New study suggests global warming decreases storm activity and extreme weather

This "clipping" is from a headline generator.A paper published January 21st in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs storm activity in Iceland over the past 1,200 years and finds storminess and extreme weather variability was far more common during the Little Ice Age in comparison to the Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding global warming decreases storm activity, the opposite of claims by climate alarmists.

The graph below shows storm activity shown in 2nd graph from top was much greater and more variable during the Little Ice Age in comparison to the Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century.  Top graph shows one of Mann’s bogus hockey sticks in red, and another non-hockey-stick reconstruction in grey [Moberg et al 2005].

Fig. 8. Multiple proxies of environmental change in Iceland AD 700–2000. (a) Two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions, North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SST, Mann et al., 2009) and Moberg et al. (2005). (b) Shows GISP2 Na+ deviations from the mean, a proxy for storminess (Meeker and Mayewski, 2002). Cumulative deviations from the mean show a shift to stormier and windier conditions around AD 1425 (Dugmore et al., 2007). (c) Changes in total organic carbon at Lake Haukadalsvatn, west Iceland used as a proxy for aeolian erosion (Geirsdóttir et al., 2009). Bold horizontal bars show means over periods matching key tephra horizons in study (see Table 1). (d) Woodland cover is represented by Betulapollen percentages from a lake core near Lake Mývatn, north Iceland (Lawson et al., 2007) and charcoal pits present in south Iceland (Church et al., 2007) (e) Mean aggregate SeAR from Skaftártunga for period separated by dated tephra layers, with 1 standard deviation show by grey shading. Mean calculated where n = >10. (f) Mean aggregate SeAR at the scale of the landholding, from two small landholdings (Hrífunes and Flaga, see Fig. 1d). (g) Change in SeAR at the landscape scale, 2 stratigraphic sections which record the onset of increased erosion at AD 1597, but profile 38 shows stability through the entire settlement period prior to AD 1918. (h) Population trends in Iceland. Prior to the first census in AD 1703 estimates are based on medieval populations being similar to or even higher than the population in AD 1703 (90 and 43). Plague reductions of ∼40% in AD 1402–1404 and ∼30% in AD 1496 are shown (Karlsson, 1996).

The paper:

Late-Holocene land surface change in a coupled social–ecological system, southern Iceland: a cross-scale tephrochronology approach

Richard Streeter, Andrew Dugmore


• Tephrochronology can be used to produce cross scale-analysis of land surface change.

• Grímsvötn tephras are dated to AD 1432 ± 5 and AD 1457 ± 5.

• High resolution 1200-year record of land surface change from Skaftártunga, south Iceland.

• Increasing spatial heterogeneity in sediment accumulation rates after AD ∼870.

• Relationship between climate, vegetation cover and land surface change contingent on past conditions.


The chronological challenge of cross-scale analysis within coupled socio-ecological systems can be met with tephrochronology based on numerous well-dated tephra layers. We illustrate this with an enhanced chronology from Skaftártunga, south Iceland that is based on 200 stratigraphic profiles and 2635 individual tephra deposits from 23 different eruptions within the last 1140 years. We present new sediment-accumulation rate based dating of tephra layers from Grímsvötn in AD 1432 ± 5 and AD 1457 ± 5. These and other tephras underpin an analysis of land surface stability across multiple scales. The aggregate regional sediment accumulation records suggest a relatively slow rate of land surface change which can be explained by climate and land use change over the period of human occupation of the island (after AD ∼870), but the spatial patterning of change shows that it is more complex, with landscape scale hysteresis and path dependency making the relationship between climate and land surface instability contingent. An alternative steady state of much higher rates of sediment accumulation is seen in areas below 300 m asl after AD ∼870 despite large variations in climate, with two phases of increased erosion, one related to vegetation change (AD 870–1206) and another related to climate (AD 1597–1918). In areas above 300 m asl there is a short lived increase in erosion and related deposition after settlement (AD ∼870–935) and then relatively little additional change to present. Spatial correlation between rates of sediment accumulation at different profiles decreases rapidly after AD ∼935 from ∼4 km to less than 250 m as the landscape becomes more heterogeneous. These new insights are only possible using high-resolution tephrochronology applied spatially across a landscape, an approach that can be applied to the large areas of the Earth’s surface affected by the repeated fallout of cm-scale tephra layers.

This article was originally published on The Hockey Schtick, and presented here with some minor edits for format and clarity.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yancey Ward
January 25, 2014 8:23 am

Deadly dull weather is a catastrophe!!!!!

Pamela Gray
January 25, 2014 8:25 am

Chris Turney has had a hand in the development of tephrachronology. An interesting bite of the ass?

