Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf claim the Gulf Stream is slowing due to Greenland ice melt, except reality says otherwise

UPDATED – see below

From your “Day after Tomorrow” department (where a slowing Gulf Stream turned NYC into an icebox) comes this claim from the bowels of Mannian Science. Unfortunately, it looks to be of the caliber of Mann’s Hockey Schtick science.


As WUWT reported on a peer reviewed paper last year, H. Thomas Rossby says: URI oceanographer refutes claims that climate change is slowing pace of Gulf Stream saying in a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters:

“The ADCP measures currents at very high accuracy, and so through the repeat measurements we take year after year, we have a very powerful tool by which to monitor the strength of the current,” said Rossby. “There are variations of the current over time that are natural — and yes, we need to understand these better — but we find absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down.

Of course, Rahmstorf and Mann don’t list Rossby’s study in their references, nor seem to use the “highly accurate” ADCP data. Instead they use a model along with [proxies, reconstructions, and] the highly interpolated GISS data to come to the conclusions they want. So, it isn’t surprising they are chasing phantoms in their study. They claim (in Figure 1 from their paper) that this cold spot south of Greenland is caused by meltwater from Greenland and it is evidence of a slowed circulation:


Linear trends of surface temperature since AD 1901. Based on the temperature data of NASA GISS (ref. 48). a, Global equal area map (Hammer projection) for 1901–2013; white indicates insufficient data. b, Same analysis for the North Atlantic sector for 1901–2000. In addition to the observed temperature trends b also shows the grid points (black circles) of the subpolar-gyre region for which time series are shown in Figs 3 and 5, as well as the model-average 2 °C cooling contour (white) from a climate model intercomparison1 in which the models were subject to a strong AMOC reduction induced by adding a freshwater anomaly to the northern Atlantic. The geographic extent of the model-predicted temperature response to an AMOC reduction coincides well with the region of observed twentieth-century cooling. The models are forced more strongly and cooling extends further west as a result of shutting down Labrador Sea convection, which has only briefly happened in the real world so far. (Note that the second cooling patch in central Africa is in a region of poor data coverage and may be an artefact of data inhomogeneities.)

I find it interesting that they note “…that the second cooling patch in central Africa is in a region of poor data coverage and may be an artefact of data inhomogeneities.” Yet somehow that cooling patch south of Greenland is free of such problems in the same GISS dataset. Go figure.

And then there’s this other problem; Greenland’s ice mass seems to be on the increase so far this year and above the 1990-2011 mean:

Greenland-surface-mass-budgetSource: http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

Accessed from http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

Maybe this is the new Mannian science, wherein global warming causes cooling, and melting causes more ice accumulation. (h/t to Tom McClellan)

Of course, given that Stephan Rahmstorf thinks the “Day After Tomorrow” was just peachy, one wonders if this study isn’t just a embellishment of his movie review:

(Via Wikipedia) However, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, expert for thermohaline ocean circulation and its effects on climate, was impressed how the script writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff was well informed about the science and politics of global climate change after the talk with him at the preview of the film in Berlin. He stated: “Clearly this is a disaster movie and not a scientific documentary, the film makers have taken a lot of artistic license. But the film presents an opportunity to explain that some of the basic background is right: humans are indeed increasingly changing the climate and this is quite a dangerous experiment, including some risk of abrupt and unforeseen changes. After all – our knowledge of the climate system is still rather limited, and we will probably see some surprises as our experiment with the atmosphere unfolds. Luckily it is extremely unlikely that we will see major ocean circulation changes in the next couple of decades (I’d be just as surprised as Jack Hall if they did occur); at least most scientists think this will only become a more serious risk towards the end of the century. And the consequences would certainly not be as dramatic as the ‘super-storm’ depicted in the movie. Nevertheless, a major change in ocean circulation is a risk with serious and partly unpredictable consequences, which we should avoid. And even without events like ocean circulation changes, climate change is serious enough to demand decisive action. I think it would be a mistake and not do the film justice if scientists simply dismiss it as nonsense. For what it is, a blockbuster movie that has to earn back 120 M$ production cost, it is probably as good as you can get. For this type of movie for a very broad audience it is actually quite subversive and manages to slip in many thought-provoking things. I’m sure people will not confuse the film with reality, they are not stupid – they will know it is a work of fiction. But I hope that it will stir their interest for the subject, and that they might take more notice when real climate change and climate policy will be discussed in future.” Source: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/tdat_review.html


In 2008, Yahoo! Movies listed The Day After Tomorrow as one of Top 10 Scientifically Inaccurate Movies. The film was criticized for depicting several different meteorological phenomena occurring over the course of hours, instead of the possible time frame of several decades or centuries.

UPDATE: I’ve added figures 5 and 6 from the Mann and Rahmstorf paper below.


Figure 5. A compilation of different indicators for Atlantic ocean circulation. The blue curve shows our temperature-based AMOC index also shown in b. The dark red curve shows the same index based on NASA GISS temperature data48 (scale on left). The green curve with uncertainty range shows coral proxy data25 (scale on right). The data are decadally smoothed. Orange dots show the analyses of data from hydrographic sections across the Atlantic at 25° N, where a 1 K change in the AMOC index corresponds to a 2.3 Sv change in AMOC transport, as in based on the model simulation. Other estimates from oceanographic data similarly suggest relatively strong AMOC in the 1950s and 1960s, weak AMOC in the 1970s and 1980s and stronger again in the 1990s (refs 41, 51).


Figure 6 Mass balance terms of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Data from Box and Colgan33. Cumulative anomaly relative to the mean over 1840–1900, a pre-industrial period during which the Greenland Ice Sheet was approximately in balance.

When actual Gulf Stream measurement data (the ADCP data cited by Rossby 2014) is available, why would Mann and Rahmstorf use proxies? And why try to say that temperature is the indicator, when you have actual speed data? The obtuseness boggles the mind.

Further, note Figure 6, they claim that discharge exceeds gain, which looks like Mann’s proverbial “hockey stick” and this is based on Box and Colgan (2010) data, which is their citation #33. They claim data all the way back to 1850, which is quite some feat since as far as I know, no actual whole Greenland ice data was measured until the International Geophysical year of 1958, such as:

Bauer, A., Baussart, M., Carbonnell, M., Kasser, P., Perroud, P. and Renaud, A. 1968. Missions aériennes de reconnaissance au Groenland 1957-1958. Observations aériennes et terrestres, exploitation des photographies aeriennes, determination des vitesses des glaciers vělant dans Disko Bugt et Umanak Fjord. Meddelser om Grønland 173(3), 116 pp.

And further, previous papers from Jason Box only start with data at 1958:

Rignot, E., J.E. Box, E. Burgess, and E. Hanna (2008), Mass balance of the
Greenland ice sheet from 1958 to 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett.,35,L20502, doi:10.1029/2008GL035417

It turns out Box and Colgan (2010) is a reconstruction, not actual measurement data.

However, even more puzzling, when you look at the Box and Colgan (2010) Figure 5 from their paper (free PDF here) the mass balance loss and accumulation shows no such “hockey stick” shape.

Box-Colgan-2010-Figure5One wonders if Mann didn’t apply his “special Mannomatic math“, as he did to his “hockey stick” to the Box and Colgan (2010) reconstructed data to get the large divergence between accumulation and loss we see in Mann and Rahmstorf’s Figure 6.

