGW phenomenon (and it has recently been observed by satellite), though there is less than perfect estimation of the net effect.

              We are on the butt-end of the current interglacial, yes, but I not for quite a while yet, as we continue on a bit with this strange, “sawed off” holocene record. I Suggest the Younger Dryas did it with the Candlestick in the Drawing Room.

          • Brin Jenkins

            If you feel Theories are proof in themselves you don’t understand science at all.

            • Dano2

              Your comedy is always reliable, that’s for sure.

              Best,

              D

        • Jeff Brodhead

          “Crap”, or LIES…. that is the question.
          I believe the latter is the case.

          • Evan Jones

            Just crap, from what I can tell.

        • KLH6

          The reason they focus on everything but the sun is because they can’t control the sun. But the EPA gestapo can tell you how much CO2 your car can emit, etc. Or that you cant use your wood stove so poor people in Appalachia would freeze but I suspect authorities arent too keen on going to those areas. I’m surprised they aren’t asking us to stop exhaling all our CO2.

          • Dano2

            So them thar sun dee-creasin output but our patriotic earth warmin? How dat work?

            best.

            D

            • Evan Jones

              I imagine it works less than he thinks and more than you think.

              Let’s see what the next Scwabe brings. We may learn a lot from that. Wait and see.

              • Dano2
                • Evan Jones

                  That is meaningless projection based on fatally flawed modes. No one knows what effect a grand minimum would have on temperatures.

                  • Dano2

                    Write the authors then and express your umbrage.

                    Best,

                    D

                    • Evan Jones

                      I don’t do umbrage. I do data and observations.

                      Projections (either good or bad) are neither.

                    • Dano2

                      Write them and tell them about your bad feels then.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      Those aren’t bad feels. Those are good feels.

            • Brin Jenkins

              Exactly the question you need to answer.

              • Dano2

                Comical! I LOLzed!

                Best,

                D

          • Brin Jenkins

            Since I started questioning and looking for explanations they seem to be a bit thin on the ground. Why have we a N and South Pole? I think this is likely to be the earth rotating on its axis cutting the Sun’s radiation. We owe all to the Sun for life no wonder the ancients where influenced by its ways.

        • Ian5

          Shrill rubbish statements and no evidence.

      • J T

        Ha, loser.

      • Pam Dunn

        A moron incapable of reading spews its load of idiocy and nonsense.

        • Ian5

          Lashing out yet again…and haven’t done your homework.

          • Brin Jenkins

            You going to educate us then? So far you have no viable explanation of mechanism.

            • Ian5

              Did you read the peer reviewed Journal Article that is the object of. Bastasch’s misleading “journalism”?

              The authors state are very clear:
              “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

              What don’t you understand?

    • CTConservatives47

      This is a typical tactic of the radical left–claim it’s all about the money. Problem is, the money ios almost ALL on the global warming side, to the tune of about 500 to 1. Te reality is if we look at the money, the global warmists have all been bought off by government (taxpayer) funding.

      • Dano2

        Sure, sure. You’d think if there was a there there, there’d be money pouring into science denialism. Why is there no munny for scientist working on a NewPhysics?

        Best,

        D

        • Evan Jones

          As to the basic theory, I agree. For those who dispute it, there isn’t a lot of there there.

          As to the amounts (TCR/ECS), effects, and projecting, There is Here. That’s what the peer-review journals show.

          • Evan Jones II

            Even you own boy, Roy Spencer, is blown away by the jump in temperatures!
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html
            The data for February is so overwhelming that even prominent climate change skeptics have already embraced the new record. Writing on his blog, former NASA scientist Roy Spencer said that according to satellite records—the dataset of choice by climate skeptics for a variety of reasons—February 2016 featured “whopping” temperature anomalies especially in the Arctic. Spurred by disbelief, Spencer also checked his data with others released today and said the overlap is “about as good as it gets.” Speaking with the Washington Post, Spencer said the February data proves “there has been warming
            Numbers like this amount to a step-change in our planet’s climate system. Peter Gleick, a climate scientist at the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, said it’s difficult to compare the current temperature spike: “The old assumptions about what was normal are being tossed out the window … The old normal is gone

            So, Evan, how could you all be so wrong?
            After all it is so obvious!