Mike H
January 25, 2014 8:28 am

Perhaps a lower temperature differentials between the poles and equator will lead to lower pressure differentials and ergo slower, less violent turbulence? Who’d a thunk it? Well, I know Dr. Ball pointed that out to me a long time ago. If I recall correctly, he said he and others had been teaching that forever and a day.

January 25, 2014 8:34 am

I’ve been trying to hammer this point all last year about global warming meaning less extreme weather. Here are the Great storms of the Little Ice Age abstracts.
Further reading

….From a meteorological point of view, this troublesome development in the late medieval time was the result of global cooling. When the planet cools, the cooling is especially pronounced near the poles and smaller near the equator. Along with planetary cooling, this therefore produces an enhanched thermal contrast between equatorial regions and the poles. In the northern hemisphere, this thermal contrast tend to develop especially in latitudes between about 50 and 65oN, in the zone of westerlies. This strengthened thermal gradient is the basis for development of more cyclonic storms over oceans in this zone, leading to increasing flood frequency and damage for adjoining coasts and land areas……..
The Guardian – 20 January 2011
Weatherwatch: The Grote Mandrenke
Few great weather events in British history were as devastating as the “Grote Mandrenke”, the great drowning of men, which took place in mid January 1362. A huge south-westerly gale originating in the Atlantic Ocean swept across Ireland, Britain, the Low Countries, and northern Germany, causing at least 25,000 deaths……As the storm reached the North Sea, it combined with high tides to produce the phenomenon most feared by coastal communities, a storm surge….
Among other things, the three researchers report that (1) “the content of marine-source ssNa aerosols in the GISP2 ice core record, a proxy for storminess over the adjacent ocean through the advection of salt spray [ss], is high during the LIA with a marked transition from reduced levels during the MCA [hereafter MWP] (Meeker and Mayewski, 2002; Dawson et al., 2007),” (2) “the onset of the LIA in NW Europe is notably marked by coastal dune development across western European coastlines linked to very strong winds during storms (Clarke and Rendell, 2009; Hansom and Hall,

January 25, 2014 8:37 am

Thanks for posting Anthony.
Why do climate scientists conveniently forget that temperature differentials drive all weather, not absolute temperatures?
The Jupiter Red Spot is the largest persistent storm system in the universe, larger than Earth + Mars in size, yet the average temperature of Jupiter is – 234 F [-145 C].
Completely debunks the ‘global warming puts more energy in the system, so there will be more storms and extreme weather’ meme.

January 25, 2014 8:37 am

Looking at a small sample. During our global warming peak from 1996 to 2007, the Atlantic Basin had one of the strongest hurricane seasons, it may be As the earth cools under weaker sunspot cycles, winter storms gain strength and under stronger sunspot cycles winter storms drop off and tropical storms pick up.
Something to look at. How else would the earth have glacier growth if not weaker sunspot cycles bringing on stronger winter storms? Stronger sunspot cycles bring on more tropical storms and more rain and increased agriculture.
May just be looking at balance.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett

January 25, 2014 8:40 am

Lake Helluvastorm , love it.

January 25, 2014 8:44 am

Funny how “cold, stormy weather” seems much more familiar than “hot stormy weather”.

January 25, 2014 8:53 am

My eye says b, e and f precede temperature by about 150 years. Interesting.

January 25, 2014 8:58 am

Actually it’s a well known meteorological fact that an atmosphere that is more baroclinic will generate and experience greater turbulent weather patterns than a similar atmosphere that is more barotropic. Check any basic college course text book on Atmospheric Science.

January 25, 2014 9:03 am

Despite all the evidence to the contrary Warmists still insist on more extreme weather. How can I get through to someone who does not want to be gotten through to? 🙂

January 25, 2014 9:05 am

Forecast polar vortex on 30 January at an altitude of 15 km.
This Sun by ozone controls the weather.

January 25, 2014 9:07 am

Here is the English Channel. Note the cold and storminess.

Philippe Sorrel et. al. – 2012
Persistent non-solar forcing of Holocene storm dynamics in coastal sedimentary archives
…Here we present a reappraisal of high-energy estuarine and coastal sedimentary records from the southern coast of the English Channel, and report evidence for five distinct periods during the Holocene when storminess was enhanced during the past 6,500 years. We find that high storm activity occurred periodically with a frequency of about 1,500 years, closely related to cold and windy periods diagnosed earlier…..

January 25, 2014 9:09 am

Here is New York. Note the cold and storminess. Brrrrrr.