More importantly though, the Box and Colgan (2010) data isn’t actual measurement data, it is a reconstruction based on some data, and some guesses:

According to our reconstruction, TMB has been positive for 39% of the 1840–2010 period (see mass balance surplus areas in Fig. 5). The positive decade-scale mass balance phases correspond with periods of low melting and runoff. For example, from 1970 to 1985 a positive mass balance phase corresponds to a period of enhanced sulfate cooling (Wild et al. 2009) pronounced along west Greenland (Rozanov et al. 2002; Box et al. 2009). Mass budget surpluses can also be produced by high accumulation years, even occasionally despite relatively high runoff (e.g., 1996).
The reconstructed TMB values are compared 1) with those from the surface mass balance in Part II minus the Rignot et al. (2008, 2011)LM for 20 samples spanning 1958–2009 and 2) with the independent GRACE data spanning 2003–10 after Wahr et al. (2006) (Fig. 6). We find RMS errors of 31Gtyr for dataset 1 and 69Gtyr in comparison with dataset 2 (Table 1).

So, clearly, there’s no actual data prior to 1958. The Mann and Rahmstorf paper misleads the reader by not making this clear.

Duke University physicist Robert G. Brown, in comments noted:

Seriously — they found “good evidence” that such a slowing is occurring, only the actual evidence, consisting of the measured speed of the Gulf Stream itself, shows no such thing?

The cognitive dissonance involved is stupifying.

Indeed. Mann and Rahmstorf eschew reality for models and reconstruction. They live in an incestuous climate world of their own making.

Here’s the press release:

Atlantic Ocean overturning found to slow down already today

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

The gradual but accelerating melting of the Greenland ice-sheet, caused by man-made global warming, is a possible major contributor to the slowdown. Further weakening could impact marine ecosystems and sea level as well as weather systems in the US and Europe.

“It is conspicuous that one specific area in the North Atlantic has been cooling in the past hundred years while the rest of the world heats up,” says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study to be published in Nature Climate Change. Previous research had already indicated that a slowdown of the so-called Atlantic meridional overturning circulation might be to blame for this. “Now we have detected strong evidence that the global conveyor has indeed been weakening in the past hundred years, particularly since 1970,” says Rahmstorf.

Because long-term direct ocean current measurements are lacking, the scientists mainly used sea-surface and atmospheric temperature data to derive information about the ocean currents, exploiting the fact that ocean currents are the leading cause of temperature variations in the subpolar north Atlantic. From so-called proxy data – gathered from ice-cores, tree-rings, coral, and ocean and lake sediments – temperatures can be reconstructed for more than a millennium back in time. The recent changes found by the team are unprecedented since the year 900 AD, strongly suggesting they are caused by man-made global warming.

“The melting Greenland ice sheet is likely disturbing the circulation”

The Atlantic overturning is driven by differences in the density of the ocean water. From the south, the warm and hence lighter water flows northwards, where the cold and thus heavier water sinks to deeper ocean layers and flows southwards. “Now freshwater coming off the melting Greenland ice sheet is likely disturbing the circulation,” says Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. The freshwater is diluting the ocean water. Less saline water is less dense and has therefore less tendency to sink into the deep. “So the human-caused mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet appears to be slowing down the Atlantic overturning – and this effect might increase if temperatures are allowed to rise further,” explains Box.

The observed cooling in the North Atlantic, just south of Greenland, is stronger than what most computer simulations of the climate have predicted so far. “Common climate models are underestimating the change we’re facing, either because the Atlantic overturning is too stable in the models or because they don’t properly account for Greenland ice sheet melt, or both,” says Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the US. “That is another example where observations suggest that climate model predictions are in some respects still overly conservative when it comes to the pace at which certain aspects of climate change are proceeding.”

No new ice-age – but major negative effects are possible

The cooling above the Northern Atlantic would only slightly reduce the continued warming of the continents. The scientists certainly do not expect a new ice age, thus the imagery of the ten-year-old Hollywood blockbuster ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ is far from reality. However, it is well established that a large, even gradual change in Atlantic ocean circulation could have major negative effects.

“If the slowdown of the Atlantic overturning continues, the impacts might be substantial,” says Rahmstorf. “Disturbing the circulation will likely have a negative effect on the ocean ecosystem, and thereby fisheries and the associated livelihoods of many people in coastal areas. A slowdown also adds to the regional sea-level rise affecting cities like New York and Boston. Finally, temperature changes in that region can also influence weather systems on both sides of the Atlantic, in North America as well as Europe.”

If the circulation weakens too much it can even break down completely – the Atlantic overturning has for long been considered a possible tipping element in the Earth System. This would mean a relatively rapid and hard-to-reverse change. The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates there to be an up to one-in-ten chance that this could happen as early as within this century. However, expert surveys indicate that many researchers assess the risk to be higher. The study now published by the international team of researchers around Rahmstorf provides information on which to base a new and better risk assessment.


Article: Rahmstorf, S., Box, J., Feulner, G., Mann, M., Robinson, A., Rutherford, S., Schaffernicht, E. (2015): Evidence for an exceptional 20th-Century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning. Nature Climate Change (online) [DOI:10.1038/nclimate2554]

Weblink to the article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2554


Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.

Further information:

NASA animation “The Great Ocean Conveyor Belt” (downloadable video that shows the current system that now is found to slow down in the North Atlantic):

Weblink to a study on possible impacts of a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9561-y

Weblink to the expert assessment of an AMOC tipping: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/13/0809117106.abstract

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Joe Bastardi

Nonsense. This is exactly what Bill Gray said would happen almost 40 years ago. The AMO as measured by Klotzbach and Gray is already negative. The water off Africa and the Main Development regions has cooled dramatically the past few years as we are in the end game of the Altantics warm cycle. This idea borders on delusional, an attempt to self verify the idea that co2 is actually influencing the oceans, laughable since the heat capacity of the oceans is 1000x air, and co2 is only .04% of the air.
You are dealing with people that dont look at anything that can challenge them and have the same approach as spoiled children on a playground who insist on having their way.

Brian Jones

During the early 70s we were in the midst of the ice age scare and the earth was definitely not warming
and the gulf stream begain to slow down. That is too funny, they have obviously lost the plot.


I don’t think they care about the plot. They got what they wanted, a pro-AGW headline. Now their minion can go forth and proclaim the record cold and snow seen by Boston and NY were caused by AGW, and their political agenda moves forward.

It is always about the headline. Lift up the hood and look inside and nothing but rubber bands.

“Borders on”?… You are soooo polite 🙂

Gunga Din

I made this comment to this post http://junkscience.com/2015/03/22/celebrity-science-scientific-integrity-a-note-from-mel/ over at JunkScience.
It seems to apply.

Gunga Din | March 22, 2015 at 2:40 pm | Reply
Will Rogers once said, “Everybody’s ignorant…only on different subjects.”
Someone else once said, “It’s what you learn after you think you [know it all] it all that matters.”
Humility, to recognize that one doesn’t know everything there is to know about anything (and that what they do know might be wrong) is a noble virtue.
Too many celebrity scientist lack that. To give a hint that they might not know everything about their field is, to them, a sign of weakness rather than a sign of honesty. That can carry over to their opinions regarding things outside their field.
Look at Michael Mann. He’s rejected any criticism by statisticians or other experts in their fields because, well, he just knows he’s right.


“Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that pun in your hand”. There a Jimmy Hendrix moment.
Anyhow now I’m no scientist but the great AGW excuse for the record (since 78) Antarctic sea ice has been this thing about the freshwater land ice melting rapidly and cause a higher freezing point of the surrounding oceans thus more ice. I note that the article says as it tries to tell us that the gulf stream is being effected is.
“like runoff from the ice caps in Greenland, which are now melting faster than anyone expected.”.
So if fresh water run off from the “unprecedented” land ice sheets in Antarctica is causing record sea ice levels in the southern ocean then why are we not seeing the same affect around the coast of Greenland as Rahmstorf and co tell us that melting in the same disastrous way as Antarctica yet no sea ice positive anomalies here.
There AGW loons really want their cake and to heat it


Why is it that, when a graph, or a map with coloured iso-whatevers, is – possibly, perhaps – intended to misdirect, so seeming to expound, whilst actually make obscure – the colours are run together so that deciphering it is j o l l y hard work.
And yet – if it is intended to bring a clear picture to the reader’s attention, the scale, the colours, the background, everything – are as clear and transparent as the purest, freshest mountain air.
And, yeah, in case Mr Moderator is wondering, I do – so very, VERY much, – believe in coincidences.
[Yeah, right. /Sarc]
Auto – with rose coloured glasses a distant memory.