            • Evan Jones

              The reason Spencer has “embraced the new record” is that the sats actually show it.

              But it is a one-month record as a result of an El Nino. 1915 is not the warmest year according to either the alarmist (RSS) or skeptic (UAH) sat metrics.

              (And considering what Gleick got up to, I am surprised he didn’t just fade away.)

              • Evan Jones II

                Oh, speaking for Dr. Spencer are we now….seems you are in the habit of interpreting the meaning of everything and everyone. The fact is and you refuse to face is there is no lukewarmism, just on your wish list.

                • Evan Jones

                  No prob. So go to his site and read what he has to say in his own words.

                  • Evan Jones II

                    whopping

              • Dano2

                2015 is not the warmest year according to either the alarmist (RSS) or skeptic (UAH) sat metrics.

                Cuz sooooo many people live in dirigibles and so many of our crops are grown in zeppelins!

                And considering what Gleick got up to

                Tsk, tsk. Shame on him, exposing an influential think-tanks purposeful lies in that manner! Who does he think he is? LoWatts?

                Best,

                D

                • Evan Jones

                  He broke the law, violated custom, and is suspected of forging the key document (and not only by conservatives). At the best, it was conduct unbecoming of a scientist.

                  That there are think tanks out there that dispute the amount (or even the primary cause) of global warming, we already knew.

                  • Dano2

                    I agree that the action to expose corporate donors paying Heartland to lie about the scientific evidence was unbecoming and was deception.

                    Forgery accusations were dismissed and no one can show he did (especially not the army of fossil lawyers at Heartland’s disposal).

                    best,

                    D

        • Evan Jones

          I always did think that funding was overrated at this early stage of the climate knowledge game. At least from the analysis end. I’ve done all my studies without a dime of funding and I haven’t asked for any.

    • wally12

      You really don’t expect Mr. Fyfe will give any money back. He will probably come up with a new theory why the hiatus happened but will stay on the “warmer” band wagon and will accept some more fund money. However, it is refreshing that Fyfe admitted that there was a hiatus without providing an explanation. This admission may result in more climate scientists to agree with Fyfe but don’t expect them to give up their claim that CO2 is the driver. To do so would result in a loss of funding from the Obama administration. They have to keep insisting that CO2 is the driver or the UN IPCC, the UN push for funding from industrialized nations and much crying from those poor nations who expect redistribution from the proposed taxing of the US and other industrialized nations.

      • Dano2

        However, it is refreshing that Fyfe admitted that there was a hiatus without providing an explanation.

        You didn’t read the commentary, clearly.

        Best,

        D

  • Dano2

    It’s great that suddenly everyone likes the paper with Mann and Santer as co-authors, isn’t it?

    Glory be!

    Best,

    D

    • cardigan

      So Mann writes rubbish then?

      • Dano2

        No, just odd that the usual suspects who start reflexively howling at the Mann Totem are silent now.

        Best,

        D

  • Li

    Just had a thought about the header chart.
    sat obs v climate models.
    Could Bastach tell me please if
    the climate model track is the
    model of expected sat obs?
    In other words is the chart comparing
    identical situations, one recorded, one modeled.
    Or is it actually a comparison of a
    model of one thing to a record of another
    thing?
    Just curious cuz it sorta lept out at me
    that its not very clear.

    • Pam Dunn

      If you “JUST HAD A THOUGHT” treat it kindly because its probably wrong and definitely in an alien space.

      • Li D

        Pardon?

    • Evan Jones

      The models in question are for surface, not LT.

