The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming

A picture is worth a thousand words:

It isn’t global.

This is weather, not climate. It is caused by a persistent blocking high pressure pattern. In a day or two, that red splotch over the eastern USA will be gone.

Image from Dr. Ryan N. Maue of WeatherBELL
h/t to Joe Bastardi

UPDATE: Dr. Roy Spencer puts it in perspective

June 2012 U.S. Temperatures: Not That Remarkable

July 6th, 2012

I know that many journalists who lived through the recent heat wave in the East think the event somehow validates global warming theory, but I’m sorry: It’s summer. Heat waves happen. Sure, many high temperature records were broken, but records are always being broken.

And the strong thunderstorms that caused widespread power outages? Ditto.

Regarding the “thousands” of broken records, there are not that many high-quality weather observing stations that (1) operated since the record warm years in the 1930s, and (2) have not been influenced by urban heat island effects, so it’s not at all obvious that the heat wave was unprecedented. Even if it was the worst in the last century for the Eastern U.S. (before which we can’t really say anything), there is no way to know if it was mostly human-caused or natural, anyway.

“But, Roy, the heat wave is consistent with climate model predictions!”. Yeah, well, it’s also consistent with natural weather variability. So, take your pick.

For the whole U.S. in June, average temperatures were not that remarkable. Here are the last 40 years from my population-adjusted surface temperature dataset, and NOAA’s USHCN (v2) dataset (both based upon 5 deg lat/lon grid averages; click for large version):

Certainly the U.S drought conditions cannot compare to the 1930s.

I really tire of the media frenzy which occurs when disaster strikes…I’ve stopped answering media inquiries. Mother Nature is dangerous, folks. And with the internet and cell phones, now every time there is a severe weather event, everyone in the world knows about it within the hour. In the 1800s, it might be months before one part of the country found out about disaster in another part of the country. Sheesh.

About these ads

311 thoughts on “The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming

  1. The only “global” thing in that picture is cooling. Wonder if the MSM will report that? No, I don’t really.

  2. To you with your low human science and pedantry it may appear to be merely yet another meteorological ‘blocking high’, of the sort that cause the Russian heatwave two years ago, but to those of the Climate Illuminati is revealed the real transcendental Truth of the anger of the Global Warming god. Amen, and pass the collection tin.

    Um, sarc.

  3. This is a normal summer for the Mid-Atlantic region. I just noted that National AP (Weah DC) was 102 degrees. But also noted that north of DC in Frederick Co MD that the temps are 95–not a record breaker for here.

    Usually the high is located off shore and called a Bermuda High which brings very hot, humid and lots of POx. But the high is on-shore. Haven’t heard of any POx warnings in the local weather/nes media.

  4. History will show that AGW theory will rank with “evil spirits” in terms of logical reasoning.

    Maybe if we sacrificed a few virgins all the bad weather will go away?

  5. I keep hearing about how winter in the southern hemisphere has been colder than normal, and the anamolies in that figure give credence to that idea. Same thing for summer in the British isles. Course, I fully expect that all these incidents will be somehow linked…you know, global warming is causing the ‘insane’ heat in the US while also causing summer to be cool and wet in Britain and winter to be chillier in Australia.

  6. And Great Britian is having one of the coolest and wetest summers in 100 years. But don’t let actual data get in the way when saving the Earth is in the balance, not to mention more government research grants.

    Bill

  7. Thankfully it is moving away. We are still so short of water that we are looking at crop failure, possibly total crop failure.

  8. Please can you send all that ‘global warming’ over here to the UK? It hasn’t stopped raining since April 1st. Some April Fool that was!

  9. Does put the heatwave in perspective. Maybe UAH is biased somehow, they have the last few months going warmer. Of course this map is for July, which of course is not tallied yet.

  10. Shall we wait and see what the UAH Global Temperature Update will do for July? Shall we?

    And then we will see what July will be for a month globally. A cool one or a warm one. If it gets a little bit higher than June, 2012 will be the third or fourth warmest year on record.
    And what about the rapid decline of Arctic Sea Ice this year:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    If it was really that cold on Earth as you people claim we would not be seeing such rapid ice loss.
    Well I guess you are right Mr. Watts. Pictures can say more than a thousand words.

    REPLY: Clinging to your graphs and religion Mr. Kuipers? – Anthony

  11. Same thing happened in Russia a couple of years ago and it was also blamed on global warming.

  12. misterjohnqpublic says:
    July 7, 2012 at 10:36 am
    Maybe if we sacrificed a few virgins all the bad weather will go away?
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    Send them to me. I will take care of them – umm, the weather, that is…

  13. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has taken advantage of the first real summer (37 C in Waterloo) we have had in years to schedule a rabidly pro-AGW show that includes some lout claiming that ‘ocean acidity is up 33% because of global warming’.

    And you thought no one was keeping track!

  14. It is a perfect world and perfect debate stance when you can follow heat waves from region to region and call them global warming without revisiting the prior cases as you move along. At least that is the current scheme until something else comes along to topple it. That something will be a further span to 20 or 25 years of flat or declining GLOBAL measures of ocean temps and sea level non-rise. We will also see extreme attempts to deflect attention from the PDO, AMO, and solar cycle decline effects.

  15. Hey Robbie!! You got the balls to come back next month and give us your prognostication?

  16. Be aware that that map is not an equal-area projection. Along the equator it is cooler than average, and that is underemphasized by this map (remember Mexico is bigger than greenland), and the warmer areas, being away from the equator, are overemphasized.

    OT: It really bugs me that the ice area maps (actually, any “area” map) never seem to be an equal-area projection.

  17. It is, in my opinion, an error to attribute any single event, whether it’s a derecho, a heat wave, or a hurricane, to climate change. That’s weather.

    On the other hand, as the statistics of weather shift, that’s climate change. And what we’re seeing are the weather statistics moving (see http://tinyurl.com/cgnaj79 for a discussion and data) to hotter and higher energy events.

    It’s just like lung cancer – any individual case might be from a genetic issue, accidental exposure to toxins or radiation, or just plain bad luck. But the changing statistics of increasing lung cancer (which was in the past extremely rare) are almost wholly attributable to smoking rates.

    So no, this particular heat wave cannot be directly attributed to climate change. But we’re certainly going to see a lot more more of them, with fewer cold events, as climate averages change and the weather dice get loaded more and more heavily to the hot side…

  18. Robbie said: “If it gets a little bit higher than June, 2012 will be the third or fourth warmest year on record.”

    If this happens, and it could, why should we care? We have been coming out of the Little Ice Age for 150+ years. Is it surprising if the general trend is upwards? What is problematic for you and your buddies is that for 15 years we have been basically flat. If CO2 was such a strong catalyst then the past 15 years should have led to inescapable warming…..they have not.

    For fun, let’s remember this quote by Gavin Schmidt from 2007. The first enumerated points were questions put to Dr. Schmidt and his response follows. Basically, if this year (“year 5″ of his points) doesn’t exceed the warmest year on record in all 4/5 indices, the condition has been met for Gavin to question Anthropogenic Global Warming….how much you wanna bet he finds a way to NOT question it?

    “(1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding

    (2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise&#8221

    (3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings

    I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?

    [Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I'd need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality - right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that's the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. - gavin]“

  19. I really do wish we could have Global Warming in the UK. The weather is cold and, to put it mildly, wet!

  20. @ Robbie

    And then we will see what July will be for a month globally. A cool one or a warm one. If it gets a little bit higher than June, 2012 will be the third or fourth warmest year on record.

    At the end of June the UAH YTD temp is 0.146C above the 1981-2010 average.

    I suggest we all panic now.

  21. Yet, much of the NH mid-latitude land areas are rising at a rate of over one deg F (over 0.6 deg C) per decade. See Figure 3 of the 2012 GRL paper by Judah Cohen. Draft here:

    http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL12.pdf

    By 2100, most (over 70%) of the summer days in the Midwest will exceed 90 deg F, unless we reduce AGW.

    Extreme hot weather similar to the last week’s excessive heat wave will occur every other summer week in the future!

    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-change-illinois.pdf

  22. Quick analogy based on what I happen to be doing at the moment:

    Let’s say you’re trying to cook an omelet. You mix the eggs and pour them in a pan. You put the pan on a thing that’s labeled as a “warmer”.

    Ten minutes later, 1/3 of the egg is fried, and 2/3 is frozen.

    What have you done to the eggs on average? Have you cooked them? No, you haven’t done anything to the eggs on average. The question is completely meaningless.

  23. Yep… summer in the northern hemisphere and winter in the southern hemisphere… makes sense!

  24. One picture is worth a thousand words… Especially when it tells the story of how AGW is going to hit our states hard with extreme hot weather.

    This is the report for Pennsylvania (my home state getting hit hard by AGW) by the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Exec-Summary_Climate-Change-in-Pennsylvania.pdf

    See Figure 1 showing the state’s temperatures before 1990, compared to the state temperatures by the end of this century. More heat waves are coming…

    REPLY: The Union of Concerned Scientists? An NGO turned fearmongering moneymaker that requires only a credit card to be a member with no qualifiactions whatsoever? THATS’s your evidence? GUFFAW, ROTFL! Sure, whatever you say. Kenji says otherwise. – Anthony

  25. On the site of Joanne Nova for the posting listed as

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/weather-from-before-coal-fired-power-stations-shock-not-perfect/

    There is a nice chart:

    A small green arrow and red dot show our current state of affairs. To the right of that red dot is the future in dashed lines.

    I’ve used the link to Jo’s site because the article there is so very interesting. However, the chart is also on WUWT here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/

    In the current post and comments:
    Robbie says:
    July 7, 2012 at 10:59 am
    Shall we wait and see . . . ~ . . . Shall we?

    I think we should. Meanwhile, I trust Robbie will cut CO2 emissions to near zero – you do have to breathe. I, on the other hand, intend to use my car and air conditioner insofar as I agree with Roy Spencer, namely “It’s summer.” I did grow up before air conditioning and remember summer nights when it was too hot to sleep. That had the advantage that one did not find it unpleasant to go to the outhouse in the middle of the night, unlike in winter when the thunder mug was the better choice.

  26. Typo correction- My comment above should read: “Yet, much of the summer NH mid-latitude land areas are rising at a rate of over one deg F (over 0.6 deg C) per decade.

    Just looking at JJA average trend for the NH land area from 20-90N latitudes shows 0.7 deg F per decade rise average, but much of the land area where people live in the NH has average temperatures climbing over 1.0 deg F per decade (see the map in Figure 3 in the Cohen paper).

  27. While I was writing the comment @12:22 a new comment came through. From Paul K2 with the home state of Pennsylvania. I think I should mention that the State that I found too hot to sleep in many years ago – before catastrophic-AGW religion was invented, was – ready? . . . .
    Pennsylvania!

  28. I wouldn’t get too worried about the heat and lack of rain. Only two months ago the BBC was telling us Brits that due to global warming droughts are the future, now they are reporting with the aid of the UEA that floods are the future.

    The UK Met office are in on the fraud too. They predicted April, May and June would be dry and the reservoirs would not be replenished by Summer rain. Since then we have had nothing but rain and floods.

  29. REPLY: The Union of Concerned Scientists? An NGO turned fearmongering moneymaker that requires only a credit card to be a member with no qualifiactions whatsoever? THATS’s your evidence? GUFFAW, ROTFL! Sure, whatever you say. Kenji says otherwise. – Anthony

    Anthony, have you bothered to read the Cohen (2012) paper I linked to that was published in the GRL entitled “Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends”? There is much there you might like; but most of the analysis contradicts your conjectures in this post.

    Here is the Abstract for your perusal:
    Current consensus on global climate change predicts warming trends driven by anthropogenic forcing, with maximum temperature changes projected in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes during winter. Yet, global temperature trends show little warming over the most recent decade or so. For longer time periods appropriate to the assessment of trends, however, global temperatures have experienced significant warming for all seasons except winter, when cooling trends exist instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. Hence, the most recent lapse in global warming is a seasonal phenomenon, prevalent only in boreal winter.
    Additionally, we show that the largest regional contributor to global temperature trends over the past two decades is land surface temperature in the NH extratropics. Therefore, proposed mechanisms explaining the fluctuations in global annual temperature trends should address this apparent seasonal asymmetry.

    As for the Union of Concerned Scientist maps, there are many projections of what extrapolated AGW warming trends for NH land areas like the US mainland out there. The displays on that site convey the information quickly, accurately, and easy to understand.

  30. The U.S. and Canada should be preparing for a repeat of the “Dirty Thirties”. Being prepared for this type of cyclical weather pattern would be prudent social planning. It may get allot hotter and drier just like the 30’s

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

    (notice wikipedia renamed the dirty 30’s ROFL)

  31. “The is weather, not climate. It is caused by a persistent blocking high pressure pattern. In a day or two, that red splotch over the eastern USA will be gone.”

    Yes – our CAGW climate scientists forget that “weather is not cimate” unless it’s winter and somewhere there is a new low temperature record.

    But remember that these scientist/advocates are merely opportunists, fund-raising off of others’ misery (e.g. the western wild fires).

  32. John F. Hultquist: Most homes in Pennsylvania didn’t have AC thirty years ago. None of my family had AC in their homes. We really didn’t need it much. That is likely why you had trouble sleeping. Now, most of my extended family there has AC.

  33. Robbie says:
    July 7, 2012 at 10:59 am

    Shall we wait and see what the UAH Global Temperature Update will do for July? Shall we?

    As you may have noticed Mr. Kuipers the atmosphere is extremely dry in the areas where it is the temperatures are high so the atmospheric enthalpy is also extremely low. Therefore the actual amount of heat energy required to raise the atmospheric temperatures to their current levels is very low. So it actually proves very little. But then you really knew that anyway.

  34. Joseph Adam-Smith says (July 7, 2012 at 11:32 am)
    I really do wish we could have Global Warming in the UK. The weather is cold and, to put it mildly, wet!
    —-
    And yet where I am (Hampshire) we still have a hosepipe ban. The local water company enforces it by sending scuba divers down into my garden to make sure I’m not watering it.

  35. Robbie,.
    How many years is climate according to the IPCC or the WMO??? Don’t bother it’s 30 years.

    It’s just the weather and not the climate.

  36. Just for some reference or some balance: the coolest spring I’ve experienced here in Eastern Oz was in 1999. The coolest summer was in 2012 (after a hot spring). The highest heat was in 2004, but it was brief. All records for sustained heat (ie mean monthly max) were set between 1910 and 1920 in my region. Only August set its record outside that decade – in 1946!

    I’d like to blame America’s Big Heat on something – but I don’t know much about what was happening in 1936. I’m told it was preceded by a horror winter. Go figure.

  37. I was recently conversing by phone with a highly educated American friend who lives in Oxford, UK. We of course touched on the weather. He vociferated about the exceptionally cold, wet, unpleasant weather there this summer. When I did the same regarding the exceptionally hot and dry weather here in Colorado, his immediate response was, “And they say Global Warming isn’t happening!”

    Is there something in the water over there?

  38. Of course this heatwave is weather. What else could it be? And of course it’s climate as well. It is scarcely credible that you would think the two are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you could explain in more detail what you could possibly mean by “weather, not climate”.

  39. It seems to me that an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases should moderate surface temperature extremes, both peak highs and peak lows, while increasing the daily average. This seems apparent to me because desert areas with their lower humidity levels generally have daily temperature extremes that are both higher and lower than more humid areas at the same latitude. It’s certainly most apparent on the moon.

    Is there something wrong with my logic? If not, why do climate alarmists blame most weather extremes on anthropogenic CO2. Or maybe they just choose to be dishonest and remain silent when journalists make incorrect assumptions. This doesn’t make sense to me either unless the vast majority of all journalists chose their profession because they have no aptitude whatsoever for math and science and are unable to distinguish fact from fiction in such matters. I have had one conservative newspaper editor privately agree with me that the latter case is true.

  40. James says:
    July 7, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    I wouldn’t get too worried about the heat and lack of rain. Only two months ago the BBC was telling us Brits that due to global warming droughts are the future, now they are reporting with the aid of the UEA that floods are the future.

    The UK Met office are in on the fraud too. They predicted April, May and June would be dry and the reservoirs would not be replenished by Summer rain. Since then we have had nothing but rain and floods.
    —————–

    Are you Brits allowed to use your watering hoses yet? Or are you still officially in a drought?

    The UK MET Office deserves a medal for predicting the exact opposite weather to what happens. If they predict rain perhaps you might get some decent weather for the London Olympics!

  41. Its peculiar that so many readers here seem to deny that much of the middle part of the US mainland has had some extremely hot weather recently. Most people who live there seem to be asking “What’s UP with this extremely hot weather?” and “When will it end?”

    Well, what’s up might be that we have changed the meteorological system. I am happy to see that WUWT has finally recognized that the Arctic ice pack is melting off severely every summer, including this summer (WUWT expects ice extent to fall below 4.5 million sq km this year). This is a nice baby step in the correct direction.

    Now lets try a bigger step. NH weather systems are driven by the jet stream. The jet stream is driven by the pressure differential between the arctic and the mid-latitudes. Now what happens when the Arctic isn’t as cool, and the pressure of the mid-troposphere rises?

    The pressure differential changes, and the jet stream slows, which means that it is more susceptible to blocking patterns. In short, Arctic amplification warms the arctic, which changes the jet stream and changes weather patterns in the NH.

    Here is a nice video by Dr. Jennifer Francis, a meteorologist from Rutgers, explaining how this happens:

    So yes, the climate scientists predict climate changes. And now the meteorologists are predicting weather pattern shifts base on observed climatic changes, such as the loss of the Arctic ice pack and reduced snow cover.

    My friends and family are sorry to hear, that these kinds of heat waves are here to stay, and with more on the way in the coming years.

  42. Many folks, including reporters here in Ohio will remember the “Drought
    of 1988″. We had high temps and low precipitation. It was bad news for
    the people, the crops, and the critters alike.

    This week we’ve beaten several of the daily temperature “records”
    set that summer… except now the NWS/NOAA has become even
    more reliant on temperature records taken at airports.

    That was weather then, just as this is weather now.

  43. Joseph Adam-Smith says:

    July 7, 2012 at 11:32 am

    I really do wish we could have Global Warming in the UK. The weather is cold and, to put it mildly, wet!

    Been like that most of the 65 years of my life, despite the idiots prophesying ice ages and global warming and the end of the world.

  44. Anthony, I’ve enjoyed following your site for months as a layperson trying to get a better handle on various points of view. I tend to be skeptical by nature, though I lack any scientific training, so sometimes the hand waving of the commenters blurs things. It seems that saying it is colder in the UK so climate change isn’t happening is just the same as saying all the new high temps in the US means there is climate change happening.

    I’m hoping you can remind me of your point of view, which I believe is that the earth is in a warming trend but you are quite skeptical that the causes are induced by man vs. naturally occurring events, such as sunspot activity? I’m sure your view is much more nuanced, but I’d love to hear (and see on the home page) how you think about the trend. I’m also curious to learn more about your current view on where things might be going per the very interesting posts by you and others here.

  45. Don says:
    July 7, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    “Is there something in the water over there?”

    Maybe. At a dinner a week ago I was seated next to a nice man from Nottingham, UK. He was very pleasant, well educated, extremely polite, and he spoke in a very quiet voice. Throughout the dinner we discussed his job, which was quite technical. His company is a U.S. government subcontractor for NASA.

    Then someone mentioned “global warming”, and it was like The Wolfman, where hair suddenly sprouts from his face and hands, fangs appear, and he starts growling and ripping out of his clothing with saliva flying.

    He instantly launched into a loud rant about the oceans “acidifying by 30% practically overnight!” and other extreme climate alarmist talking points. I was astonished, because he was scientifically literate.

    I made the [deliberate] mistake of asking him, if “carbon” causes global warming, then why has the planet not warmed for 15 years? I am not exxagerating when I say he lost it. He jumped from one crazy talking point to the next in a loud voice, and I couldn’t get a word in. People were watching from other tables. I ended up just listening and smiling, which made him crazier. He announced that he had to leave, and did.

    I’m still amazed recalling it. I had heard of people losing it like that, but this was my first personal experience. Maybe there is something in the water. LSD?


  46. Regarding the “thousands” of broken records, there are not that many high-quality weather observing stations that (1) operated since the record warm years in the 1930s, and (2) have not been influenced by urban heat island effects, so it’s not at all obvious that the heat wave was unprecedented. Even if it was the worst in the last century for the Eastern U.S. (before which we can’t really say anything), there is no way to know if it was mostly human-caused or natural, anyway.”

    And the past records themselves have been changed at times. Here’s the record highs from 2 list obtained from the NWS. One was in 2007 and the other in 2012. Can anyone explain to me how the record high set in 1966 can be lower than the previous record set in 1907?

    The list from 2007:23-Mar 81 1907
    The list from 2012: Mar-23 76 1966

  47. Nick,

    The earth has been in a warming trend since the Little Ice Age. It is worthwhile to note that the long term, gentle warming trend has not accelerated. [The green line is the trend, which is actually decelerating.]

    You can see here that the rising trend is unchanged. If the ≈40% rise in CO2 had the claimed effect, the trend would be accelerating, no? But it is not.

    In fact, despite steadily rising CO2 levels, the global temperature is not responding, indicating that the effect of CO2, if any, is minuscule.

    The longest temperature record in the world confirms the same trend in other cities, showing that the long term rising trend is within past parameters. If CO2 caused measurable global warming, it would show up in the trend. But it doesn’t. Thus, the CO2=CAGW conjecture is falsified by real world observations.

  48. Lester Via and Smits: I think climatology is the study of long term climate trends, and meteorology is the study of weather patterns. The two fields intersect when persistent weather pattern changes occur year after year, or when meteorologists link observed climate change impacts (like reduced Arctic ice pack) to weather pattern changes ( such as NH heat waves, droughts, floods, snowstorms, and cold spells). Eventually some climate changes can impact weather patterns.

    Up until recently, the main mechanism for estimating AGW impacts on weather, was the “loaded dice” analogy. Higher average temperatures increase the odds of extreme high temperature events, or higher moisture levels in the atmosphere should result in more extreme precipitation events.

    But the climate scientists underestimated the impact of AGW on the polar regions. The Arctic ice pack, and snow coverage, have fallen much faster than the climate scientists expected. This appears to be due to increased teleconnection of heat into the Arctic, and the fact that the melt mechanism of the Arctic ice pack speeds up as the pack is weakened.

    So now some meteorologists are tying reduced ice pack and snow cover in the Arctic (warmer Arctic) to jet stream changes, which in turn can cause extreme weather events. In summary, because we delayed action to address AGW, we may have altered the meteorology of the NH (we ‘broke’ our weather system). This theory is gaining weight as more and more researchers publish.

  49. In Central Oregon I have not removed the tarp from the AC yet. Most summers it runs only a day or two. If CO2 is the AGW problem and it must be reduced and coal fired electrical plants are the culprit, I see a major reduction in electrical power coming courtesy of the EPA. I grew up in the midwest and remember the windows open sweating in the sheets summer nights. Now when I go back to visit it is AC everywhere. So the question is: are the AGW alarmists willing to cut electrical power to essentials, which certainly should not include AC since we survived without it 50 years ago and most of the world does today? Under those circumstances Paul K2 could decide just how important AC is versus his concern about AGW.

  50. In 1970 I was . I spent June in Cambridge, New York; very rural, It reached 100F. I was surprised, It was hotter than South Florida., my home.
    What made it hot then? What?

  51. Nick: You should realize that the people posting here are generally amateurs, and I have found most of the posts on this site that cover topics related to science to be incorrect. For example, just last week there was a post by Dr. Outcalt that was complete nonsense. If you take the time to read down through all the comments, you will eventually see that (even though many substantial comments were snipped by the moderator). This has been true for most of the posts that pretend to cover real science. If you take the time, and slog through the nonsense in the comments, in many cases the mistakes in the posts will become apparent.