[Snip. Name-calling of other readers is not allowed. ~mod.]

What a Maniacal Maniac.
: affected with or suggestive of madness 2 : characterized by ungovernable excitement or frenzy : frantic
an obsessive enthusiast.
“a religious maniac”
synonyms: enthusiast, fan, addict, devotee, aficionado


The North Atlantic must have really cooled down when the Vikigs settled Greenlland and when the island was much warmer than it is now. Imagine all the fresh water and icebergs that were flowing off Greenland back then. The Gulf Stream must have slowed to a crawl.


But the Vikings settling Greenland was modeled and shown not to have actually happened.


…of course! Silly scientists that rely on artifacts! Or facts…

[Snip. Do not label readers here as ‘deniers’. ~mod.]

NZ Willy

Aha, and the Titanic struck no iceberg in 1912 because the North Atlantic was warmer then! Re-open the investigation into its sinking!


The press release should be filed under “Recylcing”. The Potsdam group is one of the “go to” groups of leveraging computer model speculation that morphs into spinning chaos of the MSM. They have a long history. See this relic from the Way Back Machine:
More runup to “The Meeting”.


Since the MSM is apparently so enamored with the “science” coming out of CAGW computer models, maybe we skeptics should clobber together our own computer models, showing how easy it is to fiddle with equations and boundary conditions to get whatever is desired.

imho, Mark Steyn must be wrong about Michael Mann.
Mikie must be a gotdang freakin genius.
Who else knew you could measure the Gulf Stream with tree rings?
I wonder which tree he used this time?

Digital dexterity.
I missed the k

Non Nomen

Driftwood, I presume.

Eugene WR Gallun

Non Nomen
Driftwood I presume — haha, very quick and witty
Eugene WR Gallun


Actually, Otis Driftwood was more honest than these guys.

Gary Pearse

He at least could go out on the ocean and stick a tree down to see if the current is flowing.


Ships log? 😉

Eugene WR Gallun

Ships log — ouch
Eugene WR Gallun

michael hart

Beam me up, Scotty?

Eugene WR Gallun

michael hart
Beam me up, Scotty?
Beam — wandering but somehow managing to hit the mark.
Eugene WR Gallun


Perhaps it was the tree of knowledge, the rings of which record our descent from the Eden that was Gaia before us humans got our filthy, oily mitts on it.


Can we invent a punctuation mark, along the lines of a question mark or exclamation point, which indicates sarcasm?
Communicating by keyboard seems to demand some new symbols.
Maybe another along the lines of *I was smiling when I said that, so don’t get your knickers in a spin.”

Bloke down the pub

That Mann…

Non Nomen

I always thought so, but now I’n sure: That Mann must be the reincarnation of Oliver Hardy.

[Snip. Do not label readers here as ‘deniers’. ~mod.]

Grey Lensman

Earths rotation and wind drives the surface currents. An Icon of the alarmists has shot this nonsense down but sadly i cannot remember the link. If the posited theory was correct we would have no need to dam rivers, just run a saltwater hose into them.

Great article and as you said in your tweet “Took me no time to counter to this argument.”

Walt D.

The global warming/climate change alarmists seem to be using a tactic I saw in a high school debating contest coaching session.
“Speak very quickly, bring up as many points as possible. That way, your opponents will not have enough time to make their own case and counter all of your arguments in the time allotted.”
It seems we are being subjected to a tsunami of global warming/climate change drivel.


I actually went and looked at the paper by Rossby, and there’s an important disconnect: the area od supposed slowdown (and hence cooldown) in Rahmstorf and Mann’s figure does not overlap with the transect along which Rossby meaured the current (between Bermuda and New Jersey). Hence, without saying Rahmstorf and Mann are wrong or right, their conclusion is not incompatible with Rossby’s paper.

There must be a HUGE mound of water building up then right on the border of the Mannian region of slowdown!

Vince Causey

It must be true because I saw it in a movie sometime!

Joe Bastardi

You, know, its never going to end. Its like the Knight guarding the bridge in Monty Python. No matter how much you chop it up, he is still going to think he wins. Except at least he had the courage to fight in public. None of these people dare take on anyone that can easily counter their arguments. I am amazed because its like they dont even look at the counters to their ideas, and they are so easy to find. BTW the cold water near Greenland promotes a trough in the means in the winter there, countering the very blocking that leads to the cold winters in Europe. Since this rapid drop in N Atlantic temps ( and now off Africa) we have seen 2 relatively mild Euro winters and the destruction of the Main Development Region burst in tropical cyclones which Gray properly forecasted back in the 70s for the 90s into the 2000’s ending by 2020. The massive NPAC warming, very similar to the late 1950s, has helped the Alaskan ridge for the cold eastern winters but it retards the blocking over Greenland by forcing strong mean trough over Eastern N america, which because of the warmth in the western atlantic, allows storms to bomb out near the east coast and then proceed ne for Greenland. I said countless times to the eastern snow lovers that follow me that once to mid winter on, that warm water off the east coast would be their friend not their foe, as the lament about lack of snow this winter in Mid Jan was constantly being directed at me ( We had a very snowy winter forecasted) Obviously that idea had merit ( nothing is perfect, but I do think we showed before hand). My point is that all this is linked and is well within the natural boundary of nature. It comes down to this. Does anyone seriously believe that the increase over a 100 year period of 1molecule of co2 out of 1,000,000 molecules of air is suddenly overcoming the sun, oceans, stochastic events and the very design of the system? And more to the point. how would the ocean, with 1000x the heat capacity of the air, be pushed around by those minute increases of what is only .04% of the atmosphere. It defies any realistic thought


the AGW nonsense does deify realistic thought, but don’t despair, it is going to end. Currently only the truly inane with little left to lose like Mann, Rahmstorf and Tremberth fight on, trying to claim dangerous warming threatens. Many others are pulling back, trying to save their sorry hides by engineering a “warming but less than we thought” soft landing for this inane hoax.
The good news is that they will not be getting the soft landing they pray for, the soft landing some more foolish sceptics think to offer them. The laws of physics cannot be changed by any amount of propaganda. The big lie may have got halfway around the world before the truth had its boots on, but this is the age of the Internet, and the truth now arrives far more swiftly than before. Today the truth wears steel caps with hobnails. Alinskyites that try to create and maintain a “narrative” get stomped.
At the very foundation of the “basic physics” of the “settled science” lays a hideous error that can never be hidden. Remember the foundation claims of the church of radiative climastrology? “Surface without atmosphere” at 255K being raised 33K by the addition of a radiative atmosphere? That claim is locked in. It can never be erased. The idiot warmulonians have made their bed and now they have to lay in it. How they got to the hideous mistake of 255K for “surface without atmosphere” is as painfully obvious as it was inane. They treated the surface as a “near blackbody” and entered 240 w/m2 into a standard Stefan-Boltzmann calculation with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity. Bingo, 255K! But that answer is totally and utterly wrong….
71% of our planets surface is ocean, an extreme SW selective surface. Any engineer versed in solar absorption knows that for liquids that are SW translucent / LWIR opaque, free to convect and intermittently illuminated by solar SW, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation simply cannot work. The very foundation figure for “Surface without atmosphere” average should have been 312K not 255K. Current average? 288K. The net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is therefore surface cooling. The climastrologists and their idiot fellow travellers got it so impossibly wrong it beggars the imagination.
Climastrologists got the most basic calculation in the “basic physics” of the “settled science” about which “the debate was over” completely wrong*. No amount of propaganda, now amount of modelling, and no amount of fudged surface station data can ever hide the ultimate truth. This is the age of the Internet, the lame scream meeja are no longer the gatekeepers of opinion. The putrescent corpse of this sorry hoax cannot be re-animated, nor can it be hidden. This AGW inanity is not “too big to fail”. Lysenkoism failed even with the protection of the soviet state. In the age of the Internet, there is no hope for Gorebull Warbling or any of the fellow travellers.
* If a ~60K error this bad in the very foundation of the radiative GHE hypothesis seems too incredible (and to some fearful lukewarmers it does), just remember that trying to use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine average surface temp for the moon resulted in an error of ~90K when compared to Diviner empirical measurements. The problem was that superfine sharp edged, vacuum insulated basalt powder acted as a strange selective surface. Surface properties matter.
Here’s what the engineers behind the Diviner mission did to check their instruments –comment image
Here’s what the climastrologists should have done to check their inane claims that the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR –
– did they do it? No. Did they do even the simplest empirical checks to see if incident LWIR could slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool? Again No. Now the truth has its boots on they are in for a savage stomping, so too are any fellow travellers who tried to vilify sceptics into silence.