      But even the (badly flawed) surface metrics do no track the models. If and when the surface metrics are corrected to factor in microsite and CRS bias, the divergence will be even greater.

      • Evan Jones II

        And that is the problem, not seeing the climate as a whole system…so you claim that one piece of the data represents the whole picture, which, of course, it does not.
        But to really understand why the planet’s thermostat has kicked into overdrive, we need to look at what’s happening underwater.

        The oceans are a tremendous energy conveyor belt, absorbing heat from the atmosphere and redistributing it around the world. For the past two decades, the Pacific Ocean has been sequestering heat like crazy, due to a combination of stronger-than-usual trade winds and a lack of major El Niño events. After heat is absorbed at the ocean’s surface, it’s driven down to deeper layers by circulation.

        In fact, so much heat entered the deep Pacific from 1998 to 2014 that temperatures at the surface of the Earth stopped rising, fueling claims of a global warming “hiatus.” I covered a Nature Climate Change study describing this massive heat sink back in January. Here’s what I wrote at the time:

        Pulling together data from diverse sources, including the 19th century Challenger expedition and a new fleet of monitoring devices called deep Argo floats, climatologist Peter Gleckler and his colleagues have now tracked changes in the energy balance of the ocean over the past 150 years, creating the longest continuous record of what’s happening at different depths.

        Overall, they found that nearly half of the industrial era-increase in global ocean heat has accumulated in the last 18 years….What’s more, a full 35 percent of that heat has sunk to below 700 meters in depth— eluding measurements and inciting claims of a warming “hiatus.”
        But just because heat enters the deep ocean doesn’t mean it has to stay there. Which brings us to why climate scientists and meteorologists think we’ve been breaking temperature records nonstop for the past year: deep ocean heat is starting to rise.

        In 2014, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)—a recurring climate pattern that you can think of as a longer-term version of El Niño—shifted from a cool phase to a warm phase. Around the same time, the trade winds began to settle down. The result? Warm water started circulating back to the ocean’s surface. “Then in 2015, with the onset of El Niño, wind, cloud, and ocean circulation patterns all shifted significantly, resulting in more of that warm water surfacing,” NOAA climatologist Gregory Johnson explained to Gizmodo in an email.

        As for whether global temperatures will continue to surge? Over short term, that depends on whether the PDO remains in a warm phase—something that’s notoriously difficult to predict. (Since the early 20th century, the PDO has completed two, roughly 25 year-long warm phases, and both of them were associated with a burst of planetary warming.)

        Over the longer term, it depends on whether we continue pumping fossil carbon into our atmosphere, a habit that leaders of 195 countries recently agreed to kick by the end of the century. Greenhouse gases are the master switch behind our planetary thermostat—and by fiddling with their atmospheric concentrations, we’ve already locked ourselves in to decades of future warming.
        http://gizmodo.com/why-scientists-think-the-planet-is-heating-up-so-fast-r-1762365910

      • Dano2

        even the (badly flawed) surface metrics do no track the models

        Satellite people think surface measurements are better.

        Best,

        D

    • Evan Jones

      They are the IPCC CMIP model run mean vs. sats. (Models don’t even track with the surface record since 2001.)

  • CTConservatives47

    Further proof of the greatest scientific hoax in history. Global warming is a religion, not science.

    • Dano2

      Speaking of hoax, Bastasch duped you. Denialism is a religion, not science.

      First line of the paper Michael likes so much:

      “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

      Best,

      D

      • Brin Jenkins

        not even opinion, just the ramblings of what might have once been intelligence.

        • Dano2

          Not capable enough to grasp the quote from the paper refutes argument.

          Best,

          D

        • Ian5

          Watched the Kids Britannica video yet? Best to start with a basic primer, then come back and offer something useful.

    • Ian5

      You’re not paying attention and are misinformed.

      • Brin Jenkins

        unsubstantiated opinion.