    I highly recommend reading Tamino’s site, since he has the time to identify and correct at least some of the mistakes on the posts here (like the Outcalt post). I won’t put the link to Tamino here, because I am afraid of the moderators.

    [Moderator's Note: It is absolutely fascinating that a search on the name "Paul Klem" (or "Paul K. Lem") yields nothing of substance, but the very same anonymous coward is able to declare a respected physicist's work "nonsense" and manages to disparage, almost in the same breath, the many professionals that comment here. "Tamino" (known to his friends as "Grant Foster") is linked on the right. We know him of old. He's not as bright as he thinks he is. Your grasp of the science is quite a bit shakier than you think.

    Oh, yeah.... disparaging the moderators and moderation policy will get you snipped. You have been given a fair degree of latitude here and my advice is don't push it. -REP]

  52. Blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming is just as follyish (?) (okay, foolish) as blaming the cooling wave in the UK right now on global cooling.

    But that won’t stop them.

  53. Here is a high resolution Temperature anomaly map from the Modis Terra satellite for the week of June 25 to July 2.

    The US hotspot is clear enough but there are quite cold areas in northwest North America, northern Europe, central Africa, central China, northeast Siberia, and Australia.

    Larger version.

    Certainly does not look like a GHG signal; the weather is variable is a better explanation.

  54. And we are freezing here in Australia – areas up to 7C below normal at times – coldest start to July in 27 years was one report & June was cold too. Minimum records falling like autumn leaves.

  55. R.S.Brown says:
    July 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm
    Many folks, including reporters here in Ohio will remember the “Drought
    of 1988″. We had high temps and low precipitation. It was bad news for
    the people, the crops, and the critters alike.

    This week we’ve beaten several of the daily temperature “records”
    set that summer… except now the NWS/NOAA has become even
    more reliant on temperature records taken at airports.

    That was weather then, just as this is weather now.
    ===================================================================
    And the airport in Columbus has been expanded since then.
    (I moved here about that time. The winters were brutal. A couple of close to all time record lows in 1989.)

  56. A point of personal order here… On our first 108 (Heat index) day of July 4th, 2012…I skated (inline) 12 miles, 4 times around a local 3 mile trail around a local Minneapolis lake. In 1988 I biked 12.5 miles from Excelsior MN, to an aunt and uncles in Edina MN. I figure if I can go from age 35 to age 59 and still “perform” I’m doing pretty good. And I’m not worrying about AWG, as I HAVE A MEMORY and 1988 makes this summer look like a “piker” in comparison. (I.e., NO comparison.)

  57. Paul K2;
    But the climate scientists underestimated the impact of AGW on the polar regions. The Arctic ice pack, and snow coverage, have fallen much faster than the climate scientists expected.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well I have been following the climate debate from several years and that statement is just exactly opposite of the facts. They grossly over estimates ice pack melt in NH, predicting an ice free arctict that is no where in sight. They predicted coastal cities under water by now, which are having trouble actually measuring any local sea level change at all. They predicted melting in the SH too (how convenient of you to leave that out) but the ice in the SH has been increasing (which you also conveniently over look). As for the rest of your tripe, it amounts to cherry picking some data and deriving a linear trend from a cyclic system.

    They predicted accelerating global temp increases, instead, the highest concentrations of CO2 ever recorded in our lifetimes correspond to declining temperatures. The predicted increased desertification, we’ve seen a decline instead. They predicted increased severeweather, but on a global basis, total cyclone energy has declined ever since we started measuring it 30 years ago.

    What your various comments amount to is sifting through reams and reams and reams of data that says the exact opposite of what the climate scientists and their models predicted to find the odd short term trend that agrees with the general meme and then pretend that it represents some sort of long term trend. For those of us who actually pay attention to the whole picture, the only one you are fooling is yourself.

  58. @TomE
    “Under those circumstances Paul K2 could decide just how important AC is versus his concern about AGW.”

    When the alarmists actually ACT like they are alarmed, (instead of just mouthing).

    1) I’ll be totally amazed.
    2) I might bother taking them 0.001% seriously

    Come on K2.. turn of all you AC’s computers.. anything that uses power, shows us you REALLY believe. Maybe you can then try and persuade AlGore and the many thousands who junketted to Rio, Cancun etc..

  59. You know what Im tired of? Im tired of news and weather casters telling us how hot it feels. How the heck do they know how hot I feel. I bet you Im way cooler when Im standing in my sprinklers:) Wish they would just go back to degrees and humidity separately instead of making up some arbitrary number based on feels like and presenting that to us as today’s temps.

  60. Paul K2,

    You will get plenty of misinformation from tamina’s blog. And he censors opposing points of view; the mark of an insecure Grant Foster. That’s why his traffic is negligible. Here, you can bring the talking points you get from tamina and watch them get deconstructed.

  61. davidmhoffer wrote: Well I have been following the climate debate from several years and that statement is just exactly opposite of the facts. They grossly over estimates ice pack melt in NH, predicting an ice free arctict that is no where in sight. They predicted coastal cities under water by now, which are having trouble actually measuring any local sea level change at all.

    Try getting some facts from the source, instead of relying on WUWT to process the information before feeding it to you.

    I copied and pasted the predictions from the 4th IPCC report:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

    Please note these predicitions contradict your statement:

    Snow cover is projected to contract. Widespread increases in thaw depth are projected over most permafrost regions. {10.3, 10.6}

    Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. {10.3}

    It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. {10.3}

    If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B levels[14], thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to 0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980–1999). Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries, due to the time required to transport heat into the deep ocean. {10.7}

    Contraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest that ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9°C to 4.6°C. If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 10.7}

  62. AndyG55;
    When the alarmists actually ACT like they are alarmed, (instead of just mouthing).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You’ve hit on one of my favourite points. Are the alarmist scientists who are predicting that the whole planet is going to roast except for just a handful of areas acting in any way as if that were true? Are they seeking citizenship in countries like Canada, and buying land at both high latitudes and high elevations? No they are not. Why would anyone who is so certain of a disaster about to befall humanity on a global basis not take such simple steps to protect their families? Their children and grandchildren? Why are they not building survival habitats stocked with canned goods in areas that they claim will be amongst the few that are sustainable for the support of human life? Why do they wail and scream and demand that we take action to save the world’s people while doing not one d*mn thing to save themselves, their kids, and their grandkids? Are we to believe that their altruism runs so deep that out of concern for humanity they have not taken a single step in regard to the safety of themselves and their kin?

    Instead they continue their course of conjuring up magic sufficiently advanced that they hope it is indistinguishable from science. Arthur C Clarke would be impressed.

  63. Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm
    Its peculiar that so many readers here seem to deny that much of the middle part of the US mainland has had some extremely hot weather recently.
    ======================================================
    ME: Sorry to disapoint but I haven’t read anyone denying that. My 10 year old RadioShack sensor says it got to 102 F on my front porch today. What have you been reading?
    ===============================================================
    PAUL: Most people who live there seem to be asking “What’s UP with this extremely hot weather?” and “When will it end?”
    ===========================================================
    ME: Maybe it will end when the CAGW “Team” stop blowing hot air UP our asses?
    =================================================================
    PAUL: Well, what’s up might be that we have changed the meteorological system.
    =================================================================
    ME: Got anything besides a hockey stick to prove that? (Don’t bother posting a link to “An Inconvenient
    Truth”.) I don’t know how old you are but I’m old enough to remember hot summers in the past. They happen sometimes. Always have. Always will. Now somebody figured out how to make money from it.
    ========================================================================
    PAUL: My friends and family are sorry to hear, that these kinds of heat waves are here to stay, and with more on the way in the coming years.
    ================================================================
    ME: So tell me. Just what is the weather “supposed to be”? What is “normal” in your world?

  64. KR says:
    July 7, 2012 at 11:26 am
    It’s just like lung cancer – any individual case might be from a genetic issue, accidental exposure to toxins or radiation, or just plain bad luck. But the changing statistics of increasing lung cancer (which was in the past extremely rare) are almost wholly attributable to smoking rates.
    =================================================
    Yeah, it is the same “lying with statistics” story again. In your example, what about the possibility of changing statistics of increasing lung cancer because of increasing lung cancer among non-smokers, is it attributable to smoking rates? No, of course not.

    As for your “global warming”, even if it was real, it is a sort of average thing and could be the result of increasing temperatures in cold areas while the warmer areas were getting cooler on average. Hence you can not even theoretically attribute heat waves to a “global average warming”, it is completely unscientific.

  65. Paul K2 says (July 7, 2012 at 2:05 pm)
    I highly recommend reading Tamino’s site,
    ———
    Reading, sadly, is all once can do. As soon as any opinion which differs in the slightest degree from the Great Man’s views are sent in, they are either suppressed or the commentator is gratuitously insulted with the crowd cheering him on.

    Since you have been talking about Arctic ice trends, here’s a perfect example. Note (1) that one should not fear the moderators here about linking to a site with a different outlook, and (2) Tamino’s blast of rudeness to a dissenter.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/sea-ice-3-d/

  66. Paul K2 says: Anthony, have you bothered to read the Cohen (2012) paper I linked to that was published in the GRL entitled “Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends”? There is much there you might like; but most of the analysis contradicts your conjectures in this post.

    Paul, have _you_ read it?

    Did you notice that all the pretty graphs are NOT climate , they are climate models. Now with the massive ammounts of data available for the last 30 years why do you suppose they chose to analyse model data to comment on climate rather than climate data? Or why , having studied climate models do they not draw conclusions about climate models rather than climate?

    Why do they limit thier study to the last 30 years when models runs are available going back centuries. It is well known that there is a circa 60 year variation in climate and that there was a cooling running upto mid 70’s. Odd they chose to skip that period when looking at thier “trends”.

    This is not climate science it is SPAM. They and many others are spamming peer reviewed literature with this sort of pseudo science on an almost daily basis now and it is no more convincing than the magic claims that I could grow 9″ of dick in under 15 days that I receive with similarly boring repitition.

    Had they looked at seasonal difference between the warmig and the cooling parts of the cycle, it may have been interesting or even informative. Sadly they missed that opertunity and pointlessly looked at variations in the output of models that have notoriously failed to match climate.

  67. Paul K2: I got interested in this after the 2009 publication of the NCAR study discussing record high vs. record low temperatures. They identified a trend to more high records, and it was picked up by Andrew Revkin of the NYT.

    NOAA collects and reports 4 types of daily temperature records: maximum, minimum, maximum low, and minimum high. Here is a simple tabulation of the total of all 4 types of records, from 1994 to now (2012 is annualized by doubling the first six months):

    Year: Temperature records (in thousands):
    1994 103.4
    1995 128.0
    1996 143.0
    1997 117.1
    1998 136.8
    1999 117.8
    2000 134.6
    2001 100.0
    2002 125.6
    2003 111.0
    2004 96.2
    2005 106.7
    2006 119.0

    2007 90.7
    2008 51.1
    2009 62.0
    2010 69.9
    2011 81.7
    2012 92.2

    Insofar as the number of temperature records is a proxy for weather extremes, it’s pretty clear that there has been a *decrease* over the last six years compared to the previous dozen or so.

    mean 1994-2006: 110.2

    mean 2007-2012: 74.6

    That’s a pretty big change, more than 30%.

    Now, let’s see, what declined substantially over the period from 2007 or so to now, reaching a minimum around 2008-2009? Hmmm…. Oh, I know!

    http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfjmms.html

    Nah, couldn’t be. Climate scientists assure us that variations in solar activity are too small to explain much of anything….

  68. Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    But the climate scientists underestimated the impact of AGW on the polar regions.
    ====================================================
    Let me tell you this: every single climate scientist who estimates the impact of AGW on whatever is blatantly wrong. I mean, even if AGW was real. AGW is a purely statistical sort of average calculation product derived from a sample of temperature measurements.

    An average can not have impact on parts of the sample, it is exactly the other way round.

  69. Face it Anthony… The earth is warming. Regardless of what you think the cause is, it’s getting hotter. And guess what happens when it gets hotter? More heat records are broken, droughts will be more severe, etc.. Is the point of this article that you don’t even think the earth is getting hotter?

    [REPLY: Yes, you want Anthony to defend denialist sites like this and this. We love the smell of real science in the morning. -REP]

    REPLY: What a warped conclusion. I’m talking about weather patterns and this anonymous twit thinks I’m in denier mode. Sure we’ve seen an increase in temperature in the last century, I’ve NEVER said we haven’t. I just don’t think its is a crisis, and I don’t see any evidence that CO2 forcings have overridden natural variations yet. – Anthony

  70. Paul K2;
    Try getting some facts from the source, instead of relying on WUWT to process the information before feeding it to you.
    I copied and pasted the predictions from the 4th IPCC report:
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    Sir,
    I see that you are no run of the mill troll. You are an expert troll. You planted an agregiously false statement in the hopes of getting called on it so that you could respond with reams of quotes that seem to support your position. For the record:

    1. I got most of my background in climate initially from reading AR4 myself, long before I discovered WUWT. It was reading the highly cherry picked, grossly misrepresented, marketing spin dressed up as science, cherry picked total cr*p that convinced me that the whole mess was a facade in the first place.

    2. The endless quotes, out of context and frequently poorly, inaccurately, or even fictitiously cited that comprise AR4 could be used to show that they predicted that the earth would freeze over tomorrow if you cherry picked enough. The wording of Ar4 is such that it could be taken to mean pretty much ANYTHING after the fact.

    3. Your original assertions did not specify AR4, they were much broader than that, suggesting what the leadership of the CAGW meme have being saying, which goes far beyond what AR4 said, and encompasses a considerable amount of science that has been….. ooops I mean magic…. that has been published in the years since AR4. AR5 is on the horizon in part because AR4 has proven to be a complete failure.

    If you want to debate AR4, then say so up front. But don’t come here, try and tell me where I should get my facts from when you don’t even know in the first place where I get them from and where I don’t, and don’t make general statements that you then defend by trying to exclude everything before and since AR4 from the discussion.

    Sorry for under estimating your troll abilities earlier. Clearly you get a capital T. Troll.

    REPLY: Yes Paul K2 who previously commented here as Paul Klemencic is a well known troll. He mostly hangs out at Lucia’s. I generally ignore him as he’s hopeless. – Anthony

  71. Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 2:44 pm
    Contraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest that ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming …
    ===============================================
    Yeah, this is exactly the sort of blunder I referred to in my previous comment. AVERAGE!

    A simple example. Australia gets warmer, Greenland Ice Sheet gets colder, everything else remains unchanged and you have net average warming as a result. Now, how on earth can the colder Greenland Ice Sheet lose more ice? No way.

    This is what happens if “scientists” connect unrelated stuff. Sad.

  72. Looking back at this thread, I ran across Smokey’s latest post, and I really have to say I’m impressed. I haven’t seen such deliberate distortion of graphical data in quite some time!

    Here’s Smokey’s last graph. He says that this demonstrates “The longest temperature record in the world confirms the same trend in other cities, showing that the long term rising trend is within past parameters. If CO2 caused measurable global warming, it would show up in the trend. But it doesn’t. Thus, the CO2=CAGW conjecture is falsified by real world observations.”

    Sit down, class, and learn how to distort data.

    First and foremost, notice how compressed the Y-axis is. Looking at the data graphed, there are plots scaled by 0.00001 (essentially straight lines) and then offset high and low to compress the data. This is deceptive – those lines are unneeded, and minimize our ability to discern changes in the real data. This is particularly true since at this point in the discussion most people who are talking about climate have seen other graphs without this compression, and will interpret the compressed graph compared to the uncompressed ones.

    Here’s the graph without those extraneous scalars or re-centering offsets. That certainly makes things a bit clearer. The next item to note is that this graph has much of the data detrended! Amazing – the graph is intended to show something about the trends, but those trends have been artificially decreased. Here is that same data without the detrending.

    Next, the graph shows GISTEMP and HadCRUT3. HadCRUT3 is obsolete, the current data is HadCRUT4, which has notably more stations included. Here’s the graph with HadCRUT4 added.

    Finally, the assertion that “the long term rising trend is within past parameters”: Here is HadCRUT3 (the most sympathetic case here) with long term, 30, 60, and 90 year trends. You will note that for each shorter time period (30 years being long enough to establish a linear trend versus noise at more than 4-sigma confidence) the trend is higher – warming is accelerating.

    Conclusion? Smokey’s statements are incorrect.

    Summary: If you see a graph with unneeded compression or expansion, and in particular if you see one where (as in the case of trends here) the important data has been altered to change values, you can conclude one thing with certainty. The presenter of that graph is attempting to mislead. Shame on you, Smokey.

  73. P.Solar wrote: Did you notice that all the pretty graphs are NOT climate , they are climate models. Now with the massive ammounts of data available for the last 30 years why do you suppose they chose to analyse model data to comment on climate rather than climate data? Or why , having studied climate models do they not draw conclusions about climate models rather than climate?

    Actually Figures 1, 2, and 3 are all based on collected data on seasonal temperature anomalies. Figure 4 compares observed NH seasonal temperatures with model output (interestingly, only the NH winter temperature trend fell below the model trend band).

    The supplemental figures contain some additional model output, and very interestingly, Figure S4. shows the comparison between observed trends in Arctic sea level pressure versus the model forecasts for the boreal winter. The Arctic SLP is climbing in the northernmost latitudes, whereas the models predicted falling SLP. Yes, indeed, something is going dreadfully wrong in the Arctic.

  74. diogenesnj – With respect to temperature records, or in fact any record of a varying parameter over time, it is completely expected that the number of record extreme events will decrease over time – you’ve simply seen more of the system behavior. Early in observations, every new data point might be a record – after you’ve been observing for a while, you will see fewer extremes.

    The telling number is the ratio of record highs to record lows. Changes in that ratio reflect changes in the base statistics, changes to the average temperature. In the 1960’s that ratio in the continental US was about 0.78:1 highs to lows (slightly more lows than highs). But in the 2000’s, the ratio in that region was 2:04:1, twice as many highs as lows. And that reflects the increasing average temperature.

  75. Paul, I haven’t seen where we D-worders have denied that the Midwest is hot right now.

    As for the blocking high, it usually parks over Texas for the summer, til a hurricane comes on shore and breaks it up. Same said high helps create the monsoon season in the Southwest. Said high is shifted North and East. Here in the Panhandle of Texas, we had a (much) cooler May than average. June, was pretty darned warm. The last couple of weeks, we’ve been about average (also about the time period that the blocking high is in the ‘wrong’ place, giving the MW our blazingness). Exactly which of these three periods should I be freaking out about? Maybe I should be grabbing the Depends for all of them, because we’re cool/hot/average?

    Michael Schaefer says: July 7, 2012 at 11:02 am
    misterjohnqpublic says:July 7, 2012 at 10:36 am
    Maybe if we sacrificed a few virgins all the bad weather will go away?
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    Send them to me. I will take care of them – umm, the weather, that is…

    I’ll send you my share. My days of such….activities…are a quarter century in my past. And yes, that’s precisely where they belong.

  76. Robbie says:
    July 7, 2012 at 10:59 am

    Shall we wait and see what the UAH Global Temperature Update will do for July?

    Regardless what happens in July with UAH, a new record for 2012 is totally out of reach and at the end of this year, 1998 will still be the warmest on UAH (as well as RSS and Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2). Here is the analysis for UAH.
    With the UAH anomaly for June at 0.369, the average for the first six months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369)/6 = 0.145. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 10th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged at least the June value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.257 and it would rank 3rd. (1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66.) In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.71. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record or to even come in second.

  77. Smokey says: July 7, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Sounds more like bath salts than LSD. There *have* been a lot of those episodes lately. If the mentioned man rips his clothes off, make sure you protect your face! Or at least have a full magazine of hollow point ammo.

  78. Paul K2 says: July 7, 2012 at 12:47 pm
    John F. Hultquist: Most homes in Pennsylvania didn’t have AC thirty years ago. None of my family had AC in their homes. We really didn’t need it much. That is likely why you had trouble sleeping. Now, most of my extended family there has AC.

    45 years ago, when my parents built their house in N Central Tx, the central AC they got was a less than normal thing at the time. Most people in TEXAS didn’t have it at that time. Now, show me a house built in the last 20 years, in Texas that *doesn’t* have central AC. Furthermore, most POOR people in the US have AC. We’re a more affluent society (at least according to our debt levels, at both the gov’t level and individual level, but that’s another blog), so we get conveniences that we didn’t in the past. Almost every new car has not only AC, but power windows, automatic transmission, nice stereo, etc. What does that development tell you about AGW? Nothing? Exactamundo.

  79. Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    “Its peculiar that so many readers here seem to deny that much of the middle part of the US mainland has had some extremely hot weather recently”

    I am a relative newcomer to this site, but have seen it explained many times over that most skeptics do not deny that the climate changes and that it has been warming for a few hundred years. They don’t even deny that CO2 has an effect. The only real argument seems to be over the significance of the anthropogenic CO2 contribution. The alarmists claim, that we will suffer a catastrophe if don’t stop burning fossil fuel, is not supported by any scientific arguments I have seen anywhere, including my copy of the 4th IPCC report. There are always, valid scientific arguments that counter the IPCC claims. For example, I have never seen an explanation of the ice core data from approximately 120,000 years ago showing the temperature dropping from a high point to nearly ice age conditions before the CO2 even began to drop.

    Rather than address many of these counter claims, alarmists instead attack, the skeptics credentials or simply make stuff up about them. Paul, where exactly did anyone deny on today’s postings that we are currently having some unusually hot weather. I just drove around in the Virginia suburbs of the Washington D.C. area keeping my eye on my car’s outside air temperature display which indicated from 96 to 103 deg F., depending mainly on whether I was in a wooded area or a treeless area. This car is ten years old and during that time I have seen temperatures of 103 on at least 3 other occasions so to me the temperature is much higher than a normal summertime high but not all that unusual for a extreme summer heat wave.

    Just because most skeptics are not climate scientists is not a valid reason to ignore the science behind their claims. The laws of physics are the same no matter where you learn them and it is physics that control weather and climate. The problem to overcome is, all the laws of physics are in effect all the time, not just those that are chosen to be used in weather and climate models. It is obvious that present models are severely lacking something. But then, in fairness, it may be the most complex thing that has ever been attempted to model and many factors must simply be guessed at.

    I do appreciate your posting of Jennifer Francis’s interesting dissertation on a possible cause of hot weather in the area. But that is weather change not climate change, unless, of course, the arctic sea ice never returns in the next few hundred years. The joke about weather here in the Washington DC area, which is difficult to forecast, has always been – if you don’t like the weather now, just wait a day or two. I always used to enjoy Joe Bastardi’s morning forecasts on WMAL. I miss the humor Joe.

  80. Hey Paul K2. A question for you….

    What is the normal temperature of the earth?

    Are we above or below this normal temperature?

    How was this normal temperature determined?

  81. After the awful floods in Queensland last year there were claims that they were caused by global warming/climate change. These were made by the head of the IPCC no less. Prior to the floods Prof T Flannery was on record as saying Queensland may never have drought breaking rains again. They were both wrong.

    The Queensland weather bureau put the event down to the PDO and La ninja the head of IPCC later retracted his statment. The release of water from the Wivenhoe dam also contributed.