Elyse Scileppi et. al.
Sedimentary evidence of hurricane strikes in western Long Island, New York
[1] Evidence of historical landfalling hurricanes and prehistoric storms has been recovered from backbarrier environments in the New York City area. Overwash deposits correlate with landfalls of the most intense documented hurricanes in the area, including the hurricanes of 1893, 1821, 1788, and 1693 A.D. There is little evidence of intense hurricane landfalls in the region for several hundred years prior to the late 17th century A.D. The apparent increase in intense hurricane landfalls around 300 years ago occurs during the latter half of the Little Ice Age, a time of lower tropical sea surface temperatures….
doi: 10.1029/2006GC001463

son of mulder
January 25, 2014 9:09 am

The data has not yet been adjusted.

January 25, 2014 9:10 am

Soon will experience it even more, because the sun goes to sleep.

January 25, 2014 9:11 am

If these things have little or no relation, we’re just assuming causation and extrapolating to unreasonable ends. At what temperature is there no extreme weather? At what temperature is all weather extreme?
Also, the article and most other studies of the nature assume reliable comprehensive global weather records from before the 1980s. That’s a stretch.

January 25, 2014 9:13 am

Here is the French Mediterranean

Laurent Dezileau et. al. – 2011
Intense storm activity during the Little Ice Age on the French Mediterranean coast
…The apparent increase of the superstorm activity during the latter half of the Little Ice Age was probably due to the thermal gradient increase leading to enhanced lower tropospheric baroclinicity over a large Central Atlantic/European domain and leading to a modification of the occurrence of extreme wind events along the French Mediterranean coast….

OK I think you get the point as I could go on and on. Warmists should desist from trying to scare little children who don’t know any better. What we have seen since 1997 is just the weather and not the climate (30+ years of data). There is no loaded dice but a pea under the thimble. It’s a shell game, a con job, don’t fall for it.

Gail Combs
January 25, 2014 9:17 am

Jimbo says:
January 25, 2014 at 9:03 am
Despite all the evidence to the contrary Warmists still insist on more extreme weather. How can I get through to someone who does not want to be gotten through to? 🙂
You can’t when their pay check depends on ignoring you.

January 25, 2014 9:19 am

Science is simply amazing. Global warming decreases storms. Global cooling decreases storms. And the opposites are also true ref. increases. Anyway to get the climate to simply not change?

January 25, 2014 9:21 am

apparently lost in moderation:?
Thanks for posting Anthony.
Why do climate scientists conveniently forget that temperature differentials drive all weather, not absolute temperatures?
The Jupiter Red Spot is the largest persistent storm system in the universe, larger than Earth + Mars in size, yet the average temperature of Jupiter is – 234 F [-145 C].
Completely debunks the ‘global warming puts more energy in the system, so there will be more storms and extreme weather’ meme.

January 25, 2014 9:46 am

Blah weather is what directly precedes another 100,000 years of glaciation. Vive les extreme weather events.

January 25, 2014 9:47 am

Is this something new ?

January 25, 2014 9:57 am

Yet another salient reason why Warmer Is Better: milder weather, fewer extreme storms.
Felicitatus ex plus caloris

January 25, 2014 10:17 am

This is nothing new!
This of course has been a common knowledge for everyone that cared to investigate it, while being ignored by the AGW crowd.
Instead they are now lying by claiming that a warmer world would create more storminess.

Steve Case
January 25, 2014 10:18 am

That’s right the IPCC tells us that the warming will be at night, in the winter and in the Arctic. In other words, the difference between the highs and lows will will be less. So the energy gradient driving storms won’t be as great; ergo – calmer weather. The other side just ignores that fact. They ignore a lot of facts. And it looks like the so called main stream media is never going to point it out.

Stephen Richards
January 25, 2014 10:57 am

Lamb postulated this some 50years ago. Don’t these losers read any other papers before writing their cr@p?

January 25, 2014 11:05 am

ren says:
January 25, 2014 at 9:10 am
“Soon will experience it even more, because the sun goes to sleep.”
Yes, and that will be taken as proof that they were right about extreme weather events, never mind that the actual temperatures are falling.
KevinM says:
January 25, 2014 at 9:11 am
“At what temperature is there no extreme weather? At what temperature is all weather extreme?”
That’s like asking, at what angle on a rotating circle of a given radius does one experience the most centripetal acceleration? It is the wrong question. Centripetal acceleration depends upon the rate of rotation, not on the angle.
The only answer to the question as phrased is: all of them. No extreme if everything is isothermal, all extreme if there is a neighboring reservoir at higher or lower temperature, from or to which energy can flow.