  • Johnstoirvin

    “Reality has deviated from our expectations…”

    The above statement is incorrect. Actually, it was their expectations which deviated from reality, in an effort to create their own reality.

    • Dano2

      First line of the paper Michael likes so much:

      “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

      Best,

      D

  • Johnstoirvin

    Natural Progression…

  • BlueStragler

    Isn’t the hiatus a confirmation that somehow the heat that “should have been” in the atmosphere ended up in the ocean (only to reappear later in the atmosphere) ?

    • Evan Jones

      If it is in the Deep Oceans (under 2000 m.), it will be showing up in dribs and drabs well into the next ice age, thousands of years in the future. For our purposes, the deep oceans are Las Vegas. What goes there, stays there.

      • Evan Jones II

        How do you know that for sure? All conjecture, just like most all of your other so called statements!

  • BlueStragler

    I have read that the hiatus an indication that somehow the heat that “should have been” in the atmosphere somehow ended up in the oceans.

    • Evan Jones

      Some has. But, according to the direct observations, not nearly as much as originally believed.

      For an unknown reason, the “missing heat” always seems to show up in depths and regions where there is no current ability to actually measure it. Coincidence, I’m sure. #B^)

  • owenthomson

    I went to year 10 in high school, so I am not encumbered with the university education which has only served to duplicate the faulty ideas of professors and outdated scientific data. What I did learn in basic science was really quite simple. 1. CO2 is not a heating element, it is actually cooler than air. 2. CO2 is vital for plant life (plants actually thrive on it and they turn it into OXYGEN) 3. CO2 is heavier than air so it would stay closer to the ground and not affect the upper atmosphere. 4. allegedly the earth was full of CO2 during the early parts of the development of the earth (I guess they had some way of measuring that when allegedly no human was alive ?) So then how is it that CO2 is bad for the atmosphere? The sun has a lot to do with the temperature on earth due to its flares and how can we control that? The temperatures are measured in urban areas so it is natural that they are warmer nor than in previous times owing to the stored heat in the roads, concrete paths and concrete buildings. The satellite images show that the warming is not factual and YES there is HUGE money put into the “Climate Change” research and HUGE money paid to companies that control the EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME.. (Al Gore is a major share holder, he’s also not a scientist but a politician) Whose pulling the wool over whose eyes?

    • Ian5

      You are confused. Best educate yourself a little and then tell us what you’ve learned: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      • Brin Jenkins

        There you go again saying educate yourself and pointing to sites you feel support your position. You never explain, because one needs to understand it first.

        • Ian5

          There you go again ignoring the science and making stuff up. Did you watch the Kids Britannica video yet? What is it that you don’t understand.

          • Dano2

            Poor Brin has a tic.

            Best,

            D

    • Evan Jones

      1.) CO2 is not a heating element, but neither is cloth. Yet a blanket can trap warmth.

      2.) Correct. CO2 increase (pus mild warming) has resulted in a ~15% increase in global biomass since 1982, particularly in the areas that need it most.

      3.) The troposphere is a series of revolving belts. that carries CO2 into the UT (and back down to the LT), mixing it fairly well. (Though, according to the recent observations, not as well as previously suspected.)

      4a.) Paleo CO2 (like everything else paleo) is measured by proxies of varying quality. MoE gets pretty big when you go that far back.

      b.) The sun does is the primary driver of basic energy, but only changes in the sun’s output will affect the trend. TSI is not a whole lot different during the LIA/Maunder than during the Holocene. However, other factors (UV, the 10.7 cm flux, etc.) have a greater variance.

      We do not currently know what effect all this has. We just don’t. But if the current Dalton tendencies continue, we may well be finding out. Wait and see what the next Schwabe cycle brings.

      c.) Satellites do show some warming, though not as much as the surface metrics. Because of the heat sink effect of the ground, there will be greater up/down swings at the surface level.

      d.) Most USHCN stations are rural or small town. Only ~9% are urban. Yet I find that while the data clearly shows cities are warmer, it does not show that cities are warming faster.