    It seems any event now is being attributed to Global Warming, too hot, too cold, too dry too wet So any event you get in the US, drought, fire, floods severe winter will all be caused by Global Warming to the exclusion of anything else. Prof Christy called it the “ultimate non falisifiable hypothesis” which he further stated is not science.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Christy.Testimony.pdf

  82. I’ll give Paul credit on this: Not many people are willing to go into the ‘belly of the beast’ and argue, with multiple comments (not just a hit and run), our point of view. I would venture that that holds true with people on both sides of whichever issue. I don’t go to Tamina’s site, or Daily Kos and hold forth, just because I don’t own enough duct tape. We call those who do Trolls, and they call we who do the same. Some people can indeed be Trollish, but again, credit to Paul.

  83. Regarding my last post, I must apologize – I didn’t catch that Smokey had plotted HadCRUT3 linear trends twice, and hadn’t plotted GISTEMP linear trends at all. But that’s easy to change in the dropdowns for data selection at WoodForTrees.org – I would encourage folks to explore the data themselves.

    For comparison to the obsolete HadCRUT3, here is HadCRUT4 with full length, 30, 60, and 90 year trends, and here is GISTEMP with full length, 30, 60, and 90 year trends. Note the steepening trends, note the clear acceleration in warming.

    And again, if you see a distorted or overly compressed graph, such as temperature change in zero-based degrees Kelvin, you know that someone is trying to deceive you.

  84. Keith Pearson wrote: “As for the blocking high, it usually parks over Texas for the summer, til a hurricane comes on shore and breaks it up. Same said high helps create the monsoon season in the Southwest. Said high is shifted North and East. Here in the Panhandle of Texas, we had a (much) cooler May than average. June, was pretty darned warm. The last couple of weeks, we’ve been about average (also about the time period that the blocking high is in the ‘wrong’ place, giving the MW our blazingness). Exactly which of these three periods should I be freaking out about? Maybe I should be grabbing the Depends for all of them, because we’re cool/hot/average?”

    How about last summer in Texas? Didn’t you have a 1 in a 1000 year event caused by several abnormally long blocking highs? My relatives in San Antonio told me that Texas never had so many 100 degree days in a summer before. The farmers and ranchers in Texas lost over $7 billion. It might be helpful to search back through your memories and recall last year.

    Something weird is happening with the weather.

    Aside: I went to Texas A&M to recuit engineers (particularly drilling and petroleum engineers) once upon a time. When asked location preferences,a lot of the candidates saluted, and they said that they didn’t want to move north of the Red River! I had to go find a map. I hope you live on the right side of the Red River.

  85. Lester Via says:
    July 7, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    I am a relative newcomer to this site, but have seen it explained many times over that most skeptics do not deny that the climate changes and that it has been warming for a few hundred years. They don’t even deny that CO2 has an effect.
    ====================================================
    Yeah, that is what some warmists do: creating an impression that nobody challenge their warmism. The reality is quite different, however, but many are probably unwilling to speak up. I allow me to refer to a comment of mine on the issue of consensus: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119 .

  86. Robbie on July 7th at 10:59 AM:

    “And what about the rapid decline of Arctic Sea Ice this year:
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    All true but irrelevant. Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by Atlantic Ocean currents carrying warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, prior to which there was nothing but two thousand years of slow cooling. To learn the true story of Arctic warming download this article:

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf

  87. To “Paul K2″ I have one question for you: If the science behind global warming is sound, then why do the scientists who promote it, such as Michael Mann and James Hansen, repeatedly violate the scientific method and federal law by doing everything in their power to avoid showing the raw data and methodology of their studies? Please tell me how something can be considered scientific if it brazenly violates the scientific method of transparency, openness, and willingness to admit the study may be wrong.

  88. I recall seeing 44 Celsius (111 Fahrenheit) In the shade growing up (way too hot for ball hockey)
    Indeed heat waves and media hype are always a good bet.

    Humidity is a big factor, though, and ours was %25 at the time.

  89. Paul K2 the south pole just had a record low, minus 100.8. Ya I know if it wasen’t for CAGW there would not have been a record low.
    Just what is earths mean temperature, and what do we do if we over shoot taking it down:)

  90. “Lester Via says:
    July 7, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    I am a relative newcomer to this site, but have seen it explained many times over that most skeptics do not deny that the climate changes and that it has been warming for a few hundred years. They don’t even deny that CO2 has an effect.”

    Actually, almost all skeptics believe that the earth has been warming in fits and stages since the last ice age, as most intelligent people would agree with. I speak only for myself when I state that the lastest stage of warming is no different from what occurred in the early twentieth century, is a transient artifact, and has not been proven by non-model scientific data to be associated with the increase in CO2.

  91. Paul K2 says: July 7, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    What you are really seeing is a combination of NATURAL factors that are the result of things like a weak solar cycle, multidecadal oscillations shifting from one phase to another, etc. The only man-made effects that can be found in any of the observations are the UHI effects on the overall temperature record (coupled with removing rural sensors) and the results of tinkering with the data by those who are supposed to be maintaining the integrity of said data. Instead of learning what has happened and what is happening, these supposed scientists have buried their collective head in the sand and will not consider anything other than a CO2 driven catastrophy that just will not cooperate with their predictions. There is SO much we could have learned over the past 30 years or so with the amount of money spent trying to prove the phantom menace really exists and labelling every extreme weather event (droughts, floods, excessive heat, monster snowstorms) as proof.
    These types of WEATHER and natural WEATHER pattern shifts are known and are very well documented throughout history in various parts of the world. It’s not climate change. That IS climate. That’s what happens when the various oscillations fluctuate between positive and negative phases. They don’t all happen at the same time, so each one may only change an aspect or two of a particular regions overall weather patterns. Get enough of them to shift at the same time and it can really wreak havoc on WEATHER patterns, but they do not necessarily cause climate change. Again, a climate can be and almost always covers a wide range of weather and persistent weather patterns. That’s the way it has been since we came out of the last glacial period (except the Younger Dryas event) and will be for at least for the remainder of this current interglacial. There is no place on earth where the climate is supposed to be identical every year. That’s the biggest mistake of many who believe in AGW and why so many seemingly intelligent people get suckered in.
    Are humans making an impact on the earth? Yes. We always have and always will – some good some bad. Is pollution a bad thing? Yes, emphatically! Is the world gaining heat at unprecedented levels that can only be attributed to CO2 emmissions? No! Are there natural events that seem to correlate much better with the current state of weather and climate? Without a doubt, yes.
    Do yourself a favor, take a look at the temperature reconstructions of the last million years and see where we are today compared to where we have been. Now, where were all those SUVs and coal fired electric plants 100s of thousands of years ago??? Oh…
    But then again, I’m just an amateur with a love for actual science, so what do I know…

  92. Paul K2 on July 7th at 1:56 PM:

    “But the climate scientists underestimated the impact of AGW on the polar regions. The Arctic ice pack, and snow coverage, have fallen much faster than the climate scientists expected.”

    This is absolutely true because they have no idea of what they are doing. Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but they persist in using climate models that use the enhanced greenhouse effect to predict warming. Small wonder they underestimate the warming by a factor of four. The true cause of Arctic warming is warm water from the Gulf Stream carried north by Atlantic Ocean currents. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused for thirty years in mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong. To understand it you have to download this paper: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf . Unfortunately this means that you cannot point to any aspect of Arctic warming as part of global warming. And since this is the case it leaves you without any authentic example of greenhouse warming whatsoever within the last 100 years.

  93. Blaming one location is just idiotic. Every place has contributed to it. Sure the eastern side may have a bit more, but I don’t think it’s fair to assign blame to any one place. Also, look at Greenland and parts of Asia. Sure they aren’t AS hot, but it is still somewhat the same temperature. Idiots

  94. I’m delighted that we are being graced with visitors like Paul K2.
    Sometimes the general tone of intelligent, co-operative people trying to assess and understand a fluid and complex situation can get a little…well dull.
    Paul’s ranting evangelical tone, and doggedly catastrophic outlook is a timely reminder of just how loopy the ‘other side’ is!

  95. Paul K2;
    How about last summer in Texas? Didn’t you have a 1 in a 1000 year event caused by several abnormally long blocking highs? My relatives in San Antonio told me that Texas never had so many 100 degree days in a summer before. >>>>

    Well obviously anecdotal evidence presented from a single city in Texas is representative of what is happening on a global scale. This is the mistake that you have made in pretty much all your comments. You focus on examples of extreme weather and present them as proof of predictions made in regard to climate while ignoring the larger picture which is chalk full of contrary examples which are just as valid on a cases by case basis as the examples you present (which is to say not at all). Hold the big picture in perspective or you’ve got nothing of substance upon which to predicate your argument.

    Take KR’s clever attempt to show us Hadcrut and GISS temperature trends with linear trend lines jammed through what is clearly cyclical data, making linear trends useless accept on time scales orders of magnitude larger than we have data for. Notice also that the globe has in fact been warming up at very roughly the same rate since the LIA several centuries ago, and that CO2 increases that became significant after 1920 don’t seem to have altered that rate of warming at all.

    Even the IPCC admits that CO2 is logarithmic, a fact that they tend to then gloss over when writing their reports, but read AR4 closely enough and you’ll see that every single prediction and outcome is predicated upon CO2 being logarithmic. That being the case, even by the IPCC’s own standards, anything over 400 ppm (which is pretty much where we are now) is subject to the law of diminishing returns, and hence is pretty much negligible.

    In 1920, accodring to the IPCC, it would have taken 280 additional ppm of CO2 to arrive at a direct temperature increase of +1 degree. The debate about feedbacks aside, this is a rather clever piece of subterfuge all on itz own. This is not 1920 and we’re not at a baseline of 280 ppm anymore. It will take 400 ppm to drive a direct temperature increase of just one degree from where we are today. At peak consumption rates, that will take us the next 200 years to arrive at and probably longer because of the increased uptake by the biosphere (which mostly turns that uptake into food btw).

    We have FAR more to fear from climate change due to natural variability than we do from CO2 increases, FAR more. That’s what the science espoused by the IPCC actually says once you get past all the distracting marketing spin and alarmist language. That’s what our written history books tell us. That’s what the geological record tells us. Spout cherry picked quotes and graphs from AR4 all you want, the science, the written history, and the geological record all say otherwise.

    But if you want to insist that something catastrophic is happening, then consider this.

    Human beings could survive rather easily another ice age provided that we exploit to the fullest possible extent the energy resources we have available.

    Human beings could survive rather easily global temperatures exceeding the highest the earth has ever experienced and at CO2 concentrations that make our current levels look like a rounding error to zero provided that we exploit to the fullest possible extent the energy resources we have available.

    Drill baby, drill.

  96. There must still be profits to be made.
    From:

    http://duluthshippingnews.com/

    ———-
    Atlanticborg coming our way with blades

    Kent Malo took this photo of her on her way to Duluth from a Cessna 172 at 1500 feet. She will be here early Sunday morning with a cargo of wind turbine blades loaded in Denmark. After discharge here, they will be taken to a Minnesota Power wind farm in North Dakota. When discharge is completed, she will go to anchor for about a week, then coming back in to load wind turbine blades, built in North Dakota and going to Brazil.
    #################
    A false economy in action.

  97. Personally, I don’t recall any Warmists back in February or March saying that there would be record heat in the U.S.A. or record wet in The Black Sea or Britain, or severe cold in Australia. Do you?
    I do not find post hoc pronouncements at all convincing.

    As Shakespeare put it:

    “I can summon Spirits from the Vasty Deep.”

    “Aye, so can any Man, but will they come?”

  98. KR says:
    July 7, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    Here is HadCRUT3 (the most sympathetic case here) with long term, 30, 60, and 90 year trends. You will note that for each shorter time period (30 years being long enough to establish a linear trend versus noise at more than 4-sigma confidence) the trend is higher – warming is accelerating.

    Your graph showed warming is accelerating over the latest 30, 60, and 90 years going from 1922 to 2012 at: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1982/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1952/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1922/trend

    I can do the same going from 1850 to 1940 as shown below. So what does that prove other than that climate goes in cycles which have nothing to do with CO2? See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1940/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1940/trend

  99. I blame the EPA. Growing up, the summertime would always be super hazy. You could almost count on the forecast being hazy, hot, and humid. The visibility would routinely drop to five or six miles. I’ve noticed since about 2009, it no longer gets hazy. The sky remains blue and visibility remains at 10 miles at the airport. Ever since that time there has been a trend towards hotter weather even though it doesn’t look like there’s been any fundamental change in weather patterns. In the 90s and early 2000s, it usually never got above the low 90s. Even the “hot” summers only peaked at 91-93, though there might be 10 or 15 days with temperatures between 90 and 92. Several years never even hit 90. Temperatures have now reached the upper 90s for two straight years, with locations nearby reaching 100. Temperatures this high had not occurred since the drought of 1988. So I don’t know if it’s a coincidence or if it has something to do with a new EPA policy, but at the same time summers starting becoming hot again, the skies have cleared up. Weird.

  100. charles nelson says:
    July 7, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    I’m delighted that we are being graced with visitors like Paul K2.
    Sometimes the general tone of intelligent, co-operative people trying to assess and understand a fluid and complex situation can get a little…well dull.
    Paul’s ranting evangelical tone, and doggedly catastrophic outlook is a timely reminder of just how loopy the ‘other side’ is!
    ==============================================
    Maybe he’s just upset that he didn’t get to watch McKibben’s iceberg melt.

  101. A global phenomenon? Yeah, well. Down here on the southern Victorian coast in Australia we’ve just had our second white frost in two days. Unusual enough for all the locals to chat about it on morning walks.

  102. Paul K2,
    Oh great one, holder of the climate change truth, please enlighten us poor shlemiels. You seem so willing to share your knowledge. Are you a team member of the inner circle of the climate scientists? You could be of great help to us shlemiels, to take us out of the darkness.
    The analysis of the data sets available to us is like plowing through fields of rocks. Perhaps you could provide us with the raw data sets your friends of the inner circle use. We will not tell on you. We have been trying to get them for a while. They have not provided them. They claim we will only find errors.
    Some of us were born to point out errors. Some of us became that way through education. Some of us have no social skills and love to point out that the King is running around naked. Oh the curse of it.
    Again the data sets would be incredibly enlightening.

  103. Apparently PaulK2 doesn’t know the difference between projection and measurement?

    It looks like climatology will end up contributing more material to the science of anthropology than it will to the study of climate.

  104. Several of the Usual Suspects have raised the argument that, while a particular event is not due to AGW per se, such events are becoming more frequent due to AGW. It is almost certainly the case that, to the extent that there have been trends in temperatures during the warm parts of the year, and to the extent that such trends are due to anthropogenic forcing, AGW might be responsible to a similar extent to any increase the frequency of events above some arbitrary threshold. So for the above argument to be correct, would merely require that warm days of the year are being warmed by AGW. But the truth of the above argument is a trivial matter, the real question, or questions, involve the magnitude of any AGW effect (can we measure it above the natural noise?) and what the effect on the opposite sort of extremes (extreme cold) that can be attributed to AGW is. Last, with regards to the question of societal impact, we have to ask the question, how will people adapt?

    Let’s deal with those issues one at a time. In regards to the frequency of “heat waves” in the US, any increase due to AGW is hard to isolate from the natural noise. The frequency of such events was greater during the 1930s by a great deal. According to U.S. Climate Change Science Program (2008), the recent heatwaves are distinguished from those heatwaves mainly by high nighttime temperatures, not the daily maximum temperatures. The EPA in 2010 used an updated version of the heatwave index the from that same report:

    In the presence of such high natural variability, it is difficult to isolate any anthropogenic effect, even if one should be present. That it is hard to isolate suggests it is probably small if present.

    With regard to the second matter, a uniform change in temperature would presumably mean that extreme cold events and extreme warm events would change in opposite directions. If the distribution is symmetrical and the thresholds are set symmetrical about the mean, then a mere shift of the distribution to warmer temperatures would not increase extremes in net. That is, the total number of extreme events should, for such a change, not change. In order for the climate to become more extreme, in terms of temperature, there must be some shift in the distribution that involves more warm events but anywhere from a slightly smaller decrease in cold events to an increase. But the observations, over sufficiently long periods, clearly indicate enhanced warming of the coldest days of the year, relative to the warm ones, in the US and probably the rest of the world, too.

    I analyzed this myself, it’s clear the reduction in cold events should be much stronger than any increase in warm events. For the whole US, over the 1979-2010 period, I ranked average daily temperatures for the region from coldest to warmest within each year (in non-leap years, the 183 coldest day was copied to be a the 184 coldest day for that year as well) I then calculated linear trends for each rank of day, over the period. The strongest warming occurred on the very coldest days, and while warm days also warmed, they didn’t do so nearly as much. Here’s the plot:

    This confirms the peer reviewed analysis of Knappenberger et al:

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/17/c017p045.pdf

    The final question: how will people adapt? Will then simply fry to death as heat waves get worse? Well, cities have been substantially warmed by Urban Heat Islands, which provides us with a chance to see what ways people react to enhanced temperatures. As it turns out, heat related mortality declined even as cities warmed:

    Davis RE, et al., 2003. Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 1712–18.

    The above facts make it reasonably clear that AGW is not making the climate of the US more extreme, and even if it were increasing heat wave events, which isn’t clear, we would have little to fear from such an effect, as people readily adapt.

  105. “Something weird is happening with the weather.”
    There are no re-runs in the universe Paul.
    You fear the unknown. It’s ok, lots of people do, but it’s a part of life you must learn to face head on.
    Enjoy it or fear it….your choice..

  106. I note that there has been a paradigm shift for assigning blame for unusual natural events. There was a time when an event, like the earthquake that had an epicenter near the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency and cracked the Washington Monument on the occasion of the fall of Khadaffi regime, would have been assumed to be a special portent from on high instead of a random event or the result of human influence on the climate.

  107. It does pose an interesting conundrum.

    Either use your electricity and air conditioning, thus causing CO2 emissions, or bake in the heat on the assumption that less CO2 emissions means that you will only bake a little bit more in the future.

    Or you can have no electricity as the warmers want and has happened to many because of the storms and you can bake without any choice.

    Take your pick. Forego electricity and air conditioning for the cause or blame global warming because you have no electricity to keep cool. It’s very hard to explain this conundrum. How many warmers have air conditioning? How many that have no electricity desperately want it now.

  108. David Duff says:
    July 7, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Please can you send all that ‘global warming’ over here to the UK? It hasn’t stopped raining since April 1st. Some April Fool that was!
    ____________________________________
    David, I will gladly swap some of my nice sunny North Carolina weather for some nice soggy UK weather. The last thunderstorm headed right for my farm, split about a mile away and went around on both sides. We got lots of thunder and lighting from all directions and not a drop of rain… GRRRrrrr. I was sure that storm would drench my thirsty grass. No rain since a trace on June 23rd and ten days of 95F to 102F. I have hay, not pasture. Luckily the T-storms have hit most of the other farms in the area.

    I really want this blocking high to go away.

  109. KR says:

    “Note the steepening trends, note the clear acceleration in warming.”

    As Werner Brozek proved above, KR is blatantly cherry-picking. And as I showed with trend charts going back hundreds of years, there has been no acceleration in global warming. None. What KR shows is a fictional, cherry-picked artifact that completely disappears when a proper long-term trend chart is used.

  110. The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. If you don’t want to believe it you don’t have to. But I for one am more willing to listen to the conclusions of people who have devoted their education, time, study and energy to this issue than to some guy with a blog. Yeah I know , it’s all a hoax created by the liberal media and the leftist scientific community. That’s the other attempt some people use to justify non belief in global warming. Yet these same people still believe Iraq had WMD’s and Saddam Husien was involved in 9/11. The biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public and the world at large. Go figure. I am conservative on some issues and liberal on others. I do not identify with either the Republicans nor the Democrats. To limit ones thinking in such a manner is just the same as going through life wearing blinders. In other words, I try to keep an open mind and accept the facts as they are, not the way I would like them to be. No doubt this post will fire up all the Rushbots out there and the personal attacks on me will be fast and furious. Good, then my point is made.

  111. So many comments so far off the mark; too many to respond to. Arno Arrak says that the Arctic ice pack is melting not due to polar amplification, but a long term shift in ocean currents. In my comments I said polar amplification, but that the faster melt than expected seems due to teleconnection (transport of heat by wind and ocean currents) and faster melt mechanisms due to the weakened pack (fractured ice floes exposed to wind and waves have higher heat transfer rates than a solid pack). We may disagree on the triggering cause, but possibly may agree on the factors causing the runaway melt.

    Amino Acids in Meteorites: Please view the Jennifer Francis video more carefully. The increased amplitude of Rossby waves in the jet stream pulls cold Arctic air down into the Northern side of the jet stream bend, and pulls tropical air up into the Southern side of the bends. Florida citrus crops covered in ice are yet another sign.

    Many of the rest of you have been taught to attack climate scientists. But these theories I am discussing and have linked to today are espoused by meteorologists (weather scientists). You guys need to learn some new scrips and taunts. It seems that the group of scientists involved in your proposed conspiracy just got a whole lot bigger. Check out some famous meteorologists like the Wunderblog where Dr. Masters talks about the work of Dr. Francis. Its a bit odd that this stuff is so new and novel to you, especially since WUWT is run by someone supposedly knowledgeable in weather patterns.

  112. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid Mr. B. You and the goreacle can keep at it but it’s not gonna make a difference.

  113. RE:Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    The current hot spell is already crumbling in northern areas, and is nothing compared to what people had to endure in the 1930’s.

    In the 1930’s the hot pattern locked in, and lasted for months. It endured. This year’s is fleeting, by comparison.

    I’m not certain where the data is coming from that speaks of “thousands” of records being broken, and establishes the current hot spell as the “worst ever,” but I doubt it will stand up to scrutiny.

    The “blocking pattern” you speak of will have to last until September to match what happened in the time of the Dust Bowl.

    Check the old records from Kansas and Nebraska. You ain’t seen nuthin’, yet.

  114. The BBC did a show on weird weather that can be found on youtube, and a youtube regular that I am not allowed to mention on this site constructed a nice overview of this on youtube and his DCoftheWeek site.

  115. Mr. B.
    In other words, I try to keep an open mind and accept the facts as they are, not the way I would like them to be.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    And yet you present not a single fact in support of your position, you only cite WHO you believe. Odd that you claim the support of factual evidence, yet cite none.

  116. Thanks Wade and Otsar. That is a refreshing reminder of how I think critically and of the frustration of dealing with those who don’t.

  117. Mr B
    “Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity.”
    —————————-

    Actually, Mr. B, I can’t recall ever being asked. Perhaps that opinion pole was conducted in Cantonese or Russian or Spanish or Hindi or Arabic…..

  118. Werner Brozek – You’ve raised an interesting question, why the warming seen in the 1930’s-1940’s.

    Take a look at temperature versus solar input. In the first part of the 20th century insolation was high, aerosols (sorry, not covered in the WFT’s website) were quite low (very few volcanic episodes, for example, when you examine the natural forcings), and hence a combination of natural forcings led to early century warming. As a side note, the sea surface temperatures (SST’s)

    Now, however, insolation is dropping, natural and anthropogenic aerosols are high, and yet temperatures are rising rapidly. If you look at the temperature record, current changes are being driven by significant anthropogenic influences. And it’s currently warming at 0.18C/decade, as opposed to the 0.13C/decade of the first part of the century, with a per century trend higher than the per 60 trend you pointed out.

    It’s warming faster than the first part of the century, faster over time, and that is by definition acceleration.

    Smokey – What I showed, actually, demonstrates that current warming is due to anthropogenic influences, to GHG increases, rather than the natural forcings that would otherwise have induced a great deal of cooling over the last 50 years.

    As I said before, distorted graphs (such as the ones you produced) are in fact deliberately deceptive. At this point I can no longer extend you the benefit of doubt – you have clearly demonstrated that you’re willing to distort the data to support your point of view.

  119. Question. This map shows most of the world is experiencing below normal temperatures. How does this square with Spencers UAH latest results that show above normal temperatures?