G. Karst
January 25, 2014 11:05 am

As I and others have been saying all along… IF we begin cooling, we will begin to understand what severe weather actually means.
It is not only the increasing equatorial/polar delta P, but also the increasing density of cold air. Now throw in a shrinking biosphere, and is easy to see where this leads.
Warming is the default fail safe directions whose benefits rapidly disappear (to mankind’s chagrin), as cooling commences. Warming is a pleasant walk in the park… when compared to long term cooling. GK

Dodgy Geezer
January 25, 2014 11:07 am

That’s ok.
Doesn’t everybody know that Climate Change causes heat AND cold, wet AND dry, storms AND fine weather, sea level rise AND fall…you name it?
So ANY geo-climatic finding obviously supports the hypothesis. I wonder why as few as 97% of scientists believe in it…

January 25, 2014 11:14 am

“That’s like asking, at what angle on a rotating circle of a given radius does one experience the most centripetal acceleration?”
Let me try to make that a little more down-to-Earth. At what point on a circular racetrack does the driver of a race car experience the most centrifugal force? It cannot be answered, as it does not matter at what point. What matters is how fast he is going.

Silver ralph
January 25, 2014 11:15 am

does it need to be said again?
global temperature does not effect the development of anticyclones (storms). it is differential temperatures that create storms, to absolute temperatures.
thus it is easy to see that a colder climate (especially one with colder poles), could easily develop much more vigorous storms than an warmer but more uniform temperature profile. why does it take climate ‘science’ 30 years to discover that?

January 25, 2014 11:49 am

40 years ago this was common knowledge among climatologists. It was mentioned by Lamb (in Climate, History and the Modern World) in connection with the onset of LIA. It was discussed in more detail by Reid Bryson in an article published in the mid-70’s (in The Ecologist, I think), where he describes the temperature gradient effect.

Bill H
January 25, 2014 11:51 am

As the arctic and antarctic cool the increased polar jet will cause sever winter storms.
As the Arctic and antarctic warm the winter storms will decrease and equatorial storms such as hurricanes etc will increase.
Over the last several hundred years we have been in a state of near equilibrium where the storm energy was evenly divided. As we begin to cool the energy balance is rapidly changing and winter storms are more wide spread while the equatorial region storms are more closely confined to the equator.
interesting how it all comes back to the energy balance and overall temperatures in the arctic regions which drive the polar jet streams size and power.

Jeff Alberts
January 25, 2014 11:52 am

Hockey Schtick says:
January 25, 2014 at 9:21 am
The Jupiter Red Spot is the largest persistent storm system in the universe, larger than Earth + Mars in size, yet the average temperature of Jupiter is – 234 F [-145 C].

Really? The WHOLE Universe? Wow!

January 25, 2014 12:04 pm

The Viking colony in Greenland was largely dependent on trade. Trade was largely dependent on seas being calmer than they are now, with ice further north. There are scant records from that time, (trade routes involved an element of secrecy, after all,) however there was apparently a point at which taking the “northern route” became less feasible, and then a point at which trading across the Atlantic became so high-risk that few captains would try it at all.
All of this points to the MWP being a more benign climate. Warmer is better.

January 25, 2014 12:15 pm

Leroux has been demonstrating why and how since 1993…

January 25, 2014 1:05 pm

The worst hurricanes to affect Southeastern Virginia occurred in the period from 1650-1850. A 7 mile plus peninsula in Norfolk on Chesapeake Bay called Willoughby Spit was formed by hurricanes in 1667 and 1806. There have not been hurricane conditions here greater than Category 1 since the end of the Little Ice Age.

January 25, 2014 1:10 pm


Man Bearpig
January 25, 2014 1:17 pm

It wont be long now before they claim that CO2 does not control temperature anymore it only controls the weather. CO2 is a shapeshifting fog monster of Godzilla proportions..

January 25, 2014 2:15 pm

Re Hockey Schtick says:
January 25, 2014 at 8:37 am
Why do climate scientists conveniently forget that temperature differentials drive all weather, not absolute temperatures?
It is this conviction of those climate scientists that most likely causes many, if not most people to become sceptical as they know intuitively that such a claim doesn’t pass the commonsense test or represent what can be readily concluded by ordinary people who observe and ponder natural events over time.

January 25, 2014 2:38 pm

Richard Lindzen has been pointing this out for decades!

Matt G
January 25, 2014 5:29 pm

This is not brand new information all of a sudden.. A warming planet should cause less extreme weather down to the physical processes of the planet. Nothing unusual here apart from the alarmists telling white lies most of time. The main factor why this happens is down to the jet stream. The jest stream moves North the warmer the planet becomes and moves South the cooler the planet generally becomes. With the planet becoming narrower the further away from the equator, the less surface area the jet has chance to interact.
Therefore when the jet stream moves South with cooler climate, severe weather increases due to much larger area the jet stream affects. When the jet stream is further north with a warmer planet much smaller regions are affected by severe weather.
The jet stream is boundary between warmer sub-tropical air and polar Arctic air. When these interact the most unstable the atmosphere becomes and greater severe weather results. This is not rocket science, but the climate alarmists chose to ignore this, partly because they don’t have a clue how the planet mechanisms behaves and con people into thinking they do. The other reason being avoiding anything against their agenda of finding only human influences.