“The putrescent corpse of this sorry hoax cannot be re-animated, nor can it be hidden. “
Nice prose. Frankenstein’s monster did destroy its master in the end, not in the literal sense but reputationally as society rejected the hideously grotesque creation. Victor then pursued his grotesque creation of all places… into the frozen Arctic. Even the way the way the monster was created is analogous to CAGW theory – stolen adultered (putrified flesh in your analogy) parts and secret formulas together with a violent storm and lightning.
CAGW = Frankenstein’s monster, soon to be totally rejected by society. It creators vainly searching the Arctic cold for answers.

Good comment Konard, and you put it very well for a such short comment.

“vacuum insulated” Just thinking that through… makes my head hurt… 8D


Nice setup!
Question for you on the picture. You seem to show 50% duty cycling at 1000 W/m2. This implies a time averaged 500 W/m2. Is that correct?
If it is, then water with LW emissivity of 0.95 with no other losses and no ambient (“back”) radiation would average at about 312K, which I believe you are saying you found.
But that would be about twice the time-averaged and surface-averaged radiative flux hitting the earth. Have you repeated the experiment with, say, a 25% duty cycle for a time-averaged 250 W/m2?


[snip – wildy off-topic – stop it – Anthony]


So many ideas for a cartoon. I wish I could draw.

Eustace Cranch

I apologize in advance for this pedantic moment…
Actually the Black Knight and the Bridgekeeper were two different folks. Thinking about it though, either character works as Mann. Picture Mann as the Bridgekeeper- finally getting tripped up on his own question and tossed into the volcano, heh.


I pictured him balancing on one leg, blood spurting from where his other three limbs were, still convinced his victory was forthcoming.

Joe Bastardi, Bob Tisdale

Since this rapid drop in N Atlantic temps ( and now off Africa) we have seen 2 relatively mild Euro winters and the destruction of the Main Development Region burst in tropical cyclones which Gray properly forecasted back in the 70s for the 90s into the 2000’s ending by 2020. The massive NPAC warming, very similar to the late 1950s, has helped the Alaskan ridge for the cold eastern winters but it retards the blocking over Greenland by forcing strong mean trough over Eastern N america, which because of the warmth in the western atlantic, allows storms to bomb out near the east coast and then proceed ne for Greenland.

There is some circulation up (north) through the Bering Straits from the northwest Pacific through the Arctic Ocean (under the sea ice obviously) then down (south) into the Atlantic. Is part of today’s reduced sea ice off of both sides of the Kamchatka Peninsula (the southern Okhotsk coast and in the northern part of the Bering Sea) due to an influx of the last fall and summer’s “very warm” northwest Pacific bubble up north during Dec-Jan-Feb?

[Strike 3. You’re out. ~mod.]

Perhaps his proxies are not the only things upside down.

The Gulf Stream is driven by surface winds (and then confined by the continental shelf that is at least 200 metres deep).
It is driven across the Atlantic from Africa to the Gulf of Mexico by the Trade Winds. It is then runs up to the 200 metre depth continental shelf of North America, is squeezed along Florida into the North Atlantic. The water is constantly flowing in and it has to keep flowing out.
It then picks up the winds now moving south-west to north-east flowing off of North America and this drives it all the way back across the Atlantic to the north side of Europe.
The Gulf Stream is always going to flow as long as the Earth is rotating, setting up a certain pattern of winds and confined by continental margins.
Has the Earth changed its rotation. Did the continents move. Did the winds slow down.

Very cool. Especially like the mayhem in the last one.
As Peter Berenyi and others have pointed out have pointed out, the thermal/saline density gradient is waaay too small to actually drive the THC. Wind is a likely candidate again, particularly the Antarctic vortex working as a centrifugal pump.


Interesting, and makes sense. The wind does indeed blow the top 5 m of water, and no doubt lower levels follow along.
And I noted in the NASA simulation that the syncline of the surface waters was driven as much by the ocean floor topography, as the temperature. I mean, if you drive down a cul-de-sac at some speed, where are you going to go when you meet the barriers at the end….?

Grey Lensman

Bill, does the 900 mph rotation of earth at the equator exert a greater force on the air or water?

Stephen Richards

1000mph ? 25000 miles in 24 hrs

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Stephen, do you have a problem with that? It’s 24,901 mph to be precise. 465 metres in one second.

Grey Lensman

No, its driven by the earths rotation, as is the earths trade winds. the winds augment it. It is only the boundary condition, where it finally loses energy and sinks that fluctuates due to temperature/density variations.


Mr. Lensman sir:
“No, its driven by the earths rotation, as is the earths trade winds. the winds augment it.”.
With all due respect, I do not believe it is correct to say that the rotation of the earth drives the trade winds or the oceanic circulation gyres.
My understanding is that the sun provides the energy which begins the motion of the atmosphere.
Air rising in response to solar heating near the equator causes the motion of the Hadley cells. As the rising air reaches it’s maximum altitude and begins to move poleward, this is where the effect of the Earth’s rotation show up. Ditto for the air which moves in to replace the rising air…the trade winds. Air moving north or south appears, from the vantage point of a surface observer, to move in a curve, in order that angular momentum is conserved.
Coriolis is only an apparent force, not a source of energy per se. Inertia man, no getting away from it.
Same goes for water as for wind…if it moves north or south, it is deflected to the right in the NH, and to the left in the SH.

WHEN the Gulf Stream slows down, as sometimes during ice age glacials, water near Florida warms up. Were Florida waters warming we would have more hurricanes. The water isn’ t, and we don’t.
There was an open access paper on this that dissapeared behind a paywall after I linked to it a couple of years ago… well researched paleo weather history of Florida showing counter cylical with N. Europe and Gulf Stream flow changes. The link I have is now dead, though I have a couple of quotes saved in the article I wrote then. Florida winter goes to summer pattern weather as the flow slows, so more thunder storms. (now winters are more dry) Also the pollen shifts as the oak to pine ratio shifts. Slow Gulf Stream lets the shallow Gulf of Mexico accumulate / keep more of the solar heating.
So until there are more reports of excess winter rain and more hurricanes in Florida, the Gulf Stream is still running as recent norms predict.