      Microsite (the immediate environment of the sensor), howevver, has a profound and statistically significant effect on trend. Poor siting exaggerates either warming or cooling even if site quality is constant and unchanging.

      As ~80% of stations are poorly sited and well sited trends are adjusted upward (by over 50%) to match those of the poorly sited stations, the standard surface metrics are out to lunch and must be considered unreliable. Microsite is the New UHI.

      f.) Even so, the flawed surface metrics show nowhere near as much warming as the IPCC models, from when the first models appeared in 1990 all the way through the present. The past is retrofitted by using aerosols as a fudge factor, and PDO/ENSO is not considered at all. Feedback is woefully miscalculated. That alone renders them useless.

  • KLH6

    What happened to the hoopla about the ozone layer? For awhile that’s all we ever heard. The giant hole in ozone layer was all we heard.

    • Dano2

      You can still hear about it. Read some legitimate science sites.

      Best,

      D

  • Evan Jones II

    Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:
    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.
    The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
    References
    Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools
    Manabe and Wetherald 1967
    Manabe and Stouffer 1980
    Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006
    De F. Forster et al. 1999
    Langematz et al. 2003
    Vinnikov and Grody 2003
    Fu et al. 2004
    Thompson and Solomon 2005
    Nights warm more than days
    Arrhenius 1896
    Dai et al. 1999
    Sherwood et al. 2005
    Winter warms more than summer
    Arrhenius 1896
    Manabe and Stouffer 1980
    Rind et al. 1989Balling et al. 1999
    Volodin and Galin 1999
    Crozier 2003
    Polar amplification
    Arrhenius 1896
    Manabe and Stouffer 1980
    Polyakov et al. 2001
    Holland and Bitz 2003
    Arctic warms more than Antarctic
    Arrhenius 1896
    Manabe and Stouffer 1980
    Doran et al. 2002
    Comisa 2003
    Turner et al. 2007
    Pinatubo effects
    Hansen et al. 1992
    Hansen et al. 1996
    Soden et al. 2002
    Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures
    Rind and Peteet 1985
    Farreral et al. 1999
    Melanda et al. 2005
    Temperature trend versus UAH results
    Christy et al. 2003
    Santer et al. 2003
    Mears and Wentz 2005
    Santer et al. 2005
    Sherwood et al. 2005
    Water vapor feedback from ENSO
    Lau et al. 1996
    Soden 2000
    Dessler and Wong 2009
    Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds
    Fyfe et al. 1999
    Kushner et al. 2001
    Sexton 2001
    Thompson and Solomon 2002
    Hadley Cells expand
    Quan et al. 2002
    Fu et al. 2006
    Hu and Fu 2007
    Storm tracks move poleward
    Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003
    Yin 2005
    Tropopause and radiating altitude rise
    Thuburn and Craig 1997
    Kushner et al. 2001
    Santer et al. 2003
    Seidel and Randel 2006
    Tropical “super greenhouse effect”
    Vonder Haar 1986
    Lubin 1994
    Constant average relative humidity
    Manabe and Wetherall 1967
    Minschwaner and Dessler 2004

    • Herb1949

      Repeating BS doesn’t make it smell any better.

      • Evan Jones II

        Herb, I take your comment from where it comes..a person that wrote this

        There is no reason for any free citizen of the USA not to be able to own and carry a gun.
        Anyone that is too dangerous to own, and carry, a gun should be in jail or in a mental institution, no exceptions

        So, in another words, you do not have a background to judge or know BS.

        • Evan Jones

          I don’t see how views on gun control have anything to do with the subject at hand.

          • Evan Jones II

            You don’t?, maybe because my comment was not directed at you but Herb. Just showing the mentality we are dealing with…extreme views that are impractical and harsh.