  120. Mr. B. says:
    July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm
    Yeah I know , it’s all a hoax created by the liberal media and the leftist scientific community. That’s the other attempt some people use to justify non belief in global warming. Yet these same people still believe Iraq had WMD’s and Saddam Husien was involved in 9/11. The biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public and the world at large.
    ====================================================
    So, according to you the last Iraq war was a hoax perpetrated by the American president, the majority of the Congress and 35 other countries who sent their troops to Iraq. But at the same time the IPCC and the leaderships of some Academies of Science can not create a hoax nor can the left wing dominated media. Very logical.

    Speaking of the American National Academy of Science, did all the 2,200 members and 400 foreign associates vote to approve the AGW concept or was it just the leadership (http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/nas-council.html) ? I mean, the most members have nothing to do with the “climate science”. Even the most members of the “Leadership and Governance” have nothing to do with climate professionally. Doesn’t it smell like hoax now?

  121. hey Mr. B., you forgot to say we all are also holocaust deniers, flat earthers, Anti-Science, creationists, and in the pay of Big Oil.

    Seriously, that 95% of yours isn’t Scientist, its CLIMATE Scientist. Only bought and paid for Climey’s need apply to any of their polls, because if you aren’t one of them, your vote gets dropped out before the tally.

  122. KR says:
    July 7, 2012 at 11:26 am

    …. the statistics of weather shift, that’s climate change. And what we’re seeing are the weather statistics moving (see http://tinyurl.com/cgnaj79 for a discussion and data) to hotter and higher energy events…..

    So no, this particular heat wave cannot be directly attributed to climate change. But we’re certainly going to see a lot more more of them, with fewer cold events, as climate averages change and the weather dice get loaded more and more heavily to the hot side…..
    ___________________________
    OR
    Stephen Wilde could be correct, esp. given the weak solar cycle 24

    ….the jet stream is weaker when there’s less ozone (it has to do with latitude-dependent temperature gradients across the upper atmosphere; those gradients are strong in winter and weak in summer). Ozone creation depends on UV from the Sun, which is weaker during a solar minimum. See where this is going? Weaker magnetic activity on the Sun means less ozone which means a weaker jet stream which means it meanders more……

    That sure sounds like what I have observed the Jet Stream doing for the last few years and as a farmer I watch it carefully.

    OR
    E.M. Smith could be correct. Just before entering into a bond event, the ending of warmth turns into a lot of unsettled weather, high winds and flooding.

    ….There is a known 1470 year cycle of Bond Events and DO events. One is a periodic spike up, the other the periodic spike down that seems to be the counter point. DO events are during glacials, Bond Events during interglacials…

    …According to Lamb, the 13th century experienced the highest number (by some margin) of “severe sea floods” along North Sea & English Channel coasts. Although the climate across NW Europe was still generally benign (indeed, the peak of warmth of the Medieval Age may have occurred in this century), from the middle of the 13th century, an increase in ‘unsettled’ weather events has been detected by some researchers; the first signs of the descent into the ‘Little Ice Age’. It is indeed possible that the increased storminess was concentrated in the second half of the 13th century, so it was unfortunate that Eleanor attempted the passage of the Dover Strait at this time. (Lamb)

    Ending of warmth turning into a lot of unsettled and flooding. Wait a minute, that sounds rather like this last decade or so…

    My reading on this is pretty simple. I think we had The Last Big One at the entry to The Dark Ages and it pretty much screwed things up for a few hundred years. That would make The Little Ice Age a 1/2 Bond Event (thus answering the question of “was it a Bond Event?” with a pretty good “No”.)

    …It misses our slow decline from the Holocene Optimum into ever lower optimums. So much so that the Modern Optimum hardly shows on the Ice Core at all (and Greenland is colder than it was when the Vikings landed there (on that peak about 1000 BP). We had a lower Little Ice Age compared to the prior 1/2 Bond event of about the time of Christ, even though it was only a 1/2 Bond Event, due to the lateness of the hour in this interglacial. That would imply that THIS Bond Event, that I’ve taken to calling Bond Event Zero (c) will likely be worse than the last one we had. The Dark Ages. It ought to be worse than the Little Ice Age too. It ought to have made the first stirrings of the turn about 2005, and be well underway about 2035. That this is in agreement with the projected depths of the present Solar Grand Minimum does not give me cheer…

    OR Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on the same ~ 1500 year cycle (Bond event) that E.M. Smith discusses in depth in the above article.

    ….Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One sees clear indications of long-term changes discussed above, with CO2 and proxy temperature changes associated with the last ice age and its transition into our present interglacial period of warmth. But in addition there is a strong chaotic variation of properties with a quasi-period of around 1500 years. We say chaotic because these millennial shifts look like anything but regular oscillations. Rather they look like rapid, decadal long transitions between a cold and warm climates with long interludes in one of the two states. The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for the arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade….

    It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic
    Ocean, and that includes Chicago where we are meeting today, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.

    If humankind is darn lucky, CO2 is the “Magic Control Knob” and we are not headed into a cold spell however I think that is highly unlikely if you look at this graph of CO2 vs temperature for the last five interglacials.

    I may have just worked outside in 104F for several days (grumbling all the while) but I prefer that to ice and famine in a heart beat!

  123. Previous reference (sorry, fighting a summer cold, not at my best) to SST’s was in reference to the HadCRUT4 corrections to WWII sea surfaced temps, due to changes in procedure at that time. Correcting _properly_ for the change in method at that time reduces the mid-century bump somewhat in HadCRUT4 – and if you disagree, be prepared to justify why correcting for a different method of data collection (engine room versus bucket) is a bad idea…

  124. Mr. B. says:
    July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    No doubt this post will fire up all the Rushbots out there and the personal attacks on me will be fast and furious. Good, then my point is made.

    I doubt if anyone here will attack you personally. If they even bother to make the effort , they will instead, simply point out your misstatements and faulty logic.

  125. Michael Schaefer says:
    July 7, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Is there any observable change to ratings when particular TV Weathermen (or women) present this ‘news’?

  126. Personally, I find it ridiculous that people think the thunderstorms were something remarkable. Maybe for the way they marched across the region, but derechos, from my understanding of them, are capable of this any year. We had a wind storm left over from Hurricane Ike here in OH a few years ago. It was worse. It ripped a neighbors tree in half. We had to help him tear it down in the middle of the storm. Got the rope tossed over our anchor limb and the tree chose that moment to snap. I ran my ass off and wound up standing in leaves when it hit the ground. For those that doubt the power of tenths of seconds in the Olympics, I swear I was that far from road paste.

    Anecdotal crap aside, I think the map says it all.

  127. KR;
    In the first part of the 20th century insolation was high, aerosols (sorry, not covered in the WFT’s website) were quite low >>>>

    Is that why air quality wasn’t an issue in Europe and North America at the time? Oh wait, it was. We had jokes like “a shot an arrow into the sky, and it stuck there”. Or “its the smog, I swallowed a piece”. We had regular smog alerts in major cities all over the world. Coal was THE major source of both heat and electricity, and there were no scrubbers or regulations regarding their emissions. But aerosols were low. Uh huh.

    KR;y’s
    As a side note, the sea surface temperatures (SST’s)>>>>

    As a side note, the info we have to calculate SST’s from is patheticaly innacurate. The best data we have is in regard to OHC as measured by the Argo Buoys which show it to be in decline since their inception.

    KR;
    It’s warming faster than the first part of the century, >>>>

    Actually it has been coolling since the late 90’s according to the very sources you cite, despite CO2 being at the highest levels since we started recording them.

    KR;
    As I said before, distorted graphs (such as the ones you produced) are in fact deliberately deceptive>>>>

    What convinced me most that CAGW was total garbage was digging into the graphs and studies of AR4 and discovering how completely deceptive they were. Then the climategate emails came out and proved that I was incorrect. Deception was just a complete understatement.

  128. Mr. B.,

    Prof Richard Lindzen exposed the corruption of the NAS here. Or do you pick and choose your authorities based on your obviously political belief system?

    And KR is still arguing against solid empirical evidence showing that there is no acceleration in global temperatures. HADcru “re-adjusted” its temperature record when it saw that the data shows declining global temperatures.

    There is no acceleration in the long term global temperature record, as this Bill Illis chart, based on satellite data, shows. There is simply no acceleration. The last three years of declining global temperatures happened despite the steady rise in harmless, beneficial CO2. Despite KR’s cherry-picked double talk, the data shows conclusively that there is no acceleration in global temperatures.

    The inescapable conclusion: any effect from CO2 is so small that it is unmeasurable, therefore CO2 can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.

  129. I didn’t have time to read all of the comments, but I am willing to bet that the majority of the “pro-warming” comments were written by people 50 years old or or younger.

    Having more than a decade and a half additional experience, I can recall summers just as hot as we are now experiencing, and winters just as cold as we experienced several years ago.

    As a matter of fact, I actually experienced the additional warming due to the UHI effect: in 1974 most of the distance that I walked from the mass transit station to my house was tree lined.

    The air temperature was easily 5 oF lower under the shade of the trees (no I didn’t carry a thermometer).

    Most of the trees have been removed, and the sidewalk now receives direct sun,

    Oh, and I hope the Earth is warming. Continuous cooling would indicate the start of a new ice age!

  130. Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm
    So many comments so far off the mark …

    Oh please, ‘talk your book’ brother; it is all you’ve got.

    .

  131. RE: Mr. B.:(July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm)

    “The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. “

    Global warming may be real, but the extent to which human activity is responsible is subject to serious question. Carbon dioxide, the primary agent assumed for this effect might be likened to a gas that blocks olive-green light within a few hundred feet at current concentrations, but is perfectly transparent for all red and blue light. Adding more just ever so slightly increases the width of the total blockage.

    So far, man has only increased the concentration of this gas by about 40 percent and it remains questionable if there is enough carbon in the ground to allow man to double the initial concentration. Without assuming any special positive feedback effects, (which may have been calibrated on the basis of unrelated natural warming) it appears that one must double the concentration of this gas for each one degree Celsius increase.

    I believe the problem is that scientists who have chosen to work in this field may have been over-conditioned by environmental protectionist philosophy and over-zealous when trying to find and expose evidence of human degradation of the environment. For those outside that field, and for the ‘intelligentsia’ in general, I think support for this concept is primarily a matter of rubber-stamp political correctness.

    It is important to note that the official documented total average global warming since 1880 is less than one degree on the Celsius scale.

  132. Firey @ 4.05 pm

    After the awful floods in Queensland last year there were claims that they were caused by global warming/climate change.

    It seems that there has been another fabrication of [infrastructure] data.
    Queensland railway managers ‘falsified’ rail bridge safety inspections on the Central West line.

    The matter has been referred to the CMC (Crime and Misconduct Commission).

    source: Courier Mail news [Queensland], Australia. 7/7/2012

  133. Mr B, KR,

    I spent some time upthread on the explanation of the logarithmic nature of CO2, which the IPCC admits, and how that implies that additional CO2 over current levels is just not significant. I’ve posted that explanation many times in many threads to the likes of you two, and to date, have not had a single reply.

    Why is that?

  134. KR says:
    July 7, 2012 at 7:24 pm
    It’s warming faster than the first part of the century, faster over time, and that is by definition acceleration.

    I was given the impression that anything other than CO2, such as the sun, was basically negligible. So whether the warming now as compared to 70 years ago is for different reasons may be a matter of debate, but compare the following:
    Essentially identical 30 year slopes many years apart.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1912.33/to:1942.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982.25/to:2013/trend

    #Selected data from 1912.33
    #Selected data up to 1942.33
    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0156268 per year

    #Selected data from 1982.25
    #Selected data up to 2013
    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0153446 per year

  135. David Falkner says:
    July 7, 2012 at 7:48 pm
    Personally, I find it ridiculous that people think the thunderstorms were something remarkable. Maybe for the way they marched across the region, but derechos, from my understanding of them, are capable of this any year. We had a wind storm left over from Hurricane Ike here in OH a few years ago. It was worse.
    ======================================================
    I think what made this seem worse and more news worthy wasn’t that the power was out longer (By and large it wasn’t) but that people didn’t have AC during a heat wave. At least we didn’t have to rebuild wind farms or solar power plants to get it back on.

  136. Just curious- what does the map header mean when it says “Global Anomaly 0.001 C”

    Is that a sum of the over and under presented on the map and displayed in different colors?

  137. NYT has an article on the heat wave “Unrelenting Heat Wave Bakes All in Its Reach”.
    Here is a nice clip:

    Around the region, corn and soybean crops shriveled from the heat and the lack of rain. In the hardest hit and hottest areas, some farmers said they had already given up on their cornfields for the season. Others say much is riding on whether the heat subsides and rain arrives in the next few days, a crucial period for corn pollination.

    “There’s vast uncertainty,” said Bob Nielsen, a professor of agronomy at Purdue. “There aren’t many years, though, when I get this pessimistic.”

    Meteorologists said the recent hot streak, though not unprecedented, was unusual because of how early in the summer it struck and its duration.

    The prolonged heat has been the result of a high pressure system that has set up over the central and Eastern parts of the country, said Katie Garrett, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service. The system has been so strong that it has kept storm systems from moving in and has prevented cold fronts that usually provide relief from sweeping through. At the same time, moisture and heat from the Gulf of Mexico have been blowing into the Upper Midwest, Ms. Garrett said.

    Hmmm, I guess we need to add agronomists to the list of co-conspirators along with meteorologists and climate scientists. Probably botanists, biologists, zoologists, oceanographers, microbiologists, astrophysicists, heat seeking missile designers… Wow, this list is getting pretty long.

  138. KR said (July 7, 2012 at 11:26 am

    “…So no, this particular heat wave cannot be directly attributed to climate change. But we’re certainly going to see a lot more more of them, with fewer cold events, as climate averages change and the weather dice get loaded more and more heavily to the hot side…”

    As I’ve said before, those who forget extreme weather events in the past are doomed to state all current weather extremes are unprecidented.

    If heat waves are going to get longer over time, then why is it, more than 89 years later, there is still one extreme heat wave that remains unbroken – the one in Marble Bar, Australia.

    The town set a world record of most consecutive days of maximum temperatures of 37.8 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) or more, during a period of 160 such days from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924.

    If their “climate” is getting worse, if their averages are rising at tenths of a degree per decade, why hasn’t this record been exceeded or beaten? Weather or climate?

  139. pinetree3, its a one day map, the gray colors are warming areas too, and the large hot areas where people live are much hotter than the cold areas in Antarctica etc.

    Of course, we could say that the “real weather information” is being hidden by a collusion of weather people and meteorologists, as suggested in a comment by Wade earlier… except he somehow believes that weather data is controlled by James Hansen and Michael Mann — geez Wade, we ain’t talkin about tree rings or latewood density here in this post! I know you believe that weather data such as jet stream positions and tropospheric pressure (hPa) info is being hidden, but check around. You might just find this information, along with record high temperatures etc. Organizations like newspapers, TV, pilots, Weather channel, and even AW seems to be able to find information on weather.

    Here is some help… a site that can give a nice forecast map of the Arctic Region for tomorrow. Click the N.Hemi option and select 500 hPa. You will see a nice map showing an Arctic Dipole forecast for tomorrow (HP over the Canadian Archipelago and LP over the Siberian/Russian side of the Arctic Ocean).

    Enjoy.

  140. Can we please stop the statement that 95-96-97% of the scientist support the AGW theory. That lie has been thouroughly debunked for years.

    Two surveys have purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus”. However, one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.
    The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless. Yet that has not prevented the usual suspects from saying – falsely – that the “consensus” of 97% of all climate scientists is that manmade global warming is potentially catastrophic.

  141. I have to agree with Paul K2 that something weird is happening with the weather. It appears to be melting people’s brains for the first time in history.

  142. People have memories that tend to blur the past, not remembering it as harshly and realistically as it was. So, the sweat trickling down their armpits right now, is far more poignant than the same sweaty armpits in 1998. It is, frankly, the same softening of reality that makes us women look forward to having multiple children… we simply cannot recall the reality sharply enough to remind us of what it was like. A sleepless night five years ago is softly nostalgic, compared to a sleepless night occurring right now. It’s a function of being human. Cold kills more than heat does. We can dissipate heat much better than we can create it within our own bodies. Given the choice of a desert summer with adequate water, food and a shelter (but no fan or a/c), or an arctic winter with the same (and no external heat), which would most of us choose to survive?

  143. Paul K2;
    You might just find this information, along with record high temperatures etc. Organizations like newspapers, TV, pilots, Weather channel, and even AW seems to be able to find information on weather.>>>>

    But that’s the thing Paul. When we consider the historical records, what we find is that there’s pretty much nothing special about what it going on right now.

    Neither KR nor Mr B have responded to my point about CO2 being logarithmic, nothing but crickets chirping on that one. Apologies, should have included you in the list. Same question. Why does no one respond to that point?

  144. Paul K2;

    Historical record: Thriving Viking colonies with productive agriculture in Greenland hundreds of years ago. Explain.

    Archeological Record: Receding glaciers in Canada’s north have recently exposed hunting camps that are hundreds, perhaps thousands of years old. Explain.

    Geological Record; CO2 has been, millions of years ago, many, many, many times higher concentration in the atmosphere than it is now, but temps were lower. Explain.

  145. In the end, there is a simple test. See where temps are in 20-30 after the PDO/AMO cold cycles can co-incide. Use objective satellite guidance. Since earths temps the last 15 years have really not gone anywhere, one can easily argue that the earth reached the equilibrium of both the warm cycles of the PDO and AMO can easily explain and so we simply test the theory.

    Since the IPCC disaster scenario is busting and the co2 keeps rising,

    a 20-30 year test of basic climate cycle theory is reasonable. Anyone disputing that we shouldn’t allow the test, without destroying the chance for mankind to advance,, given the facts, is not.

  146. “It is caused by a persistent blocking high pressure pattern”

    Here we go again.

    Wasn’t that the same weather pattern that brought that Heatwave to Russia back in 2010. The Warmist Alarmists were going gaga over and blaming that on AGW/CC hysteria aswell?

    We’re getting all the hype here in NZ on the US Heatwave. Going on about 35C Temps in Washington DC. I thought the record for Washington DC was 41C set back in the 1930s/40s?

  147. By the way I have 2 questions for my detractors. 1) Is there any thing that can happen that would convince you your ideas are wrong ( for instance, in spite of the factual disconnect from co2 and temp, you deny that). So what do we need to see.. lets say a fall of .1C next 10 years, is that anything? and 2) Just what answer DONT YOU OWN? Is everything that happens a sign you are correct? For instance, if temps were rising along the lines of your forecast, than that would be very troubling to me with my position . but they are not. How come it doesnt matter to you, that the very forecast you used to start pushing all this down the throat of people is busting and busting badly and I see no reason for why any kind of rise that will even make it close will resume. In fact quite the opposite. You say its warmer than it was, true, but partly because it was so cold. But no matter what, ITS NO WHERE NEAR WHAT YOU FORECASTED

    We hear one excuse after another. We hear one scare tactic after another yet the forecasts disappear and you arent accountable. Arctic Ice? Laughable since your crew promoted an ice free arctic in 2012. You busted much more severely than anyone on our side of the aisle. You even twist what people say. I said we would return to the normal level of the late 70s by 2030, that was twisted to a forecast for a year after I said it ( 2009) and southern hemisphere sea ice WHICH OVERALL HAS BEEN RISING WOULD FALL BACK TO WHERE IT WAS. There is a simple explanation. Warm PDO/AMO have colder water around the southern ice cap, hence the increase, while the same cycle warms the northern hemisphere and the combination of the land locked ice cap surrounded by warmth and warm water attacking underneath melts ice. Much more plausible that the nonsense spouted about co2. But how do you get off making a forecast that is a far worst bust, and then saying what you are saying, especially in light of the the southern hemisphere sea ice, which you never bring up.

    Tornadoe’s: what the heck happened to another year of global warming tornadoes, That fell apart as was forecasted using a method that had nothing to do with co2. you had to shut your mouth till you got a heat wave in less than 2% of the planet and severe weather event that many of your ilk didnt even know existed ( Derecho). And your hurricane ideas are absurd, Of course you are waiting for them to return ( SO am I) , I am puzzled how the east coast has gotten off scott free almost given the pattern as I have been saying for 5 years now was going back to the 1950s, with the flip of the pdo. anyone notice how close the summers are, or the western N America, and far east winters. But none of that has anything to do with co2. It has to do with the flip of the pdo. So we get the Mckibbens and Sullens yelling about Irene, the Desslers and Norths about Texas drought as if they never looked at the weather in the 1950s. And of course the all knowing POTUS using drought in Texas to say its global warming, when if one looks at the time the earths temp actually was rising due to the warm pdo, TEXAS PRECIP WAS ABOVE NORMAL Its when it turns colder globally, it dries in the south ( see 1950s)

    I am amazed that no one in the msm has the guts to actually take these people up and question them as to exactly what they really know. Instead its hit and run,, take any given event, dont research it and run with it. Imagine what else is going on in other aspects of life

    In the end its a simple test. The world is in far more danger in the next 20 years from things like economic and political strife, partly brought on by the fact that people with this agenda are trying to handcufff the globes progress with failed ideas on social manipulation mixed with
    environmentalism that is based on ideology. That is the problem. I suspect many of you that actually do look understand that this is mainly cyclical and there is nothing that can be done except to accept and adept. And while you are at , the cold option carries more weight than warm and you will see that become clearer even to the most blind among you in the coming years,

  148. TV Report from drought stricken Texas (tree die-off from last year’s drought):

    Business is booming in Texas, and not just the oil and gas business. Tree trimmers are raking in the bucks after last year’s drought killed an estimated 500 million trees.

    “I’ve been so swamped, we’ve had to call in reinforcements” from other states, arborist Glen Jennings told NBCDFW.com.
    The Texas Forest Service, which estimates 5.6 million trees died in urban areas, urged homeowners to be pro-active about removing dead trees — before they land on neighboring property.
    “Be aware that your tree could fall onto someone else’s property,” service official Jim Rooni said in a statement Thursday. “he rules vary from place to place, but generally the owner of the tree is responsible. Bottom line: You could be liable.”
    Jennings was stunned by the amount of dead trees across the state.
    “I, personally, have never been in the middle of something like this before,” he said. “Small droughts, yeah, but statewide?”

    Maybe we need to add arborists to the list of co-conspirators identified by anti-AGW special interest groups, along with climate scientists, meteorologists, agronomists, etcetera…

    At what point does the conspiracy theory against scientists become ludicrous?

    P.S. And Joe Bastardi just leveled a tirade against mainstream news media… they must be in this massive conspiracy as well?

  149. It’s not about *this* extreme, its about the recurrence of the collective basket of extremes

  150. Joseph Adam-Smith says:
    July 7, 2012 at 11:32 am
    I really do wish we could have Global Warming in the UK. The weather is cold and, to put it mildly, wet!

    Rainfall in England in June was 277% of “normal” for the month, defined as the 1971-2000 average.

  151. Doug Eaton says:
    July 7, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    Blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming is just as follyish (?) (okay, foolish) as blaming the cooling wave in the UK right now on global cooling.
    But that won’t stop them.

    I haven’t seen anyone claim that the poor,very wet weather in UK is “global cooling.” Please provide reference.

    What I am pointing out is that a hotter than average spell of weather for a couple of weeks in Eastern US is not “global.” Other parts of “global” are having cooler (than average) weather. The point being that is is all WEATHER, not climate.

  152. Mr. B. says
    July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    “The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. If you don’t want to believe it you don’t have to. But I for one am more willing to listen to the conclusions of people who have [devoted their education, time, study and energy to this issue than to some guy with a blog] made a career and very nice living out of perpetuating the scam…

    There. That’s what you meant to say.