Found that Florida paper… looks like the guy moved to a new .edu … It was first linked by me in a posting here:
but is now found at this link:
There are a couple of nice graphs in it (one shows oaks vs pines and you can see the pines take over as the holocene kicks in, with peaks of pine at the Holocene Optimum, then a drop, and a recent small rise in oaks as we’ve started the cooling of the LIA. He also studies Mercury deposition that has a nice peak at the Holocene Optimum too… It also shows “recent warming” as a hair of a blip on the end of a long cooling past the H.O. peak, and just barely out of the LIA. The paper does worry that the Hg peak might be an error due to something being different in Hg flow then, and it might be… or maybe it was just hotter…
All in all a little known but interesting confirmation of the LIA and H.O. and that recent “warming” is nearly nothing.
At any rate, Florida is presently warm, but not exceptionally so, and when the Gulf Stream shuts down or slows a lot, there ought to be heat build up in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida reflected in warmer wetter conditions ( unlike a decade or so back when John’s Lake completely dried up due to low rainfall… indicating it was warmer in Europe then, but colder and dryer in Florida. You remember, when it froze so much the Iguana were falling out of their trees… )
Watch for such inverse linkages as the Warmers will try to use them “straight” to claim warming is continuing when it really is cooling… Like California drought that happens when the water off shore is colder (as in the ’70s droughts and as in the early near LIA era megadroughts). How they can claim warmer water makes more precipitation as snow but less as rain is an interesting study in bafflegab… just have to ignore the actual water temperatures and the jet stream changes… and reality…


Mr. Smith, I think that it is important to point out that there will only be more hurricanes is the conditions of the atmosphere permit them to form and persist.
They need, in addition to warm water, relatively light winds at different levels of the atmosphere, and sufficient moisture at various levels to allow convection be maintained for long enough to allow a closed circulation to form.
Wind shear will tear them apart no matter the water temp if upper level winds are strong, and areas of dry air will prevent formation, and/or strengthening, even when other conditions are met.
I recall well the very day in 2004 when it seemed that someone hit a switch. I think what happened is that upper level winds slackened suddenly, and the impulses which where already there had nothing holding them back. It was quite a thing to be living in South Florida for the rest of that season and all of the next.
Now, I do not mean to say that you are incorrect to say warmer waters near Florida will lead to more hurricanes, just that this is not the whole story.
It may be that a cooler world has lighter winds in the upper atmosphere of the tropics, and hence more hurricanes that a warmer world, in which the upper level winds may be stronger in response to the increase in available energy.


“Now freshwater coming off the melting Greenland ice sheet is likely disturbing the circulation,” says Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. The freshwater is diluting the ocean water.

The freshwater is diluting the ocean water?
How much freshwater as rainwater dilutes the ocean water on a daily, monthly, or yearly basis?
This crew sounds like Bill Nye The Science Guy on Larry King with Richard Lindzen eight years ago:

At 00:45 seconds, Nye cites An Inconvenient Truth as stating that when the ice caps melt and that freshwater flows into the sea, it upsets the thermohaline ocean circulation, and the “oceans get bigger,” because “when it gets warmer, warm things expand.”
Richard Lindzen at 1:34 minutes says, “Nye was talking about perhaps freshwater shutting down the Gulf Stream, but that isn’t what physical oceanographers think . . . the Gulf Stream is mostly driven by wind. To shut it down you’d have to stop the rotation of the earth or shut off the wind.”


Did Rahmstorf and Mann cite Bill Nye and Al Gore in their references?

For as inaccurate as they are, they might just as well cite Pee Wee Herman

I propose that we add 2 new technical terms:
manniacted – defined as modification of data in an unusual or torturous way
dorfed – defined as assuming model output is the same as data.

John B()

I like how Bill Nye blames humans – EXTRA ones


I picked up on that too. I’d like him to explain how many “extra” humans there are in the world. What does Nye think the opitmum number of humans is?


optimum number of humans: 10 women for every man no doubt. The data was already run inthe early 60’s by Dr Strangelove.

I certainly consider Bill Nye superfluous and unnecessary.

M Courtney

Greenland’s ice mass seems to be on the increase so far this year and above the 1990-2011 mean.

Well, doesn’t that prove that Greenland really is surrounded by unusually cold water?
It’s obviously a sign of a positive feedback.


First rule of climate ‘science’ when reality and the models differ its reality which is in error , so they are merely working to the rules and at the simply awful ‘standards ‘ not just acceptable but honoured within climate ‘science’ The fact its first class cra* is merely a side issue.


It is a travesty, for sure.

In the game of Ice Hokey, this’d be the hockey puck! 😉



Harry Passfield

Have read the abstract, ichi, but I’m darned if I’ll pay for more of Mann’s words. Then again, do you get your copy free?



Harry Passfield

So you paid for it, ichi? How much?

Pamela Gray

The paper is free. Use Google Scholar as your search engine when searching for journal articles, and include the acronym “pdf” along with the title and lead author (or sometimes one of the well known authors works better) in the search engine window. This tactic will often lead to an open access print.

Doug Proctor

Mann doesn’t do anything for free. He follows the Gore and the Hansen on this.

Tom J

Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say yours truly wrote a scienterbatory paper on how human satellite launches were affecting the rotation of the Earth and potentially affecting its orbit around the Sun which therefore might have some impact on the rotation of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Do you honestly believe you’d read that paper?
Bur if your answer is ‘yes’ it wouldn’t really surprise me.


Just an FYI. Everything from the question mark [?] on in a web address that you’re copying can be deleted in the URL when you paste. What you are deleting is the tracking or referral info.
So, this: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2554.epdf
would arrive at the same point as the eight-liner shown above.


And the token info (tracking or referral) you delete identifies you.

D.J. Hawkins

If you use the short version, it takes you to the abstract and “pony up $32, please”. If you use the long version, it takes you right into the paper.


They used modelling and GISS data instead of ADCP. That’s game over right there. Anyone who uses GISS for anything is instantly discredited as a squealing propagandist.
If you wanted to waste further time entertaining the possibility that something Mann was involved in wasn’t unadulterated tripe, you could check the references. Go on, just how many are referencing Mann and Rahmstorf’s previous drivel? And the others? What have you got left after you weed out all those from members of the “Hockey Team” implicated in the shameful climategate emails?
You can help it, you just need to get your head around the concept that the Global Warming hoax is dead and that to keep on digging is just going to bury even more of the activists, journalists and politicians of the left when this stupid hole you are digging caves in. For those currently toiling at the bottom of said hole there can be no escape. There is no “too big to fail”. You and yours have seriously underestimated the power of the Internet.
While I may have some temporary satisfaction in seeing the professional left commit political suicide, I am not so foolish to believe that democracy is perfect or any side of politics is always right. The adversarial system has its faults, but it has its uses. “icouldnthelpit”, if you want to make a useful contribution, I can assure you supporting the AGW hoax is a dead end, as are the careers of all those currently tainted by their vilification of sceptics. You need an emergency backup, you need sceptics on the left. Or rather, everyone needs sceptics on the left, otherwise this is going to end very badly.



Ulric Lyons

So if the gulf stream is not slowing, where does the warm flow go during a slow AMOC event?
It accumulates in the north Atlantic and spills into the Arctic instead of overturning.
Low AMOC events tightly correlate with negative NAO episodes, e.g. early summer 2007 and mid summer 2012, and cold winter months in 2010 and March 2013:
IPCC models predict increasingly positive NAO with increased GHG’s.
Seas south of Greenland warm up from these negative NAO episodes:
Demonstrate a solar forcing of the NAO, and that would tie the whole thing up.

Stephen Richards

It overturns. It has to.

Ulric Lyons

Except when it nearly stops during strongly negative NAO/AO episodes:

“Read the Paper”? I couldn’t get past the first line of the press release:
“The gradual but accelerating melting of the Greenland ice-sheet, caused by mann-made global warming”
Signed killed and delivered, what’s there to read?
And the song goes: “The arm bone’s connected to the hand bone” and the oceans are connected to everything else.. Ammen!




I agree which is probably why you might think about changing your handle to willfulignoranceandIlikeit.
Also agree with the badge of honor idea, you could make willful ignorance badges and sell them on eBay. A picture with you wearing the badge would sell tons.
Well, what about that, huh?

It is a shame and you really should stop doing it.
At least you’ve taken the first step and admitted your problem.