            • Evan Jones

              Science is science. It’s not as if there have not always been a lot of good but mad scientists out there, anyway.

              So spare me the value judgments and try looking past the scare stories to the actual science (scary or not).

      • Curious

        I think you are responding to Steve Martin. Remember “The Man With Two Minds”?

  • RoscoeBonifitucci

    This Man-Made Climate Change Marxist Crap story reads like a bad version of “1984” combined with the socialism gone bad flick “Brazil”. The EPA (Economy Prevention Agency) has evolved into a tool of America’s enemies. Add in the anti-American Media and we have a recipe for the destruction of America by her enemies, without a single shot being fired.

    The Climate Change Myth is nothing more than an excuse for World Communism by having the wealthy nations provide their largess to those nations who are neither deserving, commendable or proper…kinda like Welfare to Looters.

    America is being Extorted by the 3rd World Thieves and Enemies of the Nation. The name of this Crime is Climate Change. RICO is the appropriate methodology to prosecute the criminals who support this attack upon the Nation.

    • Ian5

      Absolute rubbish with no basis in science. Please educate yourself:
      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    • Brin Jenkins

      Thats a reasoned explanation, 40.000 petitions equaling one truth comes to mind from the ministry of truth.

  • Arschloch

    If ‘gas’ was the cause of ‘the silly global warming garbage’, the easiest method to control ‘green house gases’ is to tape, or better yet sew, shut all political mouths. Ergo; pie hole shut, gasses gone.

    • Brin Jenkins

      The best green house gas is CO2, this tomato growers use to feed our food crops. Some idiots want to reduce this for a flawed theory! Sheesh.

      • Dano2

        Comical! I LOLzed!

        Best,

        D

        • Brin Jenkins

          Explain the joke! What was inaccurate?

          • Dano2

            Open ecosystems are not greenhouses.

            Best,

            D

  • Wiz

    When watching weather reports the Records Set for most days were dates like 1864!
    We have only had satellites for a very short time for measuring and recording data.
    How is it that we are not breaking records set 150 years ago on a daily basis?
    NOAA charts indicate sea level rise constant for 10K years since the ice age and that is leveling off to less than 4mm/yr?

    • Ian5

      Temperature records — both high and low — are being set on a daily basis,. The high temp records are being broken more frequently than lows:
      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

      No, the rate of sea level rise is not leveling off but by contrast is accelerating. Current rates of sea level rise have doubled since the pre-1990 rates.
      https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

      • Evan Jones

        There are problems with both of those metrics (both surface and SL). Much controversy within the community.

        • Evan Jones II
          • Evan Jones

            California shows a lot less warming than the other regions during our study period (1979-2008). Using non-anomalized data, it shows sharp cooling (but we always anomalize).

            • Dano2

              Nonetheless, SLR is accelerating. Scientists tell us this.

              Best,

              D

              • Evan Jones

                The tidal gauges tell us otherwise.

                • Dano2

                  Too bad satellites are the standard. Nevertheless, the tidal gauges near cities being inundated – e.g. Miami – disagree with you.

                  Best,

                  D

                  • Evan Jones

                    Dr. Moerner (the world’s leading oceanographer) showed the sats are drilled in on very limited points and that those points are disproportionately geologically subsiding areas. That biases the record. They are also wretched when it comes to angles and slopes.

                    Sat data is easier to collect, but are much less reliable than the directly measured tidal gauges. it is little more than a glorified proxy. One with a systematic data bias.

                    Going by the gauges, we can expect no more than a 10″ SL rise by 2100.

                    • Dano2

                      the world’s leading oceanographer

                      Hoot! I love that joke!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Ian5

                      last I heard, Moerner does not equal the scientific community.

                    • Evan Jones

                      No, but tidal gauges represent direct observation.

                    • Dano2

                      And cover how much more of the earth’s surface than satellites?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      The problem appears to be that the satellite data is net-adjusted toward points that are naturally subsiding. Tidal gauge data is near net-neutral.

                      Sats are a two-edged sword. They have the coverage. But that very fact means that they are limited to a vertical perspective. So the data must (yes, must) be put through all sorts of adjustments and hashed through all sorts of other data to so as to work out the inferences.

                      Tidal gauges are observational and as straightforward as a poke in the snoot.

                      I think it will not be long before sats get a much better handle on SL than they do now.

                    • Dano2

                      Tide gauges are ~2.3-2.8mm/yr. Sat are ~3.34 mm/yr. Tide gauges hardly near neutral.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Evan Jones

                      Not what I meant.

                      Not near-neutral for SL rise. Near neutral in measuring subsiding vs. uplifting areas, that being the difference in SL rise between the two metrics..

                    • Gianinatio

                      And then there are easily verifiable facts:
                      1. Morner is not an oceanographer.
                      2. Even a perfunctory google search on the term “worlds leading oceanographer”, does not also return the term “Morner”.
                      3. 30 top institutes with published research on Oceanography do not include the institute from which morner retired…11 years ago.
                      4. Morner CLAIMED that INQUA agreed with him. Their actual verbiage clearly does not agree with him.
                      5. And…he’s a believer in “dowsing”

                      If one cannot get a simple statement of fact like this correct, why is there much point in listening further? Would it not be safe to assume that all your statements are equally flawed? If not, why not?

                    • Dano2

                      Another person who took 5 seconds to look into Dr Dowser and came away laughing.

                      Best,

                      D

            • Evan Jones II

              Does of now? You say 1979 to when? 2008? Why did you select those dates in particular?
              Is this a pattern of behavior your mentor Willard Watt has taught you? Could it be intentional? You are not cherry picking, are you? After all you do know how to do it.

              • Evan Jones

                Does it now? You say 1979 to when? 2008? Why did you select those dates in particular?

                A number of reasons. We started all this in 2009. We chose the 1979 start date to coincide with the introduction of the satellite record (for purposes of comparison). We wanted an unequivocal 30-year warming trend so we could examine the effects of warming on stations of varying microsite quality.

                • Evan Jones II

                  Is that so? Who do you think you are dealing with? Dr Twist Data four eyes seems to think we do not know watt he is up to, goes he now?
                  https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
                  A common claim amongst climate “skeptics” is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the first year claimed by “skeptics” for “Global Cooling”. Then 1995 followed by 2002. ‘Skeptics’ have also emphasized the year 2007-2008 and most recently the last half of 2010.
                  To find out whether there is actually a “cooling trend,” it is important to consider all of these claims as a whole, since they follow the same pattern. In making these claims, ‘skeptics’ cherrypick short periods of time, usually about 10 years or less.

                  ‘Skeptics’ also take selected areas of the world where cold records for the recent past are being set while ignoring other areas where all time heat records are being set.

                  Dr. Twist, read the whole article…maybe you’ll learn something (sacr)

                  • Evan Jones

                    I’m not sure what that has to do with what I said. #B^)

          • Evan Jones

            last i heard, California does not equal the scientific community.

  • Darkthirty

    Ice core samples show higher CO2 concentrations during ice ages. Sunspot cycles have a great effect on Earth’s temperatures. When a “scientists” career depends upon a certain outcome………..He/She is biased, and the outcome is assured.

    • Dano2

      Ice core samples show higher CO2 concentrations during ice ages.

      The opposite is true.

      Best,

      D

      • Evan Jones

        CO2 concentration is lower during ice ages. Interglacials show ~100ppm oceanic outgassing.

  • Evan Jones II
  • Nick697

    The U.N.’s climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said openly that the aim of the Paris talks was “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” But that model has worked pretty well. For one, life expectancy in the past 150 years has more than doubled, to 72 years in 2014 from fewer than 30 years in 1870. Meanwhile, those living in extreme poverty now comprise less than 10% of the world’s population, down from more than 75% a century and a half ago. What were originally scientific debates degenerated into politics some 30 years ago.

    As the German leaders demonstrated, when you have control of the media, both broadcast and print, academia, the film industry, and every department of the administration, you can spread propaganda with little fear of being refuted.
    Scientists who pretend to know what mankind’s activities will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are tax-funded propagandists. “The debate is settled,” asserts propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.”

    Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that science is settled, impervious to challenge. Q: If climate “science” is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? A: Because none they make ever comes true. As the great climate physicist Freeman Dyson says, today’s climate-change alarmists are hopelessly mistaken. Their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not
    surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy. Settled? If the raw data contradicts the predictions and underlying models, how settled is the science?

    Obama ostentatiously visits drought-stricken California (Air Force One belching 40 tons of CO2 and hydrocarbons in the process). Surprise! He blames global warming. Here even The New York Times, a staunch supporter of AGW, gagged, pointing out that far from being supported by the evidence, “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier” because rain
    originates in evaporation from the oceans and that increases with rising temperature. Even Obama’s own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says droughts and floods have no connection to global warming. But still the hoax goes on.. In 2012 Hurricane Sandy was constantly cited by Obama administration, Algore etc., and parroted by the media as proving the alleged increased frequency and strength of “extreme weather events” like hurricanes.

    Nonsense. Sandy wasn’t even a hurricane when it hit the U.S. In all of that year
    only a single hurricane made U.S. landfall, and the last major one was in 2005.
    2013 saw the fewest Atlantic hurricanes in 30 years. In fact, in the last half-century, one-third fewer major hurricanes have hit the U.S. than in the previous half-century.
    Similarly tornadoes. Every time one hits, the “climate-change” blame begins. Yet the last three years saw the fewest in a quarter-century. And the last 30 years – of presumed global warming – has seen a 30 percent decrease in extreme tornado activity (F3 and above) versus the previous 30 years. It mocks the very notion of settled science, which is nothing but a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate. As does the term “denier” — an echo of Holocaust denial, contemptibly suggesting the malevolent rejection of an established historical truth.

    And far from increasing atmospheric CO2 causing crop “devastation” and worldwide starvation, as the IPCC and other AGW alarmists have been predicting for years, in 2014, as CO2 passed 400ppm for the first time, we saw an all-time grain harvest worldwide (wheat, corn, rice, oats, barley etc.), beating the previous record by over 7 million tons and saving millions from starvation.

    Manmade global warming, and environmental extremism, is now a religion. In California, land previously the most fertile on earth is now arid because environmental lunatics refuse to allow using for crop irrigation millions of tons of water a month from the Colorado river currently allowed to flow out to sea, in order to save the delta smelt, an inedible 2″ fish. Meanwhile, China became the world’s #1
    polluter five years ago, and now emits 28% of the total world pollution. At its
    present rate, it will ADD every year the entire pollution output of Japan, and every 5 years ADD the entire US output. And India and China (excluded from the requirements of the Kyoto Treaty) are opening a new coal-fired power plant every 11 days, and have over 900 more planned by 2035.

  • J T

    Where is brain-dead “D”? Too cowardly to weigh in?

  • BoilerVette

    Forget about whether the climate models “accurately” represented the climate! Look at their statistical variation – it’s =/- 300%!!! If that is what climatologists call “within reasonable experimental error” than we might as well accept tomorrow’s weather forecast as “high temperature of between 360 degrees F and minus 180 degrees F”!!!

  • old timer

    pollen studies in ancient lake varves indicate that an interglacial warm period, like the one we currently enjoy, can end in as quickly as 3 years!. Solar scientists who follow the correlation between low solar activity and cold periods predict the onset of a 200 year cold period starting as soon as 2017 to 2020. Thankfully they don’t see the planet going back into glaciation yet.