January 25, 2014 5:37 pm

Jeff Alberts says:
January 25, 2014 at 11:52 am
He must have meant solar system.
It’s true that the colder planets have higher winds & more storminess, thanks to delta T.
Earth also is stormier during its ice house phases than hot house.
Pretty elementary, really, thus beyond Climate Science (TM).

January 25, 2014 8:22 pm

I recall maybe ten years ago reading that during warmer periods, as the tropics received more heat, larger volumes of warmed air made its way toward the poles via the Hadley cells. This air flow, because of the Coriolis effect, caused the jet stream, and more air movement meant a stronger faster jet stream with a straighter path. This strong jet stream kept cold arctic air trapped in the north and more of the earth’s surface would exhibit higher temperatures. Conversely, during cooler periods, the jet stream was weaker and more meandering, resulting in large Rossby waves which allow cold arctic air to move southward covering more of the earth’s surface. With colder air spread over a larger portion of earth, the average temperatures would be lower. In addition, with the large cold air masses moving south, there would be more storms due to large temperature gradients at the boundaries and as well as high winds of the jet stream aloft. So by simple observation of increasing storms and increasing “polar vortices” bringing colder air masses southward, the obvious conclusion is — global cooling. Is this too simple?

Bob Weber
January 25, 2014 9:04 pm

John H you’re right. “…that during warmer periods, as the tropics received more heat,” is the key phrase here. It received more heat from where?
Paul P you’re right. “During our global warming peak from 1996 to 2007, the Atlantic Basin had one of the strongest hurricane seasons, …” What caused both?
and “…it may be as the earth cools under weaker sunspot cycles, winter storms gain strength and under stronger sunspot cycles winter storms drop off and tropical storms pick up.” What forces this to happen?
The Sun produced more photons, protons, and electrons from the increased sunspot activity during this active solar cycle period; the Sun caused global warming and many extreme weather events.

Brian H
January 25, 2014 10:17 pm

This was always the standard thermodynamics based understanding before the AGW disinformation campaign.

January 25, 2014 10:56 pm

Thank you for keeping up on all this makes it easy when your looking for this subject to disprove nonsense that comes out of the gloBULL enviro fascists. There’s so much other corruption and cronyism going on it’s hard for people to keep track of it all.

January 25, 2014 11:24 pm

The reason the Pacific ocean is called the ‘Pacific’ was because Magellan, who first crossed it, remarked how ‘pacified’ or peaceful it was compared to the Atlantic, even though it is much bigger.
This might be because it is larger, meaning, having less landmasses about it, it spreads heat out more evenly, lowering the temperature differential between the poles and the equator and reducing storms.
In 1998, the year of the big El Nino, the southwestern side of the Pacific, where it was warm, was noticable on how calm it was. So warmer doesn’t necessarily mean stormier, it can be the opposite, it can mean less stormy if such heat reduces temperature differential from the poles to the equator. The same seems to be occurring with regards to global warming since ~1850, where the poles are warming faster than the tropics.

January 26, 2014 8:19 am

Jeff Alberts says sarcastically, “Really? The WHOLE Universe? Wow!”
Of course, I meant known, observable storms in the Universe, i.e. observable storms within our solar system
Thanks for being a stickler on that, while apparently missing the whole point of the comment.

January 26, 2014 12:42 pm

Skeptic: “We’ve seen no warming for over 15 years, and now we’re having bitter cold spells.”
Alarmist: “Did we say “global warming”? We meant to say that CO2 would cause “extreme weather. Bitter cold spells, like heat waves, are just examples of extreme weather.”
Skeptic: “But extreme weather events are actually on the decline.”
Alarmist: “Did we say “extreme weather”? We meant to say “unusual weather.” From a historical perspective the reduction in extreme weather events, along with such a long spell of flat global temperatures are, in themselves, extremely unusual. Don’t you agree?
And so it goes on, and on, and on…

January 27, 2014 5:30 am

These AGW Kool-Aid drinkers will massage ANYTHING to fit their agenda. ANYTHING! Remember the Goracle’s hurricane being spawned from an industrial smoke stack? Oh so now THAT’S not right? Shouldn’t we have lost all the polar bears and coastal cities by now? These people are INSANE!