The premise that the Greenland Ice sheet is decreasing immediately debunks the paper when it claims the opposite (from reality) thus it is very safe to throw the paper in the trash…


“Willful ignorance” is the only thing keeping normal people from wasting time learning about stupid things, like crop circles, UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, or this lightweight paper designed to be more propaganda than science.



Shinku. Have a look at GRACE data to see how much ice Greenland is losing.

Those assumptions from the GRACE satellites are based on assumptions of land rebound approximations under the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. The land rebound is not measured, and not based on mid-field ice cores, but on assumed ice loss. Thus, because the ice mass is assumed to be reduced, the land is assumed to be rising under the ice, and thus the ice is “measured” being lost. The actual data from GRACE doesn’t actually measure ice loss.


(Snip. You have been repeatedly warned about labeling others as “deniers”. Commenting here is a privelege, not a right. Since you have a hard time learning the site Policy, your comments for the 24 hours surrounding this post will be snipped. When you’re out of the doghouse, please keep the site Policy in mind. -mod)
[Anthony, this is a previously banned sockpuppet. You know who. ~mod]

Harry Passfield

From the paper:

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Bwahahaha You mean, someone’s going to pay Mann NOT to write this kind of stuff? Then again, interesting use of the word ‘competing’.


Doesn’t that just mean they are all being paid by the same people?

Eugene WR Gallun

It says — no financial interests compete with their paper
No one is paying anyone else to dispute their paper
It also implies that someone is paying them to write the paper
They are being paid and there are no competing financial interests paying others.to dispute their paper
Amusingly it says that skeptics don’t get paid for their work. And truly, no skeptics got paid for ripping this worthless paper apart.
Mann doesn’t lie all the time. Sometimes he accidentally tells the truth.
Eugene WR Gallun

Eugene WR Gallun
March 24, 2015 at 7:10 am

It also implies that someone is paying them to write the paper

That phrasing also means/only means that the people who paid the authors AGREED (in advance ?) with the purpose and premise and conclusions written into the article; and indicates those people paying for the article apparently agreed with the purpose, premise, and conclusions of the article before the agreement to pay for the article was made, and thus both the conclusion and the agreement were made before the article was written.


It bears noting that in discussions such as this one, as well as most others on skeptical websites and blogs, the source and/or fact of a person’s funding is noted, but only in passing, while the science is taken apart piece by piece and in great detail.
On warmista sites, funding is the beginning and end of the conversation for many commenters. IOW, it is all one needs to do, to point out funding. Same with any number of prior affiliations one might have.
“Well, the author’s daughter’s teachers nephew once mowed the lawn of a guy who works at The Heartland Institute, so I think that says all we need to know about this paper.”

Harry Passfield

PS: I note you have to pay to see who the reviewers were. Odds on they are anonymous anyway.

M Courtney

Well, it would only be polite.
They must be rather embarrassed about missing the relevance of the Rossby paper.
I’m sure Nature will investigate how they found themselves with such unqualified reviewers but there’s no reason to humiliate them, is there?
Let’s just ask Nature how their investigation is going.

Harry Passfield

M Courtney: [Chortle].

Chip Javert

M Courtney
I assume in your statement “Nature will investigate how they found themselves with such unqualified reviewers but there’s no reason to humiliate them, is there?”, the last “them” refers to the poor unqualified reviewers.
I have no problem with being held accountability (or holding others accountable), but then I’m a retired CFO; auditors, public disclosure and Wall St Journal headlines loomed around every corner. I guess in academe people are too polite to disclose who did the review, or (god forbid!) to publicly comment if a reviewer really screwed the pooch. I won’t waste a whole lot of words on oblivious unqualified professionals who aren’t self aware enough to realize (or care) that they are…wait for it… unqualified.
The ongoing academic lack of accountability just amazes me.


List of probable anonymous reviewers:
Stefan Rahmstorf, Jason E. Box,Georg Feulner, Michael E. Mann, Alexander Robinson, Scott Rutherford,
Erik J. Schaffernicht.

Correction, the proper response is, Ah Mann! 😉

Harry Passfield

The first sentence of the abstract is a gem [my bold]:

Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change.

They missed out ‘perhaps, could, maybe’, and the best: ‘you never know’.

M Seward

Harry, what we really have here is Michael Mann running AMOC in the field of science. Again.
This latest effort by Mann is so risible that I was immediately reminded of that great scene in Annie Proulx ‘The Shipping News’. When the risk of some fluffy white cumulus clouds on the horizon actually being a ‘Deadly Storm’ that ‘Threatens Town’, as speculated by the local newspaper publisher, is suggested as being ridiculous it is laughed off as being immaterial because then the prospective headline is ‘Town Saved From Deadly Storm’.
Mann, the IPCC and all the cloud of CAGW insects will celebrate how they saved the Earth from CAGW when it is finally accepted that the science shows it was all a farrago of nonsense.
I once read that society is actually defined by its outliers, its miscreants and deviants. It is how we know that we are doing the right thing. Michael Mann is one of those sad little lost souls that let the rest of us know we are not off our heads.
He is Smeagol/Gollum to our Bilbo. Pity him.
Such is life.

Eugene WR Gallun

M Seward
farrago — I learned a new word. Thankyou.
Eugene WR Gallun


When is Penn State University going to disown this unscientific propagandist? Or are they going to change their charter from an institution of higher learning to an institution of shoddy work and unsupported assertions?
Where is the internal peer review on the quality of his work and accuracy of his conclusions? Very sad.

You mean ‘Sandusky U.’
(It’s a verb now.)

Chip Javert

Excellent point. This peer review stuff might have worked in the middle ages when just a few guys in town could actually read tour stuff.
Now days the academic community has out grown this gentle “self management” approach, because, among other things (according to climate gate email), reviewers first allegiance is to “the team”, not the science.

Tom J

From the above post I found the following quote from Stefan Rahmstorf discussing the movie, “The Hooey After Tomorrow” (oops, I meant day after tomorrow), really rather interesting.
‘For this type of movie for a very broad audience it is actually quite subversive and manages to slip in many thought-provoking things.’
It’s funny how people give themselves away, most of the time without even knowing it. Notice the use of the word ‘subversive.’ To insure I understood the meaning of the word I looked it up using our ever trusty Wikipedia. The definition is copied below:
‘Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order… Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place, are contradicted or reversed. More specifically, subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale… Subversion is used as a tool to achieve political goals because it generally carries less risk, cost, and difficulty as opposed to open belligerency. Furthermore, it is a relatively cheap form of warfare that does not require large amounts of training. A subversive is something or someone carrying the potential for some degree of subversion.’
Yep, I’d say Rahmstorf has just given the whole CAGW game away with just one word.


Gulf stream “slowing” would result in a quick cool-down of NW Europe & increased sea-ice. When that happens, wake us up. Just more fear-mongering.


If the Gulf Stream was slower, would it not linger in the tropics longer, and thus be hotter as it moved northward and, being hotter and moving slower, would this not allow more time and greater thermal gradient to transfer this heat to the overlying air, and thus be a net wash?

Dr. Mann’s contribution to the paper seems to have been his proxy data and related statistical manipulations.

To validate the proxy reconstructions of temperature we use standard techniques developed during the past two decades in the paleoclimate community.

As usual, the accuracy of statistical techniques is presumed to increase the accuracy of his proxy analysis.

The probability to get a value as low as the observed 1975‐1995 mean just by chance is thus the joint probability over the data uncertainty and the Monte Carlo distribution, i.e. the product of the two distributions shown, integrated over all temperature anomalies (i.e. the x‐axis). For the data shown this number is 0.45%, which implies a 99.55% significance of the 1975‐1995 AMOC reduction.

The mind boggles.

Harry Passfield

Opluso: I get the feeling that a certain Canadian statistician is going to have field day on this. I do hope so.


How does one scare the public without technically committing fraud?
Weasel words, that’s how.
“could impact marine ecosystems”
“could have major negative effects”
“could happen as early as within this century”
“could contribute to further weakening ”
“If the circulation weakens”
“If the slowdown of the Atlantic overturning continues”
“if temperatures are allowed to rise ”
“overturning circulation might be to blame”
“this effect might increase”
“impacts might be substantial”
“possible contribution of the melting”
“Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC)”
“possible tipping element in the Earth System”
“global warming, is a possible major contributor”

Faint / elusive evidence of existence of potential is not any evidence of existence of outcome.


Stop it Dan, my head is starting to hurt.
BUT one thing’s for sure, this AGW now “Climate Change” topic is going to be a huge factor in the coming elections both here in the USA, Canada (Nov. ’15), Brittain etc. The schreeching from the left is going to be louder than ever seeing that more and more people are seeing through it and it is also far down on the list of worries but the problem is that it makes for great Video on TV in Political ads and TV ( Storms , big waves , torn houses, breaking trees etc) compared to people dying from shit,y healthcare or the lack of jobs, falling down bridges and breaking up of road decks etc
Sadly we will see this type of hype increase everywhere and the attacks on viable candidates increase day by day!.


Come on, if they left out shoulda, woulda, and coulda…how would they be able to talk?

Bruce Cobb

When Climate Liars can’t think up new sciency-sounding nonsense, they dig up old, long-debunked nonsense, shiny it up, put lipstick on it, and hope it will fly. Or at least crawl.

David A

Actually they hope the media will have a field day, promoting it for a week, while ignoring the critics, and then their propaganda will be considered successful, and they will get more funding. (sadly it appears to work)


So if the Gulf stream is slowing down shouldn’t we be seeing more sea ice in the Barents Sea, not less?

Harry Passfield

From the abstract:

Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium

Raises the question, what proxies? (I’m not paying to find out), and, how is that the ‘AMOC weakness after 1975’ has only just reared its head? If it’s so ‘unprecedented…in the past millennium’?


Analyzing climate model data is right up there now with reading tea leaves.
Actually I’ve heard, anecdotal of course, that reading tea leaves produces far more reliable results.

Ulric Lyons

From the Abstract:
“Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium”
Given that low AMOC events are inextricably linked to negative North Atlantic Oscillation episodes, and that increased GHG’s should increase positive NAO, they have shot themselves in the foot.


Looking at the Gulf Stream where is shoots through between Florida and Cuba, sediment studies have shown that the Gulf Stream speeds up with warming and slows down with cooling, based on water viscosity. The assumption that melt water from Greenland would stop the flow begs the question of where the freshwater goes. It would follow the typical clockwise flow and head toward Europe and then south. As this state would be with warming, the northward Gulf Stream waters would be evaporating and becoming denser faster and likely need to sink long before it runs into the fresh water melt.


I just sailed across the Gulf Stream twice. It was such a tremendous push I was shocked.
According to the data I saw, it was actually stronger than it normally is in February when I crossed between the north side of Cuba and Mexico. Literally, boat stopping strong!


I rarely comment in any article where either of these two jokers is mentioned because they are to Climate Alarmist Pseudocience what the Sky Dragon Slayers are to Climate Skeptic Pseudoscience. Indeed, I would pay good money to put Mann, Rahmstorf, Joe Olson, and maybe John O’Sullivan into an arena wearing lucha libre stretchy pants and broadcast the result on TV. Fully body slams, spinning kicks, neck-locks. Bill Nye can be the referee.
Seriously — they found “good evidence” that such a slowing is occurring, only the actual evidence, consisting of the measured speed of the Gulf Stream itself, shows no such thing?
The cognitive dissonance involved is stupifying. That’s why I rarely comment — it leaves me speechless (no easy task) and disgusted (pretty easy these days:-). And yes, Day After Tomorrow was easily one of the dumbest movies from a scientific point of view that I’ve ever watched a few minutes of before concluding that the plot, the science, the acting, the storyline, the writing, the premise, and the thrilling conclusion were not, actually, worth diverting my questing intelligence from the worthy activity of watching the grass grow or contemplating the pattern of veins and floaters visible when I close my eyes.
The sad thing is that the hypothesis is a reasonable one, and has been around for a long time. It is one of the mechanisms proposed to explain the Younger Dryas — the breaking of an ice dam and draining of Lake Aggasiz:
interrupted thermohaline circulation and raised the sea level by 1 to 3 meters (yes, meters) suddenly, caused a true global cooling event in years circa 8200 BCE (and possibly in a distinct event the Younger Dryas circa 13,000 BCE) and may have been the origin of the flood myth, as a three meter rise in ocean level over decades may have been what flooded the Black Sea through the Bosperus (although the evidence for this is very mixed — the Black Sea was itself a huge freshwater glacial melt lake at around that time with comparatively rapidly varying level anyway).
It is also “undeniably” true that in a chaotic climate, even small changes that have nothing to do with “global warming” can easily cause large natural shifts in things like the self-organization of circulation patterns and “rapidly” shift the climate.
This makes any and all claims non-falsifiable. Hell, it’s worse than that! They might even be true! Chaos theory contains the moral equivalent of the homeopathic hypothesis or “smart water” — small fluctuations are amplified into — anything you want to claim! Hey, it is all possible! No limits! I sneeze, and in ten years the ice age cometh…

G. Karst

Am I the only person who has NOT watched “The Day After Tomorrow” ? I regarded it’s viewing as a form of self abuse. Was I wrong? I feel the same whenever I read Mann’s writings… when and where it oozes out of its carbuncle here. GK


Don’t feel too self abused. Movie had stupid science but great special effects; enjoy those and forget the rest.

Just Steve

Consider the author of The Day After Tomorrow…..Art Bell. ‘Nuff said.

Gunga Din

March 24, 2015 at 9:21 am
Don’t feel too self abused. Movie had stupid science but great special effects; enjoy those and forget the rest.

Yes, the special effects were good enough to use a shot of styrofoam breaking appart CGI’ed into a glacier calving in his “An Incontinent Ruse” (where the BS never stops) but was “stupid science”. Not quite science fiction. More like fantasy.

D.J. Hawkins

My wife managed to enjoy it as a story, despite my constantly shouting “Are you kidding me??!!” at the TV throughout.

Yes, and that is precisely why chaos theory is a waste of time. Time? Now we’re getting somewhere. One rail of science since Pythagoras is that truth is universal, necessary, certain and timeless. Time does not exist. A more recent rail: Geological change, evolution (on many levels), and probability. On this rail truth is specific, relative, conditional, and time is of the essence.
We zap between these rails seeking certain and timeless probability in the perhaps vain hope that time can somehow be cancelled in the equation.

Chaos theory contains the moral equivalent of the homeopathic hypothesis or “smart water” — small fluctuations are amplified into — anything you want to claim!

Good Lord, I live in the Land of Homeopathy and All That Is Imbecilic. There are times when I feel like there is no escape. From Qigong, to essential oils, to herbs that can do more things than CO2, to accupuncture, to sound therapy, to karma cleansing, to chakras alignment, to naturopathy, to TCM, to wholistic everything, to aroma therapy, … that’s all there is. That’s all people talk about. That and showing Instagram photos of what they ate last.

This IS my world …

LOL one of my favorites been a bit since i watched so of course had to watch again

Nick Stokes

As often here, people “refute” without looking at the time scales. Rahmstorf’s paper says (abstract):
“Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered.”
So the “refutation” has Rossby saying:
” two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease”
And we are shown the last few years of Greenland ice melt.
There is no dissonance – and no refutation.