  153. The climate scientists that I have been reading are all reluctant to attribute any isolated spell of anomalously warm weather to global warming. They say, over and over again, that global warming is manifested by warming TRENDS that are GLOBAL in extent. The current heat wave in the US, by itself, is neither of these.

    But they also say that the current heat wave could be part of a trend, attributable to global changes in climate. They will, no doubt, be studying this question closely.

    In the meanwhile, for the past several years, worldwide, there have been twice as many record high temperatures recorded as record lows. Looks like a global trend to me.

    And I would add that for years after we bought our house in 1991, the rhododendron by our front door bloomed in mid-June. For the past 5 or 6 years, it has been blooming in the third or fourth week in May — as have the rhododendrons throughout our neighborhood. A small isolated observation, no doubt scientifically worthless ….

  154. For Reference: Here is documentary style video presenting a theory that seems to explain both long-term and short-term climate change as a result of extra-terrestrial influences, both solar and galactic. It is important to note that clouds serve as indicators of ongoing condensing convective activity–a primary form of heat transfer from the surface of the planet.

    Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery
    “Uploaded by rwesser1 on Jul 24, 2011″
    108 likes, 9 dislikes; 8,812 Views; 62:46 min
    Henrik Svensmark’s documentary on climate change and cosmic rays.

  155. Well, here in the UK we’re having one of the worst springs/summers I can remember. March was unseasonably warm; April was the wettest ever; May started likewise for 3 weeks, then we had a mini-heat wave for 10 days. June has been very wet and only a day or so above 21C. July has started very wet and cool also.

    That’s on the back of three winters with far more snow than average and much colder than average in at least one month also.

    No sign of global warming here in the UK.

  156. Marian

    “It is caused by a persistent blocking high pressure pattern”

    Here we go again….

    Yep, pay attention to descriptions of weather events that include that word ‘blocking’. It is the description that tags what looks like a possible Global Warming phenomenon. And one that till recently hadn’t been appreciated that well. Possibly a disconnect between the Meteorologists and the Climatologists.

    A big factor in weather patterns are the Polar Jet Streams. Relatively high speed and high altitude eastward travelling air flows, they act as barriers, dividing climate zones because weather systems can’t easily cross them. So in the northern hemisphere, this tends to divide the colder polar weather patterns from the warmer mid latitude weather. But the jet streams don’t just travel across at one latitude. They meander north & south. When it meanders south, colder air from the arctic can penetrate southwards – colder weather. When it meanders north, warmer air from lower latitudes can penetrate north – warmer weather.

    And if the meandering of the jet-stream happens to freeze in place for a period, which it does from time to time, then whatever type of weather is happening nearby tends to intensify – warm gets warmer or cold gets colder. This is what happened in western Russia in 2010. Warmer air from the Mediterranean was able to keep moving northwards because the Jet Stream had ‘locked up’ for a time. Our weather, no matter where in the world you live, is best when it cycles frequently between cooling and warming influences. Too much of any factor is bad.

    So what is happening to the Jet-Stream? Preliminary research (this is still an emerging field of study) is suggesting that the North Polar Jet Stream is slowing. It is meandering further north & south. And it is becoming more prone to ‘locking up’ for periods. All of which isn’t good news; that will definitely lead to more extreme weather events in the regions influenced by it. More snowstorms and rain if you are north of it, more heatwaves, drought and fires if you are south of it.

    The recent intense thunderstorm activity in a band across from Chicago to Washington DC, a phenomenon called a Derecho, may have occured because of this. A large warm air mass moves north from the regions like Colorado where the fires are happening. This comes up against the Jet Stream which forms a barrier to it’s further northward movement. All that energy then starts to spill out sideways, following the normal pattern of air movement eastwards. And thunderstorms start plowing eastwards towards Washington DC.

    So, what is Climate Change doing to this pattern? The strength of the Jet Stream is driven by how large the temperature difference is between the equatorial latitudes and the poles. This temperature gradient drives an energy flow towards the poles. And one of the major places this energy ends up is in the JetStream.

    So as Global Warming progreses, the northen polar region is warming faster than the tropics. So the temperature difference between these two regions is dropping. With the result that the strength of the Jet Stream is dropping. More meandering. More frequent ‘lock-ups’. And so more frequent occurances of extreme weather events.

    AGW predicts more extreme weather. And this looks like a significant mechanism that drives that. The temperature difference between the Arctic and the Tropics declines. The Jet Stream slows and meanders more. And the weather systems bounded by the Jet Stream become more intense.

    So how can the US be suffering heatwaves while the UK is seeing a very wet summer? They are on opposite sides of a slower, lazier Jet Stream

    Why aren’t we seeing this down here in the southern hemisphere? The Southern Polar Jet Stream typically runs further south of us here in Australia, New Zealand, Southern Africa. The Southern Hemisphere has far more ocean than land that tends to moderate weather extremes. The Antarctic isn’t yet seeing the major temperature changes that the Arctic is. So the basic driver of this isn’t there. And if it was happening, it would be happening down in the Southern Ocean where we don’t pay much attention

  157. Mr B
    “Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity.”

    You forgot the “in part” or “largely” qualification that was in the originals.
    The debate isn’t about AGW, it’s about CAGW (positive feedbacks and tipping points). There’s no 95% consensus on those, not remotely.

  158. The US should be sued in World Court by the ROTW (Rest Of The World). Eastern and Central US has stolen all the rest of the world’s summer heat. It is even willing to put up with massive storms trying to keep cold air from getting in, in order to selfishly deprive everyone else! Those responsible should be put on ice, and left there until they’re terminally frostbitten.

    It’s only fair.

  159. History will show that all the authorities weighing in on this topic were intellectually corrupt, self-serving, grant-money-chasers except for the few disinterested, impartial experts who were paid large sums of money by the fossil fuel industry and the libertarian think tanks (funded by the fossil fuel industry) to explain to the public just how corrupt all those other people were.

  160. @Glenn Tamblyn

    Are you saying that this is a new phenomena, never happened before? Persistence of the Greenland below jet stream pattern is surely a key feature of interglacials as the Greenland above is of glacials. Historical evidence would suggest this is merely a natural response to natural process.

    • Everything that can possibly be attributed to AGW will have happened before — many times. But it does not follow that what is happening now cannot therefore be attributed to AGW. It all depends on the specifics of the case — on actual things, and not on references to history’s habit of repeating itself, or natural cycles, and so on.

  161. K2 wrote: “With respect to temperature records, or in fact any record of a varying parameter over time, it is completely expected that the number of record extreme events will decrease over time”… and… “The telling number is the ratio of record highs to record lows. Changes in that ratio reflect changes in the base statistics, changes to the average temperature. ”

    PHWEEEP! Five-yard penalty for logical contradiction. (Ok, I know, but I’m from the USA and we play mostly American football over here.) Unlike Herr Dr. Prof. Schroedinger and his cat, you are not allowed to assert that a statistical process is simultaneously stationary and non-stationary.

    • diogenesnj, Help me understand where the contradiction in what K2 wrote lies. I understand him to be saying that as we approach some natural limits in the physical world, fewer and fewer record low and high temperatures will be broken; still, as long as some record highs and lows are being broken, there will be a ratio between the two types of broken records, and that this ratio is significant for our understanding of climate change. Of course, all of our records are simply for the period of time during which observations have been made; and if we go back far enough in time, we will encounter new circumstances and new natural limits. But our concern is for what will happen under present circumstances with present natural limits; we are worried about the world that our children and grandchildren will have to live in. So far, then, K2’s observations seem reasonable; please advise.

  162. Trouble with this posting is that NOBODY will see it only the few hundred here. if a major newspaper had this article front page it would mean something. Anyway ther is NO global warming check AMSU data. Actually July looks like itrs gonna be quite coolish globally haha

  163. Mr. B. says:
    July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. If you don’t want to believe it you don’t have to. But I for one am more willing to listen to the conclusions of people who have devoted their education, time, study and energy to this issue than to some guy with a blog……
    ____________________________________
    As a scientist, I KNOW other scientists will lie through their teeth when it comes to money or their career. I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data. I have also been fired more than once for refusing to falsify data upon direct order from my superior.

    My personal experience with the “Honesty” and “Integrity” of scientists is that it is rare, most will go along with the herd or with higher authority rather than stick their neck out. In my entire career I found only one other person willing to stand up for what was right instead of going along with what was easiest. She was also fired for her honesty. Most people are followers not leaders. I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader. That is what saying there is a “Consensus” and the labeling and denigrating of those who don’t go with the flow is all about. That practice alone should make people wonder about “The Science” Real science is about the quest for truth and facts not following “Authority” not being a member of the “A” list.

    Here is the current state of “Honesty” in Science:

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
    …..Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.

    A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    More articles about the lack of honesty in science.
    A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

    ScienceDaily: US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

    A few individual cases:
    In a July 26 letter to Cetero, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration describes the falsification as “extensive,” calling into question all bioanalytical data collected by Cetero’s Houston bioanalytical laboratory from April 1, 2005 to June 15, 2010. The FDA said Cetero manipulated test samples so the tests would yield desired results….

    UConn officials said their internal review found 145 instances over seven years in which Dr. Dipak Das fabricated and falsified data, and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity has launched an independent investigation of his work.

    The inquiry found that Stapel, former professor of cognitive social psychology and dean of Tilburg’s school of social and behavioural sciences, fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him. Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications, dating from 2000 to 2006

    The United States Attorney’s Office..announced that a felony Information has been filed …. During the time period alleged in the Information, Grimes resided in Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, and was a Professor of Material Science and Engineering at The Pennsylvania State University.

    LISTINGS:
    Retraction Watch
    .naturalnews.com:Scientific fraud news, articles and information

    Many here at WUWT have a degree in science, engineering or the maths. That is why we smell something very fishy with the IPCC and “The Science”

    This is what Forty citizen auditors found when they looked at “the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible.. the gold standard.”

    …Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.”

    We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.

    Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are also 5 Bs and 8 As…. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/04/14/climate-bible-gets-21-fs-on-report-card/

    Sorry, the more we dig, and look at the data we can get our hands on (as any true scientist is required to do) the more it stinks. “The Team” knows this and that is why the data was not released upon simple requests, Freedom of Information Acts and when push finally came to shove the data was “Lost”

    Phil Jones: The Dog Ate My Homework

    From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing

    Lonnie and Ellen, A Serial Non-Archiving Couple

    Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology, Review Editor of Climate Research and IPCC co-author, calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation

    If you want more on the supposed “Integrity” of those you seem to believe in see: WUWT Climategate links

  164. KR says:

    “So no, this particular heat wave cannot be directly attributed to climate change. But we’re certainly going to see a lot more more of them, with fewer cold events, as climate averages change and the weather dice get loaded more and more heavily to the hot side…..”
    ———————————————————————————————————–

    Thats what they said after Katrina. That there would be a lot more of them and they would become the new normal.

  165. Chipotle says
    Along the equator it is cooler than average
    ———
    The map shows the equator as white or grey . . The map key has that as 0 to +3. So no.

  166. Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 11:20 pm
    TV Report from drought stricken Texas (tree die-off from last year’s drought): …

    a) Texas is not in ‘drought’ (okay, * perhaps far west Texas, but that can change in a comparatively short period of time like it did with the rest of the state); you write that as if it (Texas) were still ‘in drought’ in its entirety, which would certainly be an untruth (our reservoirs, our source for drinking and lawn-watering water are in GOOD shape this year).

    b) Planting region-inappropriate trees and shrubbery is the #1 reason for ‘tree deaths'; I lost several region-inappropriate deciduous trees on account of 1) a late frost (last year) after out-leafing and 2) the stress from a long, hot summer and through accumulated stress factors finally allowed WOOD BORES to overtake them whereas other deciduous trees are doing just fine …

    Continue to ‘talk your book’ brother; it’s all you’ve got.

    * http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/uuniversity-of-nebraska-claims-record-drought-in-the-usa-not-so-fast/
    .

  167. @Paul K2. You say that a loss of Arctic ice leads to a slow down in the Jet Stream which in turn allows weather patterns (like the current heat wave) to stick around longer.

    The strongest / longest heat wave in recent memory was in the 1930s. Can you comment on Arctic ice loss then? I would like to believe climate scientists know what they are doing but my concern with your logic is they focus on short term effects and extrapolate them into long term ones.

  168. Glenn Tamblyn’s comment marked July 8th at 3:00 AM is an excellent summary of the current theory covering changes in extreme weather patterns driven by polar amplification. Anyone interested in learning about the recent changes in extreme weather should read it.

    I might only add that observational evidence shows that the Arctic sea level pressure (SLP) has been rising over the historical average. This higher pressure decreases the driving force for the jet stream. Please see Figure S4 in the Cohen paper that shows the observed Arctic winter SLP trends (and shows the models didn’t predict the rising trend!).

    http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL12.pdf

    Also KR’s comments appear lucid and accurate.

    I suggest readers might re-read this thread, concentrating on these commenters, and then an accurate understanding of two important points will emerge:

    1. Extreme weather events will become more common due to overall rising temperatures, in the case of the mid-latitudes in the NH, the temperatures are rising over 1 deg F every ten years in many places inhabited by people (such as the Midwest states bordering the Great Lakes. This temperature rise “loads the dice” and increases the chances of extreme heat events, and increases the chances of severe precipitation events due to higher atmospheric moisture.

    2. Meteorologists are now collecting data that show the decline of the Arctic ice pack has increased the seasonal SLPs in the Arctic, and has changed the amplitude and movement of the Rossby waves in the jet stream, creating more stable and persistent weather patterns. Blocking patterns in the jet stream results in extreme weather events.

  169. LazyTeenager,

    your bias is blinding you…there is blue, white, and gray, so -3 to +3. overall – just by eyeballing it – its mostly around white with the grays and blues about balancing. about 0 on average.

  170. @ Jesse Fell

    Ah, the specifics of the case. Natural cycles have no reality in the anthropocene as all is different. Reminds me of an UK Chancellor of the Exchequer who decreed the end of boom and bust.

    Science is best guess, informed by empirical evidence. That the linear models do not fit the real world, with no sign of the predicted signatures of unnatural climate change, suggests that the models have been falsified and that more attention should be given to cycles and empirical evidence.

    • Eric,

      A cycle of nature is a sequence of events that is repeated at regular intervals. Like all other events, these events have causes. Too often, when people challenge the AGW thesis, they refer to cycles of nature as if they were absolute, autonomous, uncaused — but for a cycle of nature to be accepted as a serious alternative to the AGW hypothesis, these causes need to be identified. Otherwise, we are left with the explanation that increasing atmospheric CO2 isn’t causing temperatures to rise because — just because!

  171. Joseph Bastardi – A simple test? Certainly.

    Recent warming (last 30-35 years) has been on the order of 0.16-0.18 C / decade for the surface record, a bit less for the tropospheric. If the ongoing temperature record shows enough change to reject that rate of change at 2σ certainty, then, and only then, I will agree that the rate of warming has decreased.

    That shift has not happened.

    Short timeframes – 15 years (try 16 years, not starting with the 1998 El Nino peak, you get a completely different slope), 10 years, 3 years (Smokey – seriously?!?) – have too little data in the presence of ENSO, insolation, and just plain weather variation to establish a trend change.

    You could, of course, attempt to account for and remove variations (ENSO, insolation, aerosol, etc), as Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 did; then 10-12 years should be enough time to establish trends. They, however, found no indication of reduced trends.

  172. davidmhoffer“I spent some time upthread on the explanation of the logarithmic nature of CO2, which the IPCC admits, and how that implies that additional CO2 over current levels is just not significant.”

    The effects of increased CO2 (given current concentrations and any range we’re likely to see) are indeed logarithmic. If you look at the data for CO2 increase, however (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12 for data since 1958) and take the log of that increase, you will see a curve that is greater than linear (upwardly curving). You can do that easily in Excel, just insert the data in http://woodfortrees.org/data/esrl-co2/mean:12 and take the Ln( ) of the concentration column.

    That means that CO2 increase over that period is greater than exponential, and that CO2 forcing is increasing faster than linearly. Personally, I would consider that significant.

  173. Paul K2 says July 8, 2012 at 6:51 am

    1. Extreme weather events will become more common due to …

    Maybe it is your education (indoctrination?) on select subject and lack thereof on others that blinds you; it is very possible you have no idea of the workings of ‘weather’ and how that integrates over time into ‘climate'; so let’s assume you are just short knowledge-wise, IOW ignorant, of weather processes. Perhaps something like The American Weather Book would go some ways in resolving this exhibited and repeated ignorance on subject.

    The American Weather Book, by David McWilliams Ludlum
    Houghton Mifflin, 1982 – Nature – 296 pages

    A month-by-month look at the American climate explains the causes of hurricanes, tornadoes, fog, ice storms, blizzards, heat waves, floods, and other weather-related phenomena

    http://books.google.com/books/about/The_American_weather_book.html?id=Jgw6AQAAIAAJ

    .

  174. ****
    Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    John F. Hultquist: Most homes in Pennsylvania didn’t have AC thirty years ago. None of my family had AC in their homes. We really didn’t need it much. That is likely why you had trouble sleeping. Now, most of my extended family there has AC.
    ****

    You need to go back just a few more yrs. In western MD, I distinctly remember the miserable heat in the mid-60s drought-summers (highest was 106F on our thermometer in ’66) when the whole family had to retreat to the mildewy basement to sleep in cots. Thank goodness for AC some yrs later.

    For comparison, the high yesterday here from a rural location was 96F.

  175. Jesse,

    The attempt to use CO2 as Occam`s razor to cut through the Gordian knot of climate complexity leaves an awful lot of loose ends, and the models which depend on it have been falsified. Time to look again at the cycles to understand the because.

    • Exactly my point. It’s time to look at the cycles — in particular, the things that are causing the cycles to happen. I am merely trying to say that in challenges to the AGW hypothesis, I often find “cycles” being proposed as explanations sufficient in themselves. They aren’t.

  176. American journalists should feel ashamed at this East Coast, Washington centric news bias, it comes over as both elitist and rascist (as they seem to be saying other people who suffer similar weather are not as news worthy) as should those psuedo-scientists who feed them the alarmist nonsense.

  177. Paul K2~ I would also like to hear your take, as per Steve of Rockwood To reiterate:

    ‘You say that a loss of Arctic ice leads to a slow down in the Jet Stream which in turn allows weather patterns (like the current heat wave) to stick around longer.

    The strongest / longest heat wave in recent memory was in the 1930s. Can you comment on Arctic ice loss then? I would like to believe climate scientists know what they are doing but my concern with your logic is they focus on short term effects and extrapolate them into long term ones.’

  178. Joseph Bastardi – If you don’t like or prefer the F&R 2011 methods, I might suggest looking at the much simpler analysis of John Nielsen-Gammon,

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/

    where he simply plots temperature broken into the categories of El Nino, La Nina, and neutral periods. He also in part accounts for volcanic aerosols by excluding years immediately after major eruptions. What he finds is that all three categories show warming at ~0.16 C/decade. And no evidence of a decrease in that rate.

  179. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 1:08 am

    1. But they also say that the current heat wave could be part of a trend, attributable to global changes in climate. They will, no doubt, be studying this question closely.

    2. In the meanwhile, for the past several years, worldwide, there have been twice as many record high temperatures recorded as record lows. Looks like a global trend to me.

    3. And I would add that for years after we bought our house in 1991, the rhododendron by our front door bloomed in mid-June. For the past 5 or 6 years, it has been blooming in the third or fourth week in May — as have the rhododendrons throughout our neighborhood. A small isolated observation, no doubt scientifically worthless ….

    1. No doubt they’ve already decided on the answer, and are just accumulating evidence (and discarding counter-evidence). This is how a religion operates.

    2. Looks like the expected result if half the thermometers are in places affexted by UHI or microclimate.

    3. In the early 1900’s oranges were grown in Florida at least as far north as Cross Creek (north of Ocala). Now the groves have died back down to the Orlando area because of frequent freezes. Just mentioning that for those who think that an early-blooming flower is evidence in the context of cAGW.

  180. Jesse Fell says:

    July 8, 2012 at 4:02 am
    History will show that all the authorities weighing in on this topic were intellectually corrupt, self-serving, grant-money-chasers except for the few disinterested, impartial experts who were paid large sums of money by the fossil fuel industry and the libertarian think tanks (funded by the fossil fuel industry) to explain to the public just how corrupt all those other people were.

    Please show us these ‘large’ sums of money from the fossil fuel industry going to skeptics. I’m stilll waiting for mine. The oil and gas companies pour far more money into the CAGW religious coffers than they do to libertarian think tanks.

  181. I would welcome a simple public debate by the proclaimed experts on the CAGW subject, but just about all of the Climonista’s refuse to do so. The resistance to FOIA requests and lack of desire to publicly debate speaks volumes, no?

    If things are so obvious, it should we an easy thing to prove in an open forum for all to see.

    Here is an example of how this subject should be handled with free and open dialogue and full transparency.

  182. >> Glenn Tamblyn says:
    July 8, 2012 at 3:00 am … <<

    Do you have a pre-2005 reference to some CAGW priest predicting this effect? Otherwise it's just another example of the CAGW religion coming up with another desperately lame explanation as to why their predictions for continued warming failed.

  183. In North America we have man made heat-waves and hot dry conditions as a result of Anthropogenic Climate Change (apparently).
    In the UK & Ireland we have man made heavy rain fall, cold damp conditions and localized flooding as a result of Anthropogenic Climate Change (apparently).
    Right across the European Continent and Eurasia we have a wide variety of conditions including thunderstorms, floods and varying degrees of extremes such as hot deserts, snow caped mountains and glaciers, are we to believe that all of these geographical locations and their different environmental conditions (or extremes if you like) are man made as a result of Anthropogenic Climate Change?
    I think we’re in a era of agenda driven media under political influence for the most part, natural disasters do happen all the time all over the world like they have done in the past, they are still as ferocious today when they happen, although there wasn’t the technology to document all these events when they happened in the past, today almost no heavy rainfall, heatwave or other meteorological event goes unreported or documented by the public and reported by our media and jumped upon by our out-of-touch political classes and used to push ridiculous policies that would otherwise be laughed at.
    Yesterday on the news, I watched a politician declare that the recent bad weather and floods in the UK was a result of a changing climate (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and that scientists have been warning us about these extreme events for years, this was an obvious arrogant attempt to try and justify their stupid climate change laws, failures or what ever else they’re peddling to the public.

    If the news interviewer had a set he would reply with–

    “The UK is cold, wet, damp, overcast, gray, foggy and flooding this summer how is this “Climate Change” (Anthropogenic Global Warming) you fecking daft idiot!!”

    Their TV ratings would also go through the roof!! lol

  184. Recent unusual weather events in the Northern Hemisphere have nothing to do with Climate Change .
    Footage produced by the UK Met Office demonstrates how the path of the Jet Stream has recently changed from its ‘normal’ route. This has resulted in significant increases in temperature to the south of the Jet Stream e.g. USA, together with dramatic increases in rainfall to the north of the Jet Stream e.g. northern Europe and particularly the UK. I understand that the Jet Stream is prone to wander off course from time to time but the cause of this is not known.
    The Jet Stream clearly has a major impact on weather patterns but I cannot recall reading anything about its effect on climate physics.
    Have the Jet Stream effects been considered in the GCMs I ask?

  185. Chipotle says:
    July 7, 2012 at 11:20 am

    RE Mexico v Greenland comparison

    In our real world Mexico is nearly the same size as Greenland (which here appears many times larger than Mexico). Both are about three times the area of Texas. From the CIA Factbook:

    Mexico: 1,964,375 sq km, slightly less than three times the size of Texas
    Greenland: 2,166,086 sq km, slightly more than three times the size of Texas

    Just trying to clean up your point, which is a great one.

  186. A picture is worth a thousand words

    and a number outweighs a thousand activist views:

    July 7, 2012. Global Anomaly 0.001 deg.

  187. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 9:04 am
    scarletmacaw, You could start here:

    From your link:

    “These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.”

    Sorry, I asked for evidence of ‘large’ sums. Those numbers are just a drop in the bucket compared to the funding from fossil fuel industries to CRU, Greenpeace, and other church leaders.

  188. LazyTeenager says:
    July 8, 2012 at 6:03 am

    RE comment RE Chipotle says comment

    Terminology may have been imprecise, but the point stands – the higher latitudes of both hemispheres do appear to hold more of the above-average temp in this map projection while the lower latitudes appear to hold more of the below- (and near) average temp.

  189. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 8:55 am

    Exactly my point. It’s time to look at the cycles — in particular, the things that are causing the cycles to happen. I am merely trying to say that in challenges to the AGW hypothesis, I often find “cycles” being proposed as explanations sufficient in themselves. They aren’t.

    Actually, Jesse, they are sufficient. The reason that they are sufficient is because it doesn’t matter why they are happening — that they happen at all, and have been for tens/hundreds/thousands/millions of years without human influences of any kind, gives them the status of “natural variation.” Merely because a natural cycle is currently unexplained does not mean that ANY explanation is the right one.

    We look at historical temperature records and see that the earth has been gently warming since the end of the Little Ice Age — long before human-produced CO2 was present in large quantities. We look further at those records and see spikes and dips in the record, and with modern technology we relate those spikes to El Nino events and dips to large aerosol releases by volcanoes. With such a long record we see many natural cycles in warming and cooling — and not knowing their exact causes does not make them go away any more than the Sun did not exist before we could explain nuclear fusion.

    Tides existed before we knew about gravity. Disease existed before we had germ theory. Natural cycles are not to be ignored because we don’t know their causes. They ARE, and that is enough.

    • James, If we don’t know why cycles are occurring, we don’t even know whether what we are looking at are in fact cycles. We don’t know, for example, whether what we are seeing are cycles, or simply unrelated series of events that coincidentally have the same effect on temperature and climate. And certainly, if we understood the reasons behind the cycles, we would have a better understanding of the dynamics of climate, and would be better able to assess the effect of adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

      Cycles in themselves may be sufficient for talking points, but not for science, and not for policy that hopes to base itself on the best scientific understanding.

  190. For the last time this is just the weather and not the climate. Where is the evidence that extreme weather events have worsening trends???

    The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html

    Are Warmists so desperate that they have not resorted to pointing at regional weather events to illustrate Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. We had record cold in New Zealand at the same time as the heatwave in the US. So what! It’s just the weather and not the climate.

    Alarmists please read about bad weather.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/bad-weather/

  191. KR;
    That means that CO2 increase over that period is greater than exponential, and that CO2 forcing is increasing faster than linearly. Personally, I would consider that significant.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Very nice try.

    1. There was a dramatic and rise in use of fossil fuels last century which has since levelled off. You cannot take a trend that no longer exists and extrapolate it out to the future.
    2. We’ve reached peak oil, or very close to it. The rapid rises in fossil fuel use of the past are no longer physically possible. The forces that drove the trend in the past are physically incapable of continuing to increase at that pace, and hence cannot drive CO2 levels at an increasing pace.
    3. The curve of CO2 concentration is SLIGHTLY exponential. Even ignoring the issues raised above, the exponent is so small that it is dwarfed by the logarithmic effects which govern CO2 increases and their cumulative total forcing.
    4. Temperature itself is a negative feedback. w/m2 of forcing varies direcly with T raised to the power of 4. As an example, it requires just 2.9 w/m2 to raise the temperature from -40C by one degree, but it takes 7.0 w/m2 to raise the temperature at +40C by one degree.

    So nice try. But unless you assume massive increases in fossil fuel use, orders of magnitude beyond what we are physicaly capable of, the past increases in CO2 due to human activity can hardly be useful predictors of future concentrations of CO2, or of the forcing in w/m2 that may be attributed to them, and hence any temperature increases that might result.

    In other words, what I originaly stated stands. At current consumption rates, it will take about 200 years for direct forcing from CO2 to increase by a single degree, and probably longer since the biosphere is responding with increased uptake. Concentrations beyond 400 ppm are simply meaningless in the context of the amount of CO2 human beings are capable of putting into the atmosphere.

  192. Jesse Fell, in your various comments you reject the idea that climate change is principally due to natural causes unless someone can describe specific drivers which explain the changes better than the CO2 global warming hypothesis. Otherwise you will believe the CO2 hypothesis. In other words, you regard the CO2 hypothesis as the null hypothesis. This is where you make a serious error of logic.

    The world has existed for 4.5 billion years, during which time the climate has been constantly changing. Even during the short duration of the Holocene we have seen regular warmings and coolings: the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Roman Warm Period, the [enter name], the Minoan Warm Period, the early and late Holocene Optima. None of the earlier warmings was caused by CO2 and none resulted in Thermageddon. It is untenable to take any position other than that the null hypothesis is “climate change is natural”. It is up to the CAGW believers to establish their case otherwise the null hypothesis pertains. It is not necessary for skeptics to propose a specific alternative climate mechanism.

    The CAGW believers have utterly failed in this regard because :-
    1. There is nothing happening which is outside the envelope of past natural variability. So there is nothing requiring a non-natural explanation.
    2. The proposed mechanism of the CO2 hypothesis depends crucially on strong positive water vapor feedbacks whereas empirical evidence shows these feedbacks to be negative.

    • dcfl51, OK, let me start by saying that I am curious about why the Northwest Passage has become navigable — at least in summer — during the past few years. That is, navigable by ships that aren’t equipped with ice-breaking prows. This is a dramatic change. I’d like to hear a plausible explanation.

      The AGW thesis is a plausible explanation. I agree that plausibility is not proof; but in the natural sciences, you never arrive at a logically inescapable QED; you can get only higher and higher degrees of plausibility. And the AGW thesis has reached a high degree of plausibility. We are adding millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year; it is within the scope of a high school science fair project to show that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, becomes warmer as a result, and itself emits more and more infrared radiation as it becomes warmer. It emits infrared in all directions, one of those directions being down. This is why the surface of the Earth becomes has to become warmer and warmer until it is able to return roughly as much heat energy to outer space as it is receiving from the sun — as it eventually will.

      I have not seen an explanation for the recent changes in climate that comes near to approaching the AGW thesis in plausibility. I have read about cycles of nature and natural variability being the cause, but this explains nothing if it is left at that. Is there in fact a cycle that causes the Earth’s glaciers and arctic ice cap to shrink dramatically within, for example, the amount of time since bell-bottom trousers were fashionable? I am eager to hear all about this cycle, as well as the causes that bring the cycle about.

      Until then, the AGW thesis is the best explanation that we have going for the change that must be making Frobisher and Hudson and Baffin spinning in their graves with envy.

  193. Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Its peculiar that so many readers here seem to deny that much of the middle part of the US mainland has had some extremely hot weather recently. Most people who live there seem to be asking “What’s UP with this extremely hot weather?” and “When will it end?”

    As the second graph CLEARLY indicates, “what’s UP with this extremely hot weather” is that it is June and July, and this year’s June and (early) July are nothing unusual. This year falls a good bit short of 1988 and 1994, and doesn’t outdo the more recent memory years of 2002 and 2006.

    Obviously you did not read/view the entirety of the short article at the top of this page or you did and you just choose to ignore the data. I’ll follow Anthony’s lead on this and ignore further posts by you as yours to date display a lack of interest on your part in truth.

  194. Steve Divine: The chart shows entire US temperatures June anomalies. We are discussing changes in regional weather patterns related to the “Eastern US heat wave” as stated in the post title.

    The northwest US has has some very cool temps because of the location of the jet stream in June. The middle part of the country got clobbered with a heat wave, that moved east. , The map at the top of this post shows the high temperature region.

    This pattern alternating cold and hot regions is what we see when extreme hot or cold spells extend over a period of time. Regions in the downward dipping bends of the jet stream get cold, and regions in the upward dipping bends get hot. The current theory being discussed by meteorologists say the jet stream is slowing, stalling, and meandering more, causing more extreme weather events.

    Glenn Tamblyn has an excellent description above in his comment timestamped July 8 at 3:00 AM.

  195. davidmhoffer“There was a dramatic and rise in use of fossil fuels last century which has since levelled off.”

    False. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/chart751.png

    “We’ve reached peak oil, or very close to it. The rapid rises in fossil fuel use of the past are no longer physically possible.”

    Peak oil, perhaps. Peak coal? Peak shale gas? Peak natural gas? No, false again, there’s plenty of carbon we appear ready to burn.

    “At current consumption rates, it will take about 200 years for direct forcing from CO2 to increase by a single degree, and probably longer…”

    False once more. We’re currently at ~0.8 C above where we would be without anthropogenic warming. At 0.16 C/decade, the current rate of increase, we’ll see another degree C in under 65 years, not 200.

    Finally: “The curve of CO2 concentration is SLIGHTLY exponential. Even ignoring the issues raised above, the exponent is so small that it is dwarfed by the logarithmic effects which govern CO2 increases and their cumulative total forcing.”

    This is _so wrong_ I find it a bit difficult to even begin. CO2 levels are increasing at a rate greater than exponential. This means that CO2 forcing is increasing at a rate greater than linear – meaning the forcing imbalance will increase, and hence warming rates will increase. You are essentially (and quite incorrectly) invoking the logarithmic relationship twice.

  196. Jesse,

    Since temperature is a component of climate it it perhaps not surprising that the same effect is seen.

    Our data rich period, with increasing temporal and spatial resolution is too short to establish the nature of cycles, but much palaeo- and historical evidence suggests they exist and existed before any attempt to explain them. Identifying patterns in data does not not depend on explanation. At present our attempts to explain change as being a direct result of CO2 emissions is failing and should not be used to determine policy, as our best guess is so inadequate.

    • Eric, If cycles are at work now, why can’t we figure out what’s behind them? We aren’t dealing with events of ages and ages ago; we are dealing with what is happening now. We ought to be able to get to the bottom of it — and wouldn’t it be a coup for the critics of the AGW thesis to point to the REAL moving forces behind climate change? It would be a death blow to the AGW thesis; James Hansen would go into real estate. But the “cycles of nature” explanation has not been fleshed out with understanding of the nature and cause of these cycles — at least the ones that are supposed to have caused, within the last few decades, the dramatic shrinking of glaciers, the warmer nights, the rising sea levels, and the increase in the annual total energy of tropical storms, and so on.

  197. Jesse,

    I am intrigued that you think that modern Arctic conditions are unique. Given our technology we have the ability to observe and record synoptically, an ability Frobisher et al would have loved. During warmer periods in the past similar conditions could have occurred without anyone knowing about it. What is different about now?

    • Eric, What’s different now is that in Frobisher’s time he couldn’t get through because of all the &*$$ ice!

  198. KR says:

    “Recent warming (last 30-35 years) has been on the order of 0.16-0.18 C / decade …”

    Cherry-pick alert!!

    KR’s cherry picking begins at the same time the latest step change begins. However, by looking at a long term trend chart, we see that current temperatures remain on the same trend line they have been on since the LIA.

    There has been no acceleration in global temperatures, thus falsifying the conjecture that the 40% increase in CO2 has any measurable effect.

  199. Paul K2 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 8:44 pm
    … except he somehow believes that weather data is controlled by James Hansen and Michael Mann
    =================================
    You forgot the “et al”.

  200. Gail Combs says:
    July 8, 2012 at 5:47 am
    “As a scientist, I KNOW other scientists will lie through their teeth when it comes to money or their career. I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data. I have also been fired more than once for refusing to falsify data upon direct order from my superior.”

    Gail,

    Thank You, for looking the bastards straight in the eye and telling them “No. I won’t do that!”

    I have faced similar circumstances. I was pressured to ‘sign off’ on an inferior and potentially hazardous design. After repeated refusals, I was asked by a smirking toad “What if you are not given a choice?”

    Let me say right here, I don’t react well to threats.. and even more poorly when they are delivered with a smirk. I stood and, supporting myself on my knuckles, leaned as far over the table between us as I could. I told the no-longer-smirking pratt “You tell your boss these exact words: I Always Have A Choice! Tell him those exact words. Now, Get Out Of Here!”

    I didn’t get fired… and the needed changes were made. The moral to our mutual experiences is ‘You have to do what is right, regardless of the consequences. Self respect demands it’
    MtK

  201. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 10:23 am
    dcfl51, OK, let me start by saying that I am curious about why the Northwest Passage has become navigable — at least in summer — during the past few years. That is, navigable by ships that aren’t equipped with ice-breaking prows. This is a dramatic change. I’d like to hear a plausible explanation.

    Current ships are equipped with GPS and get daily satellite photos of the Arctic ice. What makes you think there weren’t times in the past when ships could have navigated the NW Passage? Certainly it’s much less risky to do so with modern information technology.

    • Scarletmacaw, As Otsar has pointed out in another contribution to this thread, the first to navigate the Northwest Passage was Roald Amundsen, the Norwegian explorer. Otsar inspired me to do a little research, and I found out that it took Amundsen three years — starting in 1903 — to get through the passage — his ship was locked up by ice during each of the three winters, and even in the summer he could simply sail though — as he certainly would have if he could, knowing what waited for him in the winter. Now it’s easy sailing for the most part — in summer at least.

  202. Jesse Fell,

    Your first logical error is assuming that scientific skeptics must replace the CO2=CAGW conjecture with another conjecture or hypothesis. You don’t seem to get the fact that skeptics have nothing to prove.

    And your emotional examples are nothing but alarmist pseudo-scientific talking points. Both tornadoes and hurricanes are decreasing in severity, despite your claims to the contrary. Also see here and here and here and here.

    And “dramatic shrinking of the glaciers” is simply more unscientific emotionalism. Glaciers have been receding since the LIA. What is so unexpected about that?? And sea level rise has been decelerating.

    Since all of your claims are provably wrong, maybe you should spend a few months reading the WUWT archives, and get up to speed on the subject.

    • Smokey, Lonny Thompson at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University has been studying tropical glaciers for over 30 years; he has the distinction of having spent more time in the “death zone” — the highest altitudes in the Peruvian Andes — than any other researcher. During that time, he says that he has seen dramatic shrinkage of the glaciers in the time that he has been going to do research there. The Quechua Indians, who have lived at these altitudes for centuries, are being forced off the mountains because the disappearance of the glaciers has left them without water — and because the moss on which their alpacas feed is dying off, due to dryness and rising temperatures. It’s a problem for the rest of Peru as well: the country is heavily dependent on hydroelectric power, and a number of their major generating plants are running at 20% of capacity, due to the decrease in glacial runoff. Thompson has also done field work in the Alps and Himalayas and sees the same thing happening there. If you don’t believe Thompson, Google around for then and now photographs of glaciers just about anywhere — a few are still advancing, because of local conditions, but the large majority are shrinking, and rapidly.

  203. KR;
    This is _so wrong_ I find it a bit difficult to even begin. CO2 levels are increasing at a rate greater than exponential. This means that >>>>

    What this means is that you haven’t got a freaking clue what exponential means. You’ve stated something that is a mathematical impossibility.

  204. KR;
    So here’s carbon emissions by fuel type courtesy that paragon of virtue (ie most biased source possible) wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg

    Note that:

    1. oil grew rapidly from about 1940 to about 1975 and then pretty much levelled off.
    2. coal grew more or less linearly with a couple of brief 5 year upticks
    3. natural gas grew at barely a little above linear from around 1950 on.

    The cumulative graph (black line) looks like an exponential curve, but in fact is not. It is constructed of several other curves, each of which is added in at a later date in time. So in response to your quip that we have not reached peak coal, gas, etc, the answer is maybe, maybe not. What we have reached however is cost of oil that makes dramatic increases in additional oil production uneconomical. The uptake of coal and gas is in part a consequence of that, but note that they too are tapering off. We’re by no means running out, but we’re by no means in a position to ramp up consumption in the manner we did in the last half of the last century. You can see by the graph that oil consumption has flattened out, so has coal, and so has gas. Unless one or more of those is poised to “take off” in a major way in the next decade, that scary black line is going to flatten out too. Don’t lecture me about reserves either, go do a survey of all the oil, coal, and gas companies in the world and ask them what they could, based on their current capacity, ramp up as year over year maximum production. What you will find is that they cannot even get close to linear, let alone exponential.

    Assuming that an exponential curve that is bounded by resource depletion can extend into the long term is a fools game. It is the very math upon which a Ponzi scheme is based. Don’t feel bad about being bamboozled by the numbers, lots of rather smart people have been taken to the cleaners by a Ponzi scheme before.

    You compound your poor grasp of math (see my comment about “greater than exponential) above by assigning 0.8 degrees of warming as being 100% attributable to human GHG emissions. Given that global temperatures have been rising for the last 400 years, since the LIA, and so about 350 years before CO2 emissions became significant, you cannot assign ANY number to human GHG’s without first subtracting natural variance which we currently have NO way of calculating, we can only make an WAG.

    Putting aside for a moment your lack of understanding of exactly what an exponential curve is, what the actual peak oil/gas/coal supply curves actually are, and that no finite resource can support an exponential depletion for an extended period of time, and that you have conflated natural variation with human induced variation, let us return to the matter of CO2 being logarithmic.

    At current rates, it will take 200 years to add one additional degree of warming form CO2 forcing. Given that the human species thrived at temperatures less than that in the MWP and RWP, I am not particularly concerned (optimistic in fact). To illustrate how ludicrous your position is, let us consider a whopping TWO degrees of warming from CO2 increases.

    That would require TWO doublings of CO2. From 400, that means 1600 ppm of CO2 to get just 2 degrees of warming. At current rates, that would be….. 600 years. So I will tell you what, let’s assume that we TRIPLE production of ALL fossil fuels starting TODAY. In 200 years, we would get 2 degrees of warming. That’s 0.01 degrees per year. Oooh, I am scared.

    Wanna go for three degrees? You’ll need about a thousand years with every fossil industry we have going flat out and burning everything they dig up even if nobody needs it.

    As an aside, keep in mind that the 3 degrees occurs at the “effective black body temperature of earth” according to0 your prescious IPCC, which is about -20C. Surface temperatures being about 15C, you’ll actually only get 2.1 degrees of warming at surface, not 3. You’ll also get almost no change at high noon at in the tropics but large changes at high latititudes in depth of winter at night. The increases in temp at high noon in the tropics won’t be much noticed by the biosphere in general, and my expectation is that a survey of polar bears as to their preference for -60C or -50C during their hibernation period is likely to result in a sparcity of data due to lack of returning polsters.

  205. from comment above
    Given that the human species thrived at temperatures less than that in the MWP and RWP, I am not particularly concerned (optimistic in fact).

    Should have course read that we thrived in temperatures MORE than that…

  206. Jesse Fell,
    Could you please explain to me how the Norwegian explorer, Roald Amundsen, managed to take the GJOA , a 70 Ft, wood, cutter rigged sloop, herring trawler, around the North West passage. He did this from 1903 to 1907. He did not have good charts, no GPS, no satellite photos, the compass pointed down making it useless, etc. Did he and his crew of 6 drag the boat across the ice all that distance?

    • otsar, He took three years to get through the Northwest Passage — he was locked in ice each of the three winters, and even in summer he was unable simply to sail through – he certainly would have taken advantage of ice-free summers if they had existed, knowing what was waiting for him in the winter. He got through because he was a great explorer, of heroic stature. It doesn’t take a hero to get through the Northwest Passage any more — at least in summer.

  207. Jesse,

    Frobisher could only find the #$&etc ice by going there. We now know where it is or isn`t and just happen to have been observing synoptically during a period of Arctic ice decline. Maps from the 1930s suggest ice extent almost, as low as at present. Just because we can monitor with more detail and immediacy does not mean what we are seeing is unique.

    • Eric, OK, so when was the first time that a ship not equipped with a re-inforced ice breaking prow was able to sail through the northwest passage? And why, all of a sudden, are mineral rights to the Arctic Sea a bone of contention among the nations bordering that sea — could it be that the sea has now, as it was not before, navigable to an extent that drilling has become possible?

  208. Jesse,

    There are explanations of cycles. Start with Milankovitch and solar variability, then mix in the ocean oscillations. Far more likely to eventually explain observations than just CO2.

    • Eric, The Milankovic cycle appears to control the coming and going of the ice ages; if it in fact does, we aren’t due for another one for thousands of years. So the Milankovic cycle really has nothing to do with the changes that we are seeing now. There is an 11 year cycle of solar activity, but this doesn’t help explain the rise in the Earth’s temperatures that started to become anomalously large around 35 or 40 years ago, and has proceeded to do so with any variations bearing the stamp of a cycle. There are other cycles, too, but none of the size and shape to fit what we are seeing now.

  209. RE: KR: (July 8, 2012 at 10:30 am)
    “Peak oil, perhaps. Peak coal? Peak shale gas? Peak natural gas? No, false again, there’s plenty of carbon we appear ready to burn.”

    The point remains that we have run through all the Earths easily available petroleum in less than a hundred years. We wont run out of carbon tomorrow, but if we do not find a safe sustainable method for the large-scale burning of atomic nuclei, (Nuclear Power) your children or grandchildren *are* going to be faced with living in a world with much less energy then we have now. Note that estimates the availability of many of these alternative fuels are usually based on their current rates of usage–not the accelerated usage that would occur after petroleum becomes prohibitively expensive to recover.

    We might end up having to give away natural resources just to service the interest on the national debt if that cannot be collected by taxation.

  210. KR says:
    July 8, 2012 at 10:30 am
    We’re currently at ~0.8 C above where we would be without anthropogenic warming. At 0.16 C/decade, the current rate of increase, we’ll see another degree C in under 65 years, not 200.

    Even if I accepted all of the above (which I do not), then it would take another 75 years to reach the 2 C increase. As well, the 2 C was more or less taken out of a hat with no proof it would be a disaster. Don’t you think we have more urgent things to worry about other than what may or may not happen in 75 years from now?

  211. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 10:23 am
    … the AGW thesis has reached a high degree of plausibility. We are adding millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year; it is within the scope of a high school science fair project to show that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, becomes warmer as a result, and itself emits more and more infrared radiation as it becomes warmer. It emits infrared in all directions, one of those directions being down. This is why the surface of the Earth becomes has to become warmer and warmer until it is able to return roughly as much heat energy to outer space as it is receiving from the sun — as it eventually will.
    ====================================================

    Of course it seems plausible. It is a very old plausible hypothesis, like 150 years old, but what a lot of people do not know is that this concept was debunked experimentally by American physics professor R.W.Wood in 1909: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html .

    Second, even without the Wood’s experiment, the AGW concept loses plausibility very fast if you start thinking critically. According to that concept, the -18 degrees Celsius cold Earth surface produces so much IR radiation, that the “greenhouse gases” are able to warm the surface by 33 degrees Celsius just by sending back a small part of that IR. Now, you possibly know, that an IR camera can see very well through the air, so the most IR radiation passes safely the “greenhouse gases” trap. Now, you can see the potential of maybe hundreds degrees warming from that second part of IR! You should be able to heat your apartment just by putting some things out of your freezer around! Or just open the freezer and you have an IR heating device! Now you can see how absurd the AGW concept is.

  212. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 10:06 am

    James, If we don’t know why cycles are occurring, we don’t even know whether what we are looking at are in fact cycles. We don’t know, for example, whether what we are seeing are cycles, or simply unrelated series of events that coincidentally have the same effect on temperature and climate.