January 27, 2014 5:32 am

Anthony, I see that a link to this thread is on this morning.

January 27, 2014 6:12 am

I am a weather forecaster for the Air Force and when the subject of global warming comes up I ask them if they have ever heard of a wooly mammoth? They look a little apprehensive at first if they believe the global warming lie. I tell them that these animals have been found with their bellies full of grass in some cases. I ask “don’t you think that the arctic was a lot wormer then if it had grass lands?” This global warming crap is about power, money and politics. Scientists that study global “pro” warming get grants while those who want to show the truth are denied funding and are kept from reporting there scientific findings in news outlets like the New York or Los Angelis Times. And while we do have a miniscule effect on the climate, I know that Mother Nature unleashes much more carbon dioxide through volcanic activity and other natural effects than we could ever do.

January 27, 2014 6:17 am

Global warming, yet another violation of our rights. The gov’t constantly violates our rights.
They violate the 1st Amendment by caging protesters and banning books like “America Deceived II”.
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by allowing TSA to grope you.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars.
Impeach Obama.
Last link of “America Deceived II” before it is completely banned:

January 27, 2014 6:17 am

Let’s see now, this means Al Gore’s movie was even more nonsensical. And we fed that movie to students throughout the country, wasting their time instead of teaching them something substantial.
At least the British wised up early and banned the movie from being shown in their schools. But Al is laughing all the way to the bank.

January 27, 2014 6:46 am

The acknowledged intention of the climate alarmists is to scare the pants off the average person who knows little about anything and trusts the main stream media to inform the general population. In this way, the governing forces can manipulate and control what is essentially a herd of sheep.

January 27, 2014 6:52 am

Any statement that starts, “Global Warming Increases/Decreases/Causes/Contributes, etc.,,,,” is a LIE, and is unsupported by facts. The only statement possible is, “There is insufficient evidence for Global Warming.” This doesn’t include Man-Made Global Warming, which is a political farce for which there is even less evidence. Our global climate has varied for millennia and will continue to do so, whether human beings are around to lie about the changes or not.

David Walker
January 27, 2014 7:17 am

If only those who worship at the hem of Gaia and Gore would, instead, demonstrate an ability to think critically, and to act as individuals to help abate whatever problems they insist exist.
Instead, they believe that government holds the reins and the answers: nevermind the thousands of years that demonstrate how government is typically used to pervert every cause, every movement, at the behest of the greedy, the ambitious, the megalomaniac.

January 27, 2014 7:21 am

I read the 2002 Meeker & Majewski study (I think it was a joint US-UK project) on the salt concentration in ice core laminae from North Atlantic region, there was a significantly higher level in LIA, linked also to NAO Negative mode (cooling). The salt proxy here (Meeker & Majewski) was an inference of storminess on the assumption that salt spray is more prevalent in storm times.

January 27, 2014 7:35 am

All I know is that if we don’t start getting serious about stopping MMGW i.e higher carbon taxes, and $10/gallon gas ASAP…. we are all going to freeze to death…. its cold in the States.
Hey Al… do you sell space heaters.

George Johnson
January 27, 2014 7:39 am

Are you sure this is not a “head ’em off at the pass” from the global warming nuts out there?
Basically saying “oh yeah, this proves global warming, because we’re actually having less storms! We knew this, but we just accidentally said it would be more and stronger storms…. whoops…”
That’s kinda what it looks like to me. Another “study” that “proves” global warming, by agreeing with what’s going on out there, and not what they said would be going on.
It DOES say that, less storms, (which is what we’re seeing) are caused by …. global warming….

Henry Clark
January 27, 2014 7:59 am

The observations of this research are to be expected: As the tropics never change temperature much, the planet has relatively less of a temperature difference between the poles and equator during warm periods, less to drive north-south convection. However, with a solar Grand Minimum approaching soon and with the solar tie to prior history, as in , there should be major cooling later this decade, followed afterwards by transition into another Little Ice Age, so mid-latitude storminess will increase.

January 27, 2014 8:13 am

Now they are making fools out of Obama, Gore, Senators, Hollywood, etc. who just said since Hurricane Katrina and the Typhoon in the Philippines, also the Tornado’s and cold weather that all this Extreme Weather is caused by Global Warming. They just can’t get their Act together, they need Talking Points before they release their Studies but Stupid is as Stupid Does.

January 27, 2014 8:44 am

Nobody should be surprised by this, since the global warmers sole argument now is that “everything is caused by global warming”. That way, they can never be wrong on their federal grant applications.