Gary Pearse

Two things:
1) The pause has been eating away at the psychological health of the diehard core (various reports of climate blues). They’re now worried about cooling and this is their crippled way to get ahead of the cooling curve. You get it! If things continue to cool, then Mike and Stephan have some skin in the game. More to come, and the pied piper effect will be infecting the rest of them. Watch for NCAR, NOAA, Potsdam, Max Planck Inst., Wegener Inst., UEA, and the next IPCC report. I’m 95% certain of this. Anthony, open a department for rationalization of the cooling and tick them off as they come. This is number 1.
2) The seriousness of this straw clutch insurance is that M has thrown the handle of his hockey stick under the bus (Steyn take note). He says this hasn’t happened since 900AD … wait for it… the last time Greenland was melting was during the Medieval Warming period!!! This is an Inuit hockey stick with a blade on both ends. Hey and guess what happened when the MWP ended.


As I said yesterday about Jerry Moonbeam Brown: The new hot-buttons of Climate Change will be “extreme cold”, because of the much bigger cold dollar damages to the economy that can be claimed from heavy snows and ice (e.g., in the North East US this winter).

David A

That is catastrophic anthropogenic global yo yo. (When it is cooling it is CA, when it is warming it is CA,


I thought GISS was land stations. They use ERSST for ocean areas. Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST). They don’t use satellite data because it has been found to show lower temperatures. They say it on their site.


Okay, this seals the deal that Mann is a serial science fraud with model malpractice as the main tool.


Anomalous snowfall in the Atlantic around Greenland has introduced more cold water into the ocean than any amount of melting can contribute.


I get it. Its going to be published next Wednesday.

David Smith

Made me laugh!

George Tetley

Medieval Mann or Modern Mann, somewhere in between the program got stuck on stupid.


“Possible / could / may be due to / evidence suggesting / seems to / suggests that /could contribute / uncertainty / might be substantial / could have / observations suggest / is likely / might be to blame/ possible major contributor / this effect might / in some respects …”
Anyhow, apart from that, the science is settled (in some likely, possible respects).


These are words and phrases used in the hypothesis stage. I hope for their own sake that they are not peddling this as settled science. DR;TL

They don’t use satellite data because it has been found to show lower temperatures. They say it on their site.
wow. they actually admit that the reason not to use satellites is because they show lower temps??? if so that is one of the most unscientific statements ever made. normally if different sources show different results, you want to incorporate this into your error and uncertainty calculations, not simply ignore one source in favor of the other. WOW!!


Particularly so since Greenland, with a km or so of ice on top of a km or so high plateau, experiences the directly and precisely measured (by satellite) mid-troposphere temperatures, not the corrupt land surface temperatures generated by NASA GISS or Hadley. They had a cow three years ago when Greenland actually experienced day or two where temperatures on the plateau went up TO freezing, which is indeed a rarity because it is damn cold up there.
What I had not realized is until seeing the data above is that Greenland has apparently increased is low-water mark icepack by 250 Gt in only three or four years, if the graph is to be believed. Arctic sea ice doesn’t affect SLR, but icepack accrual on top of an icebound plateau that never gets above freezing is a rather big deal! That almost perfectly balances the assertions of land ice loss in Antarctica, to within maybe 10 Gt/year. Antarctica’s “warming trend” of 0.05C/decade (which is “significant” according to the wikipedia article on this subject) is supposedly responsible for the ice loss there, even though most of the ice loss comes from a single peninsula and there is a strong possibility that the heat source responsible is geothermal and coming up under the ice, not down from above it, as (sorry) surface temperatures have basically not varied in most of the continent and remain colder than a digger of local water service access points derriere, more than cold enough that the only substantial loss mechanism is direct sublimation as it basically never melts at the surface and is very, very, very cold at the surface almost all of the year. As in Minnesota is downright balmy compared to Antarctica on its mile+ high interior plateau with its enormously thick layer of ice.
I sometimes think that people have completely forgotten how to do back of the envelope estimations, but if land ice is diminishing — and I mean the “if” as nobody ever shows error bars in climate science, they just make statements about numbers as if they are true and perfectly known and there is no question at all about the statistics or methodology used to get them — at only 10 Gt/year, it is going to take a long, long time for any significant SLR to occur due to land ice melt. The Arctic could become “ice free” and not affect SLR at all, but as long as the Greenland ice pack increases at 60+ or so Gt/year, we could even see SLR stabilize or drop for the first time in the observational record, although on longer timescales the ocean’s level fluctuates substantially from completely natural causes that are not anthropogenic CO_2.




I sometimes think that people have completely forgotten how to do back of the envelope estimations
Now you need a computer and software, never question the output and assume that the answer is 96.999999% correct.

michael hart

“I sometimes think that people have completely forgotten how to do back of the envelope estimations,…”

And I think you will often be correct, rgb. The MSM is usually incapable of performing a smell-test, but we should still expect better from others who anoint themselves with the title of climate-“scientist”.

Gary Pearse

rbg re ice sheets and SLR:
Some rough data. The thickest part of the Greenland sheet is 3km, and the mean altitude is ~2km. Much of rock below the ice is near or at sea level. For Antarctica, similar mean altitude, thickest ice ~4.5km. Land of West Antarctica below the ice is as much as 2500m below sea-level. So for all the fuss, particularly concerning West Antarctica, a fair proportion of the ice is already displaced in terms of SLR. A second aspect is when you push a continent down into the mantle, the land bulges up around the periphery, already displacing a fair amount of the ice (ice SG ~1, sea crustal rocks ~3). Here is a cross section across Antarctica that illustrates this geometry.
There is considerable volcanic activity below the ice of W. Antarctica and offshore and even to the north and north east of East Antarctica where much there is little known. I suspect the volcanics are enhanced and induced by the pressure created by mass of Antarctic ice and similarly in the case of Greenland where there has also been detected hot spots under the ice and sea floor volcanoes in a train southerly from Svalbard that, were apparently recently discovered. This and the volcanics on Iceland are probablay also enhanced by the pressure of on the mantle below Greenland. The volcanics are therefore, in part, likely some of the displacement of the ice mass. If the ice loss is going to be a slow affair taking thousands of years, isostatic rebound will reduce ~1/3 of the SLR.

Ulric Lyons

UAH lower troposphere does not diverge from SST’s. The recent faster warming rates of continental interiors is due to precipitation changes due to the warm AMO mode.

They don’t use satellite data
that is like using a single tree ring series as a proxy for the entire world because it just happens to match thermometer data some of the time, while ignoring all other tree ring series. just because something happens to match doesn’t mean it does so because it is accurate. a stopped clock gets the right time twice a day, while a running clock is rarely if ever exactly right.


Yeah, that one is one that bothers me enormously as well. Especially when I strongly suspect that they don’t even keep all of the tree ring data that matches the supposedly accurate (but really not) thermometric record. I mean thermometric “anomaly” record. Actually, I have no idea what I mean. Nobody does. The other great swindle in all of this is the illusion that given j = 1,2 readings from 100 thermometers at two different times the change in the average temperature at the two times:
= \sum_i T_{ij}/100
\Delta T =  -
is less accurate than the average change in the temperature “anomaly” at the two times:
= (T_{i1} + T_{i2})/2
= \sum_i (T_{i2} - )/100 - \sum_i (T_{i2} - )/100,
In particular that either one of the deltas is more accurate than either $latex $ itself. I keep going over this argument and I just don’t get it. You’re a stats guy, right? Is there something I missed learning in statistics that suggests that these two statements aren’t pure algebraic rearrangements of each other? The second average just cancels out one of the two terms and recovers the first form, does it not? Maybe I need to sit down with paper because I’m missing something.

NZ Willy

Presumably you meant “Σ ᵢ (T ᵢ₁ -)” for the 2nd term there, rgb. I agree that the two forms are equivalent, but perhaps the latter is a generalized one which is more easily applied to heterogeneous data, e.g., if each thermometer covers different surface areas in the two epochs.

The Gulf Stream today …. is chaotic
See image and animation

Ralph Kramden

but we find absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down
It doesn’t matter whether the gulf stream is slowing these guys still get paid. The US government will pay for anything that supports their alarmist view, whether is true not doesn’t matter. I’m hoping a new administration will stop paying for this say anything propaganda machine.