    Jesse, that’s a false statement. A cycle is merely a repeating event, regardless of cause. Your idea of “unrelated series of events that coincidentally have the same effect” is merely a spin on a cycle of currently-unknown cause. Do you presume that each El Nino event has a different origin, and that each is unrelated to the previous.

    The ancients knew about tides, but not about gravity and the moon’s influence. That did not make the cycles of the tides a coincidence, or simply an unrelated series of events. However, we ARE learning about the cycles of hot and cold, though we may not yet be able explain their causes.

    We geologists look at the long history of the Earth’s climate and see many changes: some cyclic, some catastrophic. None, unless there were ancient fossil-fuel-based civilizations of which we are unaware, were caused by human (or nonhuman) intervention. With the full knowledge that these changes occur naturally, you now stand and claim that CO2 is the cause of all of them.

    Does it not seem logical that the burden of proof is on you to prove it? If you admit that natural cycles might be the result of “unrelated series of events,” how do you prove that your increased CO2 is not just another “unrelated event” to this temperature cycle?

  213. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    Scarletmacaw, As Otsar has pointed out in another contribution to this thread, the first to navigate the Northwest Passage was Roald Amundsen, the Norwegian explorer. Otsar inspired me to do a little research, and I found out that it took Amundsen three years — starting in 1903 — to get through the passage — his ship was locked up by ice during each of the three winters, and even in the summer he could simply sail though — as he certainly would have if he could, knowing what waited for him in the winter. Now it’s easy sailing for the most part — in summer at least.

    Admunsen didn’t have GPS, nor satellite photos. Basically, he didn’t know the path through the ice. But surely you knew that, so why are you acting like navigating the Arctic in 1903 is the same as navigating it a century later?

  214. Jesse,

    Seabed mineral rights have only become an issue in the late 20th century, so earlier ice free periods , when fewer people lived at higher latitudes to know about them anyway, would not have been important.

  215. Jesse Fell,

    You ignore my 12:10 pm comment above to post your appeals to authority and a ‘talk-talk story’ that has no way to verify it. Excuse me while I disregard that nonsense.

    As I posted above, glaciers have been receding since the LIA. What is so unexpected about that?? You don’t say.

    Your comments amount to emotional hand-waving. If you want credibility, post something verifiable, instead of folklore passed down by Indians – which disregards your own comment that hydroelectric power has changed the situation over the past few generations. Damming rivers has more of an effect on local tribes than receding glaciers.

    You say above: “…the rise in the Earth’s temperatures that started to become anomalously large around 35 or 40 years ago…”

    Absolute debunked nonsense.

  216. Otter says:
    July 8, 2012 at 7:55 am
    —————————————
    Otter, Paul K2 has gone AWOL so I did a little digging. Seems as though Arctic sea ice was pretty constant up until 1950s – 1960s before heading into its “death spiral”. This means the US suffered from the great drought of the 1930s without the benefit of Arctic sea ice loss, meaning in turn this theory about weather sticking is crap. But better than that, the refutation is brought to you by an alarmist web-site that takes a swipe at Richard Linzden before he proves our point.

    http://eco101.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/arctic-ice-melt-in-the-1930s-another-denier-argument-debunked/

  217. Jesse

    Technically the death zone is above 7,900m , the height of South Col on Everest. Since the highest peak in the Andes is Aconcagua at 6,959m spending time in that zone in the Andes would be difficult.

    Glaciers have been in retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age, no change there then. Rates of those measured since the 19th century eg Gangotri in the Himalayas, show steady retreat throughout the period. GRACE satellite measurements suggest little or no loss of ice mass in the Himalayas, while the Andes do show continued ablation.

  218. Jesse,

    What is anomalous about the past 30 – 40 years? The rate of temperature change in the 1930s and the 1940s are the same rate as the 1980s and early 1990s. Just natural changes as as result of the interactions between the natural cycles of different periodicities.

  219. Eric Huxter says:

    “What is anomalous about the past 30 – 40 years? The rate of temperature change in the 1930s and the 1940s are the same rate as the 1980s and early 1990s.”

    Exactly right.

  220. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    Eric, The Milankovic cycle appears to control the coming and going of the ice ages; if it in fact does, we aren’t due for another one for thousands of years. So the Milankovic cycle really has nothing to do with the changes that we are seeing now. There is an 11 year cycle of solar activity, but this doesn’t help explain the rise in the Earth’s temperatures that started to become anomalously large around 35 or 40 years ago, and has proceeded to do so with any variations bearing the stamp of a cycle. There are other cycles, too, but none of the size and shape to fit what we are seeing now.

    Anomalously large is completely incorrect. Look at this temperature reconstruction from the Greenland GISP2 ice cores: GISP2 Ice Core graphic.

    Even the skepticalscience.com website does not dispute its accuracy, though it claims that since it’s from a Greenland site, it’s not “global.” (Though twelve trees from Siberia was global enough, somehow.)

  221. KR said (July 8, 2012 at 7:58 am0

    “…Joseph Bastardi – If you don’t like or prefer the F&R 2011 methods, I might suggest looking at the much simpler analysis of John Nielsen-Gammon…where he simply plots temperature broken into the categories of El Nino, La Nina, and neutral periods. He also in part accounts for volcanic aerosols by excluding years immediately after major eruptions. What he finds is that all three categories show warming at ~0.16 C/decade. And no evidence of a decrease in that rate…”

    I suppose it also shows there’s been no INCREASE in that rate either. And what experiments took out the CO2 component? You’re implying that every bit of that warming at ~0.16 C/decade is due to CO2 alone, that there are no natural forces or cycles to contribute to that level.

    KR also said (July 8, 2012 at 10:30 am)

    “…We’re currently at ~0.8 C above where we would be without anthropogenic warming. At 0.16 C/decade, the current rate of increase, we’ll see another degree C in under 65 years, not 200…”

    But of course, using that same .16 degree per decade, and extrapolating back, you could say we were at “zero” 50 years ago (in 1962) and a steady rise from there meant that we should never have gone through “zero” again.

    So, let’s look at the facts? We’ll use GISS anomalies (supposedly the most accurate because of their ESTIMATION of Arctic temperatures).

    First, it shows that our current warming is leveling off at an average of .55 degrees above “zero” (which, according to you, means we would be at a level of minus .25 degrees if man wasn’t around).

    Second, we see we’ve been through “zero” several times (first was prior to 1940, the last prior to 1980). So we flirted with “zero” over a ~40 year period, the last pass through “zero” happening about 32 years ago. Where was the expected ~0.64 C degrees of warming during that period (.16 x 4)?

    That means, according to GISS, there was NO net warming from about 1940 to 1980. Maybe this is one reason GISS uses the base period of 1951-1980 to place their “zero”. Everything after that would show as “warmer” than that period.

    Third: If, according to GISS we were at about minus .3 in 1880, by 1980 we should have been at 1.3 degrees above “zero” (again, your current warming value of .16 per decade x 10 = expected 1.6 degree rise).

    We never made it. We still haven’t made it. Your numbers just don’t add up…

  222. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    There are other cycles, too, but none of the size and shape to fit what we are seeing now.

    Jesse, you may have missed my post earlier.
    Here

    I think it qualifies as a cycle that fits what we have seen in the resent warming.

    Perhaps what we need here is an experiment. Your AGW theory says that we will see continuous warming from increasing CO2. My Climate Cycle theory says we are in the middle of the 30 year cooling period of a 60 year Cycle, and will see 15 more years of steady or decreasing temperatures. Personally I think the last 15 years pretty well falsifies your theory, but I’m told that 15 years is to short for “Climate Science”, So lets just see were the temp goes from here. Care to make a bet?

    How about we bet for the entire western civilization, because if I’m wrong we get Thermageddon, with permanent extreme weather, dozens of meters of sea level rise, famine, climate refuges, extinct polar bears, and all the other things that have been repeatedly proven to not be happening. And if your wrong, then the socialist ‘Global Governance’, poverty, deindustrialization, horrors inherent in any attempt at enforcing ‘Sustainability’ (think Khmer Rouge year zero), and all the rest of the supposed necessary solutions to CAGW and Climate Change will have been for NOTHING.

  223. Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    “There are other cycles, too, but none of the size and shape to fit what we are seeing now.”

    Rubbish.

  224. @jesse fell: “Help me understand where the contradiction in what K2 wrote lies. ”

    Ok. What I wrote was mathematical shorthand. A “stationary process” is one in which the mean and standard deviation do not change with time. (It’s more complicated than that, but that’s good enough for our purposes.)

    K2’s first statement attempts to dismiss the observation in my original post, which is that the total number of temperature records has declined significantly in the last 6 years compared to the previous 13 years. K2 argues that the number of records should be expected to decline with time.
    That is true for a stationary process.

    Then he goes on to argue that the number of high records is growing relative to low records, and this is evidence that the mean is increasing with time — violating the requirement for a stationary process (that the mean stay constant) and causing an ever-increasing number of high temperature records. You can’t have it both ways. Either the recent sharp decrease in the number of records is indicative of something unusual and interesting (not the natural result of longer temperature records), or the mean temperature isn’t moving. Since the mean temperature has moved on the satellite time scale of 30 years or so, the process is not stationary and K2’s first argument doesn’t hold water.

    Here is an old paper which discusses the problem of the probability of setting temperature records as a function of the length of the climate record:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281977%29105%3C1442%3ATPORDL%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Figure 3 is probably of most interest, in which he derives empirical curves for the probability of getting 1, 2, 3…. 9 temperature records (in this case, low ones) in a winter season as a function of record length. Clearly, longer data periods generate fewer records. The NOAA record-temperatures dataset is from a large number of stations (about 5500) having a minimum recording period of 30 years, and minimum coverage of 50% during that record. In other words, pretty loose criteria. But the key is that eliminating periods shorter than 30 years cuts off the steeply falling portion of the curves. Stations also continually enter and leave the dataset during the time series, as newer stations satisfy the 30-year cutoff and older ones stop being reported. The number of stations has grown steadily by about 7.5% from 1993 to 2012. I did not normalize for that, nor for the average reporting period of the stations, but one might expect the growing coverage to partly counteract the aging of the stations, since newly-entered stations contribute disproportionately more records to the total.

    So I still maintain that there is essentially zero chance that an average 30% drop in the number of records in a relatively short period of time is a normal result of increasing record period. I don’t have a really good hypothesis. Solar variation is tempting, but the drop is larger than we see during the previous solar minimum (1993-1998). There are many unusual features of the latest solar minimum, from its length to its magnetic properties. I didn’t carry the series further back, because NOAA only started keeping the maximum-low and minimum-high records in 1993. Prior to April 1993, only max/min records are available. The maximum-low is particularly interesting, because global warming theory suggests that’s where we should see the greatest effect.

  225. “The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming”
    The same folly was evident in Australia during the last drought we had. Prof Tim Flannery predicted that Queensland would never have drought breaking rains again. A desalination plant was built. The drought was broken, the dams filled, the desalination plant put in moth balls.

    Efforts were made to blame the floods on AGW but that was debunked & those that made the claim retracted their statment. (head of the IPCC no less)

    Australia is known as the Country of droughts & floddings rains see:

    http://www.imagesaustralia.com/mycountry.htm

    For those in Texas with tree problems, try some Blue Gums they will handle the heat OK. They can be a problem in a wildfire though.

  226. RE: Jesse Fell: (July 8, 2012 at 2:34 pm)

    Eric, The Milankovic cycle appears to control the coming and going of the ice ages; if it in fact does, we aren’t due for another one for thousands of years. So the Milankovic cycle really has nothing to do with the changes that we are seeing now. There is an 11 year cycle of solar activity, but this doesn’t help explain the rise in the Earth’s temperatures that started to become anomalously large around 35 or 40 years ago, and has proceeded to do so with any variations bearing the stamp of a cycle. There are other cycles, too, but none of the size and shape to fit what we are seeing now.

    It is my understanding that Henrik Svensmark has recently published a paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society in which he correlates cold periods in geological history with periods of time in which the solar system transits the spiral arms of the Galaxy and warm, polar-ice free, periods with transit through the clear regions of the Galaxy. He notes that galactic cosmic radiation is particularly intense in the spiral arms and this radiation appears to facilitate or enhance the condensation of water vapor in the Earths atmosphere. Modulation of this radiation by short-term solar magnetic activity seems to correlate with satellite cloud-cover data. From his viewpoint and data, this radiation appears to be *the* primary determinant for warm and cold climatic periods on the Earth. “The clouds take their orders from the stars.”

    Of course, theories of non-anthropogenic climate change are now regarded by many as environmental treason.

    It would appear that the Milankovitch cycle may be only a secondary effect.

  227. Seriously Jesse. All the history and climate I have read, (and it is fairly extensive) tells me the exact opposite of the conclusions you have come to. Curious.

  228. diogenesi, Interesting post — thanks for the mini course in statistics. Your post has far more substance than other replies that I’ve received here to my posts. I’ll study it diligently, with a cup of coffee at my side! Question: Would it make any difference, statistically, if the decline in the number of records is due, not to the increasing length of time for which records are kept, but for the fact that the records are approaching some physical limit, under current conditions? Could this be analogous to the decline in the number of new winning times in the Boston Marathon — which appears to be due not to the increasing length of time that the race has been in existence (the oldest records are not competitive today) but to the fact that the records are approaching the limit of what the human body is capable of? (This analogy breaks down because the distance between Hopkinton and Boston is going to remain what it is, while the physical limit to high temperatures may be imposed by the increasing amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.) And if the frame (bounded by physical limits in each direction) in which records of both sorts can be broken is moving upward, it would follow that there would be more opportunity for records to be set on the high end than on the low — many of the existing low records now being below what is physically possible given the new changed conditions. This would mean that the ratio of high to low records is being controlled by a process that is not “stationary” — the upward movement of the highest-possibility-to-the-lowest-possibility frame. But I am not sure whether what is physically not stationary is also statistically non-stationary — as I wrote, I need to con your interesting post with my cup of coffee. Please advise.

  229. If the heat wave is due to global warming, when the heatwave is over does that mean global warming is over?

  230. From the climate research center made infamous by the Climategate Emails, here is a link to a graph that shows the official documented “Global Warming” over the last 160 years. It shows a linear rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius from 1910 and 1940 and another increase of 0.4 degrees between 1980 and Y2000. Otherwise the curve is generally flat. This is the (assumed Anthropogenic) Global Warming Signal, straight from the horse’s mouth.

    Global Temperature Record

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

    • Spector, The lesson to be drawn from this is that slight increases in average global temperature can produce significant changes in climate — this is not exactly good news. Arctic ice and glacial ice are disappearing; nights are staying warmer; the total annual power of tropical storms has increased by roughly 50 per cent since the 1970s; and more high temperature records are being broken than in the past — as far back as we have records, at least. Climate change skeptics constantly refer to the variability of the Earth’s climate, and they are right about that. It is variable, because it is highly sensitive to forcings, even ones that may strike us as being very small. A slightly imbalance in the plane of the Earth’s orbit is responsible for the Malenkovic cycle, which appears to control the coming and going of ice ages; this theory was slow to gain acceptance, because the imbalance is so small, but the linkage between the cycle and the ice ages now seems inescapable. We are seeing that the Earth’s climate responds to a slight nudge, in the form of increased atmospheric CO2; we don’t know how it will respond if we continue to nudge it, harder and harder. Is this an experiment that we want to continue? As a number of scientists have pointed out, this is the only planet we have to live on.

  231. #jesse fell: As with everything in this business, reality is messy and complicated. :)

    We look at record temperatures because they are quite sensitive to small movements in the average. But there are still plenty of low-temperature records; the estimated movement of the mean temperature is much smaller than the daily variability.

    I don’t think there’s any physical limit involved. If the mean is rising, *and* the daily variability stays the same (which is also not necessarily correct), one would expect the system to settle down to some long-term rate of upward records which is representative of the movement of the mean.

    But inferring climatological properties from temperature records is not so easy. Here’s a nice and fairly recent (2002) paper which discusses the issue:

    http://www.atmos.uwyo.edu/~geerts/bart/daily_range.pdf

    On pages 2-3 and 17, the author makes a point of saying that low clouds reduce the daily range of temperature, and that relative humidity is a good predictor of cloudiness. IMO the implication of the recent reduction in the number of temperature records is some effect like that — the average daily variability of temperature over the continental US has declined for reasons I don’t understand. Has cloud cover increased over the last 6 years? Unfortunately I have a day job which keeps me from digging into these things as much as I’d like. :)

    • diogenesni, I hear you about the day job. Let’s both win the lottery this week and then dig into this the way I think we’d both like to. I think that the ratio of high and low temperature records may be of limited significance to our understanding of climate change; it certainly appears, from all that you point out, that it is not easy, or perhaps even possible, to infer mean temperatures from it. But I don’t see how the ratio can be completely lacking in significance. A disproportion of high to low records could be a sign that the window of possibility is rising. That is, as the Earth’s mean temperature rises, new highs become more likely and new lows less likely. Maybe — this is enormously complex stuff. Still, the ratio is worth watching, along with all other indicators. It will probably be the case that we will get a bead on what’s happening only through a sort of empirical triangulation — looking at the case from every possible angle. With that, I return, reluctantly, to the day job. Good posts, deogenesni, whatever our difference in point of view.

  232. RE: diogenesnj: (July 9, 2012 at 4:33 am)
    “On pages 2-3 and 17, the author makes a point of saying that low clouds reduce the daily range of temperature, and that relative humidity is a good predictor of cloudiness. “

    The question I often have on statements like this is whether clouds are causative or indicative. I regard clouds as indicators of ongoing condensing convective activity and wonder if that convective activity may be the ignored causative factor in some cases. Given that clouds are forming, however, they do reduce solar radiation arriving at the surface and by the same token, return thermal radiation emitted from the surface to reduce daily temperature variation.

    Svensmark seems to have data showing a direct relationship between observed global cloud cover and the measured intensity of cosmic radiation.

  233. misterjohnqpublic says:
    July 7, 2012 at 10:36 am

    History will show that AGW theory will rank with “evil spirits” in terms of logical reasoning.

    Maybe if we sacrificed a few virgins all the bad weather will go away?
    ————————————————————————————————
    And the solution to ‘overpopulation’ in one go!

  234. Jesse Fell;
    We are seeing that the Earth’s climate responds to a slight nudge, in the form of increased atmospheric CO2; we don’t know how it will respond if we continue to nudge it, harder and harder. Is this an experiment that we want to continue? As a number of scientists have pointed out, this is the only planet we have to live on.
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    As usual, confronted with information showing that climate is highly variable, that the behaviour we are seeing is nothing unusual, that CO2 is a factor so small as to be insignificant by comparison, some people can still respond ….”yeah, so look’s like what you are saying is it could be a disaster, right?”

  235. diogenesnj – Regarding decreasing numbers of records:

    I’m afraid I missed your earlier replies, as you had replied to “K2″, not “KR”, and given that there is a “Paul K2″ in the thread I had overlooked them.

    As you correctly noted, a stationary process with stochastic variation will show decreasing numbers of extreme records over time as more of the system behavior is observed. A non-stationary process with no noise will present new record values at every data point, if moving monotonically. In the case of temperature anomalies, the number of events is greatly increased simply because of the number of stations that are undergoing collection.

    In between, however, a non-stationary process with stochastic variation may fall anywhere in that range depending on the stochastic variation and the rate of change in process averages. Given that we’re observing a ~0.16 C/decade change in mean with variations over several degrees C, a decrease in new records is unsurprising. Keep in mind that even if average temperatures rise by another degree C, we should still see record lows – although the ratio of highs to lows may be something like 20:1.

    I would suggest looking at Meehl et al 2009 (ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/US%20temp%20range%20Meehl%202009.pdf), where the data shows a decreasing number of total records over the 60 years examined (decreasing by about 2 orders of magnitude), as expected with observation of stochastic variation, with the ratio of high to low records changing considerably since the late 1970’s, as expected with slow changes in the mean temperatures. The data there is quite clear.

  236. ****
    Jesse Fell says:
    July 8, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Smokey, Lonny Thompson at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University has been studying tropical glaciers for over 30 years;
    ****

    Hahahaha. Lonnie Thompson, the ultimate data-hider.

    Jesse, go to Climateaudit & read up on Lonnie Thompson & his shenanigans. And yeah, tropical glaciers are sensitive to natural climate changes. So sensitive, they weren’t even present just 1000 yrs ago in the MWP, and just recently developed during the LIA, perhaps for the first time in the Holocene.

  237. henrythethird“I suppose it also shows there’s been no INCREASE in that rate either. And what experiments took out the CO2 component? You’re implying that every bit of that warming at ~0.16 C/decade is due to CO2 alone, that there are no natural forces or cycles to contribute to that level.”

    CO2 is not the only forcing, and never has been. Right now CO2 (warming) and aerosols (cooling) are the most rapidly changing forcings, but they are far from the only ones.

    While I expect long term acceleration of warming, 20-30 years is only sufficient to clearly establish a linear trend. Clearly showing a longer term curvature requires more data to clearly check the larger degrees of freedom in fitting something more complex than linear – the atmospheric temperature record is unsurprisingly not showing significant curvature (up or down, mind you) with recent data.

    Sea level rise, on the other hand, (with both thermal and melt contributions) is showing acceleration both since the 1960’s, as described in Church 2008 (ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Domingues_2008%20Improved%20estimates%20of%20sea%20level%20rise.pdf) and other publications, and over the 20th century as a whole.

    With regard to the “zero’s” you discussed at July 8, 2012 at 4:33 pm, please keep in mind that those are zeros relative to a baseline established within the temperature record, a relative number. Different records use different baselines, and crossing ‘zero’ is not a marker of anything other than when you define the baseline. For example, if you look at GISS with a 1951-1980 baseline versus UAH, which didn’t start until 1979, you have to rebaseline them to a common period or anomalies make no comparative sense whatsoever.

    The 0.8 C difference I noted with/without anthropogenic influence is based upon http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html, where temperatures are estimated with and without the human contribution. It has nothing to do with anomaly baselines.

  238. davidmhoffer“…anything over 400 ppm (which is pretty much where we are now) is subject to the law of diminishing returns, and hence is pretty much negligible.”

    With CO2 forcing being logarithmic WRT the increase, but the increase in CO2 being demonstrably greater than exponential, CO2 forcing imbalances will increase at a somewhat greater than linear rate. Meaning (given our current emissions path) that far from being negligible, it will have more influence over time.

    “You’ve stated something that is a mathematical impossibility.”

    The log of a value increasing exponentially increases linearly – the forcing Δ would remain constant as climate adjusts behind it. The log of a value increasing greater than exponentially (such as CO2) increases greater than linearly, forcing Δ increasing over time. If you feel that simple mathematic relationship is incorrect, I would have to disagree. And ask you to break out the math to demonstrate why high-school algebra is wrong.

  239. RE: Jesse Fell: (July 9, 2012 at 4:57 am)

    “Spector, The lesson to be drawn from this is that slight increases in average global temperature can produce significant changes in climate — this is not exactly good news. Arctic ice and glacial ice are disappearing; nights are staying warmer; the total annual power of tropical storms has increased by roughly 50 per cent since the 1970s; and more high temperature records are being broken than in the past — as far back as we have records, at least.

    The problem here is that we have not had a stable system of reporting storms as we have gone from shipping observations to high quality satellite images. Over recent years, the Arctic Ice extent as measured on about May 15 each year has been relatively constant. While Arctic Ice has been retreating over the last forty years, Antarctic ice appears to have been advancing to a similar extent.

    The simplest interpretation is that average temperatures have increased 0.8 degrees Celsius, as indicated, and all other changes result from increasing experience of the full range of random fluctuation.

    Eventually, as the solar system moves ever farther out from the cosmic radiation coming from the fringe of the current galactic arm, we may see a period of polar melting and sea-level rise as atmospheric condensation is reduced, but that should be a long-long time coming.

  240. KR;

    Sorry bud, but there’s no such thing as “more than exponential”. You can have a high exponent or a lower one, or a super duper high one, but there simply is no such thing as “more than exponential”.

    If what you are trying to say is that the exponential growth in fossil fuel consumption is greater than the decresing impact of CO2 due to itz logarithmic nature, then that has the possibility to be mathematically correct.

    It would also be a ponsi scheme. Unless you believe that oil, gas and coal are infinite and that we can expand our use of those resources exponentially, forever, then your statement is exactly the math a ponzi scheme is based upon. The exponential growth of fossil fuel consumption that we have seen last century is levelling off for the simple reason that these resources are finite. Extrapolate out the exponential growh of the last few decades as continuing, and you’ll exceed the mass of the earth in short order. This is what ponzi schemes are based on, the assumption that exponential increases can be maintained for a resource that is limited for ever. They can’t be, and the levelling off of oil, gas, and coal production has already begun as I pointed out to you.

    Can they still increase? They most certainly can. Can they increase exponentially over the next 100 years as they did in the last 100 years.

    NOT A FREAKIN’ CHANCE IN H*LL SO PLEASE STOP PAINTING DISASTER SCENARIOS BASED ON SOMETHING THAT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

  241. KR says:
    July 9, 2012 at 7:40 am

    “…20-30 years is only sufficient to clearly establish a linear trend.”

    Based on what? Given a ~60 year cyclicality in the process (I would say the ~60 year cyclicality, but you cannot argue with this statement), ~30 years would be the worst possible time interval to choose.

    davidmhoffer says:
    July 9, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    “…there simply is no such thing as “more than exponential”.”

    I assume he means greater than with a linear exponent. But A) there is no evidence upon which to conclude the rise is more even than quadratic, much less exponential with a linear exponent and B) it’s moot anyway, because CO2 concentration is controlled by temperature, and not by humans.

  242. What’s remarkable to me has been the African cold, now for years running. That probably also explains loss of mass on Kilamanjaro, as that peak depends entirely on non mid latitude systems for its snow. The colder the African interior that less moisture drawn in via Monsoonal and ITCZ mechanisms.

  243. davidmhofferAs I (and others) have pointed out, the log of CO2 growth is upwardly curving, whereas growth with a fixed exponent would be linear. Hence CO2 is growing faster than exponential (with a fixed exponent, that is).

    As to limits on our emissions, while oil is getting more expensive to produce, we’ve apparently got lots of coal, shale oil (fracking), natural gas, and other resources – our current emissions have not slowed, and all projections of “business as usual” see enough carbon availability to continue.

    Bart – 60 year cycles would need a mechanism, a forcing change, a reason to occur. Curiously enough, looking at the forcing records there’s plenty of information on actual events, actual forcings, to show the recorded temperature changes – with physics, and without Mysterious Unknown Cycles (MUC’s, for short). Invoking MUC’s is simply hand-waving in denial of well supported physics.

    As to CO2 rise being caused by temperature rise? That just doesn’t follow – ocean CO2 is increasing, not decreasing (as seen by decreasing pH), known biosphere changes can’t account for the mass of CO2 either. Unless aliens are teleporting CO2 into our atmosphere that claim is just unsupportable.

  244. KR says:
    July 9, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    “60 year cycles would need a mechanism, a forcing change, a reason to occur.”

    Natural modes are ubiquitous in… Nature. They are observed in every engineering discipline. They are a manifestation of energy storage, as in the oscillations of a spring as it cyclically trades potential energy for kinetic energy. The ~60 year cycle is obvious in the data. Sticking your head in the sand will not make it go away.

    But, that is beside the point: Do you, or do you not, agree that IF there WERE a 60 year cycle in the data, 30 years would be a very bad number to use to proclaim a trend? If you disagree, then there is no point in further discussion, because you would then show yourself to be technically illiterate. If you agree, then how do you exclude the possibility of that which is staring you right in the face?

    And, speaking of denying that which is right before your eyes, if you tell me the beginning concentration and the temperatures since, I can tell you quite accurately what the current level of CO2 is – human inputs are effectively superfluous – merely by integrating the scaled temperature anomaly. The derivative of CO2 is proportional to the temperature in the post-1958 era for which we have reliable data. We know that the derivative of CO2 is not driving temperature – the very notion is absurd, because temperature would then be independent of the absolute level of CO2. Furthermore, it means the absolute level of CO2 (what you get when you integrate the derivative) lags the temperature. We conclude that, on a logical and causal basis, temperature must be driving CO2 and not the reverse.

    “there’s plenty of information on actual events, actual forcings, to show the recorded temperature changes”

    These are not “actual forcings”. They are modeled forcings, for an effectively back-of-the-envelope level model. There is no verification of it, it is merely one way in which you can recreate a time response in the measurements superficially similar to the observations. But, that proves nothing – it is always possible to do so in an underdetermined system, i.e., it is exactly like solving the equation x + y = 1 for x and y: the solution space is infinite. But, I am introducing to you another observable which is incompatible with the solution which has been agreed upon. It is like they said that, in the case x + y = 1, x is one and y is zero, and I am showing evidence of another equation which says 2x + y = 3/2, and y can no longer be zero.

    “ocean CO2 is increasing, not decreasing (as seen by decreasing pH), known biosphere changes can’t account for the mass of CO2 either.”

    Which means merely that the ocean depths below where we can measure are upwelling CO2 and/or the necessary biosphere changes are unknown and unobserved. This is a trivial objection. The figure does not lie. There is no viable alternative explanation. Temperature, not humankind, is driving CO2.

  245. I am flattered to be ignored. I also understand that all Jesse Fell (and all others who wear the cloak of green) have in their arsenal is fear. From the beginning of man’s existence, fear has been used to manipulate and control. Not buying it.

  246. “Obama and BP changed the dynamics of the weather by how they managed the BP Horizon disaster. There’s every indication this was a planned event to alter the weather to create global warming.

    A few weeks prior Global warming was outed as a giant UN scam to get taxes and now their at it again… Anything to get global tax to consolidate the NWO of tyrants… By changing the ambient surface temperature of the Gulf, fake global warming was produced… To do this they murdered billions of life forms in the gulf. That’s how demented the Global warning people are; killers and scam artists… And now you get the heat wave. How’s that for “change”? ”

    I posted the above on some blogs and such the other day… During the height of the BP disaster, I was curious as to the effect on Global warm this would have in the long run when I found a high-up NWO conspirator was on the Board of Directors of BP and BP and the UN stooge Obama shut down the media coverage in detail even now the real news of the disaster has been squelched…

    So, within minutes of web search, I found on a scientific site, the math that showed that surface oil increases the ambient temperature of the water! The whole Gulf stream was slowed down to a crawl causing drastic weather changes that year in the USA and Europe as well… They killed the Gulf to sell you all on “Global Warming” and you need to know this about the fact that the NWO will stop at nothing!!! Pass it around if you can or agree.

  247. RE: KR:(July 9, 2012 at 3:55 pm)
    davidmhoffer – As I (and others) have pointed out, the log of CO2 growth is upwardly curving, whereas growth with a fixed exponent would be linear. Hence CO2 is growing faster than exponential (with a fixed exponent, that is).

    First, the curve that you referenced earlier was *not* a plot of the log of the CO2 concentration. Second, exponential growth is not proportional to time or time difference raised to some fixed exponent, but some fixed number like 2.71828 raised to a positive exponent proportional to time or time difference. Such growth usually is characterized by a doubling interval. A periodic series of values like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384…. is an example of exponential growth.

    Population would grow at an exponential rate if an infinite supply of food and living space were available. As world population doubled in the last forty years, we might expect a global population of over 500 billion people in a few hundred years if resource limitations did not prevent this.

  248. NONE OF YOU DOPES HAVE EVER DONE A SINGLE YEAR OF HIGH LEVEL STUDY ON CLIMATE. LEAVE IT TO THE SCIENTISTS. NONE OF YOU FOOL HAVE ANY TRAINING, EXPERIENCE OR EXPERTISE IN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. ITS A JOKE TO THINK YOU DO.

    [Left as-is, as-was-written, as a display of temperance and moderation and toleration of the CAGW-community. Robt]

  249. Spector – An exponential over time is expressed as Ae^(kT), where A and K are constants.

    To be more clear, a growth greater than exponential (as seen by taking the log of the data) indicates that either the function for CO2 is not exponential (it’s definitely increasing faster than that) or that K is not constant – and in fact increasing over time. That is very, very simple math.

    What I noted earlier (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/07/the-folly-of-blaming-the-eastern-u-s-heat-wave-on-global-warming/#comment-1027264) was where to get the data, how to take the log of it, and (if I might go a bit further) to suggest fitting a trend line to the log of the data. Sadly, I see no indication that anyone commenting has taken the few moments needed to import the CO2 data into Excel, take the log of it, and look at the resulting trend… just shouting that “You’re wrong, you’re wrong!” with no justification other than unfounded ideas about the math…

    To repeat: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12 if you wish to remove seasonal (growth) variation, or http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2 if not. The data is at http://woodfortrees.org/data/esrl-co2/mean:12 for your viewing. From this point on I will simply ignore anyone who has not looked at the data on this topic as presenting unsupported opinions rather than evidence.

    Bart – You’re promoting MUC’s again. Solar forcings are from sunspot activity. Aerosols are from volcanic eruptions and checking dust deposits in ice. CO2 is from repeated measurements both instrumental and in recent ice cores. Each and every one of those forcing traces is supported by evidence.

    And the temperature record corresponds to the forcings. And the physics. MUC’s don’t in either case. And as Hitchens said, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Present your evidence – the physics behind the cycles, the data supporting the energy flows, the source of the 25×10^22 extra joules of heat in the oceans since 1970 (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/) – or I and others will, quite frankly, dismiss your assertions.

  250. KR;
    “You’re wrong, you’re wrong!” with no justification other than unfounded ideas about the math…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sir, I and a few others understand what it is that your tried to say. The manner in which you said it however was, at best, confusing, at worst, completely wrong.

    Actually, I HAVE taken the Manua Loa CO2 data and pulled it into Excel, and yes, it is a slightly exponential, there was an article on WUWT a while back that went into some detail on this. I don’t dispute this, but I dispute what you said. So perhaps you should stop ranting and think about how to express yourself properly in the first place.

    I’ve also looked at the fossil fuel consumption graphs (posted links for you no less) which also exhibit an exponential growth. I pointed out to you earlier however, that this is a consequence of adding them together. Since their “start up” and “ramp up” times do not coincide, cumulatively they give the illussion of exponential growth. Not a single one of the individual fossil fuel consumption graphs by itself shows any evidence of continued exponential growth.

    Nor is it possible for any of them to do so for any extended period of time. They are limited resources, and were the exponential growth of the last century to continue, the mass required would in short order exceed the mass of the earth.

    Your rant about the stupidity of others when it comes to math pretty much discredits the point you are trying to make. Word it properly, and you might discover that some of us jump in and agree with some parts of what you are trying to explain. But at day’s end, CO2 is logarithmic, and the exponential growth of CO2 or the fossil fuel consumption which (supposedly) drives that growth, is a ponzi scheme. You’ve predicated your entire argument on a continued exponential growth which is by definition physically impossible.

  251. KR;
    the source of the 25×10^22 extra joules of heat in the oceans since 1970 >>>>

    The best OHC data we have is from the ARGO buoys which have shown a decline since inception. Prior to that, our data regarding OHC was so spotty that at best it was an educated guess, not an actual measurement of any sort.

  252. davidmhoffer – If you take the log of values of an exponential function (Ae^(kT) with fixed constant A and k, you will get a linear plot. That’s the way the math works.

    If you take the log of values of a greater than exponential growth factor, you will see an upward curving line, increasing greater than linearly. The log of a less than exponential growth will curve downward. That’s the way exponential functions work. CO2 growth is not “slightly exponential” as you claim, but “greater than exponential” in growth. End of story. Please ask a high-school math teacher for clarification.

    As to fossil fuel use – “this is a consequence of adding them together” – yes, a consequence of adding up the individual contributions. Including developing nations (think China) that are continuing to expand their energy use. If the numbers add up to greater than exponential, that’s just what they are. And we certainly have enough carbon to burn to put us (if we continue to burn it) at 4-6 C over previous temperatures. Which means 3-5 C over anything that occurred during the Holocene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png), the only time we’ve had civilization. Pardon me if I consider that significant.

    Enough. Adieu

  253. KR says:
    July 9, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    “You’re promoting MUC’s again.

    No, I am talking about standard solutions to partial differential equations which are expected in natural systems. You must not have much practice in “the field” because anyone who did would immediately know what I am talking about and understand.

    “Solar forcings are from…blah, blah, blah”

    But, these are shoehorned into a theoretical model without actual knowledge of how they play together, or of what parts are missing. I am giving you data, and data trumps theory. Data is what is real, not just some flight of fancy of how you would like things to be.

    “Present your evidence…”

    It’s there. It’s right there. Look at it!

    I am on solid ground. You are the one making unprovable assertions. I do not have to know everything about trains to know that the light bearing down on me in the dark with an Earth shaking rumble is something I better get out of the way of. You, and others, have only constructed a narrative. It all fits together nicely, when you have ignored contrary evidence. But it’s just a superficially consistent construct, and mere consistency is not proof.

    And, my data says you are wrong.

  254. KR
    If the numbers add up to greater than exponential, that’s just what they are.
    Enough. Adieu
    >>>>>>>

    If I measure the upward velocity of the valve stem on a bus tire starting at the lowest possible spot and tracking it in increments for 1/4 of a revolution, I could then plot the data, show conclusively that the upward velocity of the valve stem was increasing exponentially, and conclude that it would reach orbit in a matter of minutes. My analysis would be exactly as accurate as the one you have presented, and would come to an erroneous conclusion by the exact same means which is to ignore the physical limitations of the system. You can shout and scream all you want about this data or that being exponential, but that valve stem is just not going into orbit. This is called the law of wheels, and is taught to children all over the world at a very young age:

    Oh….the wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round
    ’round and ’round
    ’round and ’round
    The wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round
    All, day, long.

    Adieu ta ya too.

  255. RE: KR:July 9, 2012 at 8:12 pm
    Spector – An exponential over time is expressed as Ae^(kT), where A and K are constants.

    If one looks at the increase in CO2 over the period from 1880 to the present, the early part of the curve looks like an exponential curve arrested around 1940, probably due to World War II. there is a rapid rebound after the war that seems to gradually start running out of steam around 1980. David Archibald in his article, ‘The Fate of All Carbon’ indicates that, based on estimates of available resources — perhaps outdated — that there may not enough be enough carbon left to fully double the CO2 concentration and perhaps cause a one degree anthropogenic effect.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/13/the-fate-of-all-carbon/

  256. Beng, Lonnie Thompson is not a data hider. He has in fact posted large amounts of his data on the NOAA database — check it out. And he does not hide the source of his data — ice cores taken from glaciers in Peru. At Ohio State University, he is maintaining the world’s largest collection of unsectioned, unanalyzed ice cores — for the use of the next generation of glaciologists, who, he says, will not have much else to work with, given the rate at which glaciers are disappearing. If he had something to hide, he would be glad for the fact that the next generation would have no evidence on which to verify his data. As for your contention that the Andean glaciers are only, or even less than, a 1000 years old — you might want to double check that — carbon dating of ice cores indicates that the glaciers are much older. But even if the glaciers were only, say, 900 years old, would that in any way disprove that their current shrinking is caused by AGW? And if you don’t think that glaciers are shrinking, there are many sites where you can see then and now pictures of glaciers. The extent to which they have shrunk since, say, Gillgan’s Island was cancelled, is striking.

  257. Jesse Fell says:
    July 10, 2012 at 4:26 am
    The inconvenient fact is that they started melting before any industrialization. Does Thompson not hide this little bit of information?

  258. KR says:
    July 9, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Here is the type of thing I am talking about. The Earth is a great big fluid containment vessel. It’s minimum frequency modes of oscillation are thereby extremely low. It’s like the vibration of a piano string – the longer and thicker you make it, the lower the tone. Rossby waves are known with very long periods, e.g., from the link:

    In the North Pacific, for instance, a Rossby wave, after the 10 years or so that it takes to cross the basin, can push the Kuroshio Current northwards and affect weather on the North America continent.

    It appears we haven’t been looking long enough to find longer ones, but they are theoretically viable and likely. There are a plethora of named oscillatory features in the climate: the ENSO, the NAO, the AO, the PDO, the AMO… these are all modes or modal superpositions of the system being driven with random excitation so that they appear quasi-periodic. It’s not in any way, shape, or form unusual to have such dynamics play out in a natural system. Quite the contrary, it would be extremely unusual not to observe quasi-periodic behavior in a natural system.

    The data says there is a strong 60 year quasi-periodicity in the temperature record. The data says that CO2 is driven by temperature, while its coupling feedback effect on temperature itself is negligible. That is what the data says. You can twist and squirm and try to worm out of it, and maybe even convince yourself that all is well, but the bottom line is that this AGW farce is about to descend into an utter fiasco – not only are temperatures failing to respond to the CO2 signal, but we aren’t even driving CO2. The repercussions are going to be severe.

  259. @Robbie:

    Arctic sea ice is way below normal due to the fact that the polar current and the polar wind patterns over the winter flushed ridiculous amounts of arctic sea ice southward into the Bering Sea, and left much of the arctic over northern Russia nearly ice-free all winter, in spite of very cold temperatures.

    All of the ice that was flushed out into the Bering Sea rapidly melted after the onset of Spring, as would be expected. You can attribute this “ice loss” to “global warming” if you want, but all it was was a somewhat unusual weather pattern which resulted in almost no sea ice over northern Russia, and an abundance of sea ice being flushed into the Bering Sea, where it subsequently melted.

    Also, if you precious warming is so “global”, then why is SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE sea ice about 500,000 square kilometers ABOVE NORMAL, and why has SH Sea Ice been above normal for an entire year now????

  260. David Ball says:
    July 10, 2012 at 7:29 am

    “Also the way you only tell part of the truth.”

    SOP. Nothing looks blue when you view the world through rose colored glasses. And, thus Jesse swallows the line about “given the rate at which glaciers are disappearing” without looking to see that glaciers are hardly going extinct.

  261. As for heat and drought, we (western Kentucky) are in the center area of hottest and driest summer on record. But AGW??? Last year was the wettest year on record by 15% and average temperature. I’m willing to give it a bit more study before I’m willing to hand over tax payments to a United Nations tax scheme.

  262. @KR says: “I would suggest looking at Meehl et al 2009 (ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/US%20temp%20range%20Meehl%202009.pdf), where the data shows a decreasing number of total records over the 60 years examined (decreasing by about 2 orders of magnitude), as expected with observation of stochastic variation, with the ratio of high to low records changing considerably since the late 1970′s, as expected with slow changes in the mean temperatures. The data there is quite clear.”

    Yes, sorry, I was confusing you with Paul K2. Mind if I call you both Bruce? It will cut down on the confusion…. :)

    In any event, I’ve read Meehl et. al. and cited it (although not by name) in my first post of the thread. They make an assertion in the introduction which I believe to be incorrect:

    “All stations record span the same period, from 1950 to 2006, to avoid any effect that
    would be introduced by a mix of shorter and longer records.”

    The language isn’t perfectly clear to me, but I think this means they chose stations with continuous records from 1950 to 2006. But in fact, they will still have a mix of longer and shorter records, because that depends on the time at which the stations were established. Unless they found stations which were all started their measurement series in 1950, they have a mix of varying record lengths.

    The ideal decline in the number of records for a single station is fairly smooth and (as their abstract points out) follows a hyperbolic 1/N curve. But different stations are on different points of that curve, depending on how long their recording period already was by 1950.

    The effect I think is unusual and significant is a large decline in the average total number of records in just a few years, by nearly 50% between 2005-2006 and 2008-2009. I reproduce part of the numbers in my previous post here:

    2001 100.0
    2002 125.6
    2003 111.0
    2004 96.2
    2005 106.7
    2006 119.0

    2007 90.7
    2008 51.1
    2009 62.0
    2010 69.9
    2011 81.7
    2012 92.2 (by doubling the 6-month number)

    Note the rather abrupt drop to a new average level. That isn’t the smooth decline within the local variability that one would expect from increasing data record length. So I think something interesting is going on. Also, there’s a U-shaped pattern from 2007 to now, the bottom of which corresponds to two global events: the most extraordinary solar minimum since 1913-14, and the Great Recession.

    I have no hypothesis for causation; I just note the interesting coincidence.

  263. diogenesnj – Meehl at al studied “the decay of observed annual record high maximum temperatures (..) compared to annual record low minimum temperatures (…) averaged over the U.S. since 1950, although you have to read closely to get that detail. They accumulated the for each station (with that length of data) from 1950 on. So the 1/n records per year are about what you would expect – they did not include record temperatures from before the start date of the study.

    I would be wary of drawing strong conclusions from only the last few years, though – there’s very little data there, and nowhere near enough time or data to conclude anything statistically significant from that short a period.

  264. The basic problem with blaming anthropogenic CO2 for the observed climate change is that it is a ‘one-trick pony’ in the radiation band of interest. Its 15-micron (667 cycles per centimeter) absorption band stands like a one-foot diameter tree in the middle of a ten-foot wide stream.

    It has been shown (by David Archibald) that most of its greenhouse effect occurs when the first 20 parts per million of CO2 is added to the atmosphere. The effect of each additional cohort of CO2 is progressively minimized by the fact that you can only kill the same horse once.

    In clear tropical air, the MODTRAN atmospheric radiation model indicates a raw, no feedback, greenhouse effect temperature rise of less than one degree Celsius for each full doubling of the CO2 content (280=0, 560=1, 1120=2, 2240=3, 4480=4, … etc PPM=deg).

    The current seasonally corrected CO2 level reported by the Mauna Loa Observatory is about 394 PPM, about a 41% increase from the nominal base of 280 PPM, or just over 49 percent of a full doubling on a logarithmic scale.

    In order to blame the temperature rise observed to date on increased CO2 alone, it seems necessary to assume a dangerously high positive feedback factor that would double or triple the natural effect. This does not seem likely.

    Also, as Dr. Svensmark appears to have evidence showing a fine-scale correlation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover, where most clouds indicate condensing convection cells, there is a very sound reason to expect that most of the climate change of this century has been cosmogenic rather than anthropogenic in nature– see the 9 minute point of his video: ‘The Cloud Mystery.’

    Ref: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/07/the-folly-of-blaming-the-eastern-u-s-heat-wave-on-global-warming/#comment-1027136

    At this time, it remains an open question whether man will ever be able to burn enough carbon to reach a concentration of 560 PPM before carbon fuels becomes so expensive to recover that few can afford to use them.

    Ref: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/13/the-fate-of-all-carbon/

  265. [SNIP: Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. If you are going to be insulting, take it somewhere that appreciates it. -REP]

  266. I guess you do not like to be reminded of your many failures.

    Reminding you of inconvenient facts in your public history is not insuliting, on the face of it.

    If you feel it is insulting perhaps you should hold your silence, rather than make silly predictions and non sequiter remarks

    Do you have children or grandchildren?

    Have you consider what they will think of your activity here and elsewhere.

    I can understand why the people paying you to maintain this site would object to facts which do not support the failed “warming is not happening” theory.

    [REPLY: The terms "denial" and "denier", as well as their derivatives, are forbidden here. You can check site policy here. You should know that Anthony Watts does not get paid to maintain this site, your understanding of what we believe is seriously flawed, most of the commenters here are far better qualified to discuss climate than you are, and it is very definitely you who shouldremain silent until you learn enough. -REP]

Comments are closed.