January 27, 2014 8:44 am

How can ANYONE believe in global warming when seeing the following:
-the US set 28000+ records for cold in the last 6 months (AS IN ALL TIME LOWS, not some mythical “one cold winter BS)
-last year saw the coldest temp EVER RECORDED on earth and the lowest temp ever recorded in the northern hemisphere
-Arctic and Antarctic ice is at RECORD VOLUME AND THICKNESS
-the average temp in Alaska, a HUGE land mass has decreased three degrees over the past decade
-average ocean temps are decreasing
-Siberia had it’s coldest winter in a century
-China had its coldest winter in 50 years
-it snowed in Australia last month during the middle of its summer
-the IPCC said there is no evidence of warming for 15 years
-It snowed on the Sphinx for the first time in over a century
-climate “scientists” engaged in the biggest scientific fraud across the globe in the history of the world, literally
-NONE of the predicted outcomes from computer models have come true, in fact usually the exact opposite has come true, yet they claim EVERY side of the issue. For example, global warming and global cooling are caused by global warming, then it was extreme weather, now they are claiming the opposite of THAT !! Only a complete IDIOT would give these OPENLY FRAUDULENT “Scientists” any shred of credibility, but they keep changing all their predictions
-how many climate “scientists” are we going to have to rescue from the Arctic ice during the SUMMER before you brain dead indoctrinates WAKE THE F’UP ?!?!?

Mike M
January 27, 2014 8:54 am

Sheesh, now Hansen is going to have to adjust all the data the other way and claim CO2 causes global cooling.

January 27, 2014 9:03 am

[waaaaay off topic – this article has nothing to do with tax laws – mod]

January 27, 2014 9:34 am

meanwhile – The empowered ignore the Jason Society’s work on setting up firewalls and safeguards to America’s powergrid– ironic a Magnetic Wave will wipe out all of the Climate Obsessed studies and their hard drives — somehow I think none of that matters at all to any of them

Hugh K
January 27, 2014 9:52 am

After the undeniable 18 year “pause”, one study produced some +/- 2500 years ago observing the necessity for deductive reasoning and subsequent objective investigation, should stand out above all others — Aarne-Thompson-Uther Type 20C, (specifically) Daddabha Jataka (J 322); Buddha, and /or more recently Chicken Little, Chicken Licken, Henny Penny, Hen-Len, et al.

Roy N.
January 27, 2014 10:18 am

What a load of manure. Global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes ever concocted by man. Its perpetrators are not honest about their motives which is more government control over humanity.

January 27, 2014 11:03 am

I have this program. It lets you generate a headline and text just like the one included in this article. Guess what ….some one just pulled your chain.

January 27, 2014 11:30 am

Ken S, I noticed the link on Drudge and was surprised to see it. A new world, perhaps?:]

January 27, 2014 11:35 am

I thought they said we would have record breaking destructive storms because of global warming. Now global warming reduces destructive storms. Face it, these people have no idea what they are talking about. Or what alarm bells to ring.

January 27, 2014 11:35 am

While it is always nice to have studies that support your position, I do not think there is any way to reconstruct storms from the past. I am not buying it and I don’t care whose side it supports. That is just more junk science and we have enough of that already. This study is just one more proof that climatology is crackpot junk-science.

James Anderson
January 27, 2014 12:12 pm

You mean new BS study indicates a decrease in sever weather. There people have no shame.

January 27, 2014 12:35 pm

A new study has suggested causality between an imaginary problem and the weather!!

January 27, 2014 12:50 pm

This is the exact OPPOSITE of what Al Gore said just a couple of years ago!

Kate Forney
January 27, 2014 12:58 pm

I’m so confused. I thought the science was, uhh, “settled”.
Is anybody keeping track of how close we are to the threshold of “New study: Whatever happens, it’s AGW that caused it”? Like approaching asteroids, for example?

January 27, 2014 1:34 pm

If the earth’s temperature rises, it’s global warming. If it cools, it’s a consequence of global warming. If there’s a violent storm, it’s global warming. If there are fewer violent storms, it’s global warming.
How about all you global warming nuts just tell me how much this emergency is going to cost me in coinage and freedoms, then we can get down to solving the “problem”…

January 27, 2014 1:58 pm

These people can’t even get the weather forecasts right 14 days out of a Super Bowl, and so we are supposed to believe these idiots on Global Warming? You have got to be kidding? Liberals are the worst liars of all time.

Keith Minto
January 27, 2014 3:54 pm

This goes with the concept of Carnot’s theorem in a recent article here ….theory and observation starting to match, now, that is satisfying.

Gail Combs
January 28, 2014 4:57 am

Paul Pierett says: @ January 25, 2014 at 8:37 am
….Something to look at. How else would the earth have glacier growth if not weaker sunspot cycles bringing on stronger winter storms?
You might find Steve Goddard’s thread on the polar vortex HERE interesting.

Gail Combs
January 28, 2014 5:40 am

Jimbo says: @ January 25, 2014 at 9:03 am
…. How can I get through to someone who does not want to be gotten through to? 🙂
Challenge then to put their money where their mouth is… Hand over your car keys and the keys to your home.
(Only do this to pontificating loud mouths in front of their friends because the loud mouth will never ever speak to you again. However the rest of the crowd will laugh their heads off.)
99.99% of these people are hypocrites and if that is pointed out most people will catch onto the fact it is actually about ‘do as I say and not as I do’ control. Making fun of the If it is Hot it is global warming, if it is cold it is global warming, if it is sunny …..
And then go to:
If its money into Warren Buffet’s pocket ( In 2008 he became the richest man on earth) it is global warming
If it is people freezing to death in Europe it is global warming.
People may not understand physics and all we discuss here at WUWT but they do understand when they are being scammed and someone is riping them off.
It might be interesting to calculate the cost per person of the Green Scam. The US debt is now $54,395.96 per citizen.

January 28, 2014 6:30 am

By decreasing the temperature difference between the equator and the pole, global warming reduces the efficiency of the Carnot cycle engine that drives the weather. Back of the envelope, 4 degrees warming of the poles reduces the current 20% efficiency to 18% efficiency.

Gail Combs
January 28, 2014 6:58 am

JimS says: @ January 25, 2014 at 9:46 am
Blah weather is what directly precedes another 100,000 years of glaciation. Vive les extreme weather events.
Actually it is the opposite. you can see how jagged the descent into glaciation is (present is on right)
The Eemian was the last interglacial.

A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception
Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end,….
Here we present an annually resolved, layer-counted record of varve thickness, quartz grain size and pollen assemblages from a maar lake in the Eifel (Germany), which documents a late Eemian aridity pulse lasting 468 years with dust storms, aridity, bushfire and a decline of thermophilous trees at the time of glacial inception. We interpret the decrease in both precipitation and temperature as an indication of a close link of this extreme climate event to a sudden southward shift of the position of the North Atlantic drift, the ocean current that brings warm surface waters to the northern European region. The late Eemian aridity pulse occurred at a 65° N July insolation of 416 W m-2, close to today’s value of 428 W m-2 (ref. 9), and may therefore be relevant for the interpretation of present-day climate variability.

This is the CO2 and solar insolation values for other glacial inceptions. (The CO2 values are suspect. link )
Values are from the paper: Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
The paper does mention “daily mean insolation at the summer solstice (21 June) at 65◦ N” in some of the figures but uses the term “boreal summer insolation” through out the text. It gives the current value as insolation = 479 W m−2 (Calculated vs actual perhaps?)
MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2, CO2 = 256 ppmv
MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2, CO2 = 259-265 ppmv
MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2, CO2 = 225 ppmv
MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
The paper goes on to say:

… thus, the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place. …
…although it has been unclear whether the subdued current summer insolation minimum (479 W m−2 ), the lowest of the last 800 kyr, would be sufficient to lead to glaciation (e.g. Crucifix, 2011). Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474 W m−2 ) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240 ± 5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012). ….

I would say we are very luck the weather/climate during the Holocene has bees so Blah.

Gail Combs
January 28, 2014 7:39 am

Dave Ippolito says: @ January 27, 2014 at 7:35 am
…Hey Al… do you sell space heaters.
I am in mid North Carolina and retired. We have already shut off the heat permanently and only use space heaters in winter to save money. We have had lows of 9 °F (- 13 °C) this year and have Winter Storm Warning in effect for tomorrow. My general house temp this week was under 40 °F (4 °C)
We can not cut our electric bill much more and the EPA has made the price of wood stoves outrageous. This is assuming that wood stoves will not be banned outright. We would have to use the type that is an exterior stand alone and hooks to the forced hot air system since the house has no chimney. For a good one it $3,000 – $5,000 not including building, installation. I guess we had better start saving up.

Bob Weber
January 28, 2014 8:46 am

Gail, you are quite the powerhouse commenter! Keeping warm by typing? Try pricing a new exterior chimney and internal woodstove for comparison, if that works for your place. A good woodstove runs $500 and up. Wood heat works for us in Michigan!

Dale Baney
January 28, 2014 5:27 pm

The little ice age and our recent increase in global temperatures were both caused by the same thing, the cyclical changes in the nearness of the other planets in our solar system to the earth. from now until 2027 there will be cold weather, from then until 2059 the weather will be warmer, then afterward, colder. Astrologists know what the weather will do because they study the planets and note what happens here on earth.

%d bloggers like this: