Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The alleged weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation appears to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling, like the plot of the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.

Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change

The last ice age wasn’t one long big chill. Dozens of times temperatures abruptly rose or fell, causing all manner of ecological change. Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

These currents, which today drive the Gulf Stream, bring warm surface waters north and send cold, deeper waters south. But they weakened suddenly and drastically, nearly to the point of stopping, just before several periods of abrupt climate change, researchers report today in Science. In a matter of decades, temperatures plummeted in the north, as the currents brought less warmth in that direction. Meanwhile, the backlog of warm, southern waters allowed the Southern Hemisphere to heat up.

AMOC slowdowns have long been suspected as the cause of the climate swings during the last ice age, which lasted from 110,000 to 15,000 years ago, but never definitively shown. The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”

Another question is whether the AMOC—currently known to be in decline—could drop off suddenly today, as depicted in the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow, causing temperatures to plummet across northwestern Europe. Schmittner says the past provides an eye-opener. “It’s evidence that this really did happen in the past, on short time scales.” But McManus says that studies looking deeper into the ice ages have found that the 1500-year climate oscillations tend not to be nearly as strong during interglacial periods. “It would suggest that this kind of thing isn’t so likely to happen today,” he says. On the other hand, he adds, “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.

Read more: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change

The abstract of the study;

North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation

The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.

Read more: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/06/29/science.aaf5529

Is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation slowing? Models suggest it should be – but observation based studies have not found evidence of a slowdown.

Who else is speculating about abrupt cooling? One name which might surprise you is former NASA GISS director James Hansen. From Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming could be dangerous p3774;

Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.

Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.

Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …

Read more: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

Naturally most of the climate scientists who make such predictions expect the cooling to occur over a relatively short timescale, before the ice melt forcing which causes the predicted cooling is overwhelmed by our continued sinful emissions of CO2. But a fallback prediction of imminent abrupt cooling does conveniently make it rather difficult to falsify anthropogenic climate theories based on temperature alone, should global temperatures suddenly drop.

Advertisements

361 thoughts on “Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?

    • REPENT, ye sinnaz! There’s still time, before ye Perish by Fire and Ice! (There are SIGNS, in the Sun, Moon, and Stars) . . .

      The more things change, the more they stay the same!

    • Hansen is just laying cover for the eventual demise of the global warming scare, ‘scare’ being the operative word. He still blames it on CO2 emissions since that way, the cooling scare still fits the narrative he had a large part in establishing.

      • The big issue on Global is that it is a machine to deprive us of our wealth and our rights. We find this in the EU already. The BREXIT just disclosed that this fraud was only for this purpose.

      • during the “high water mark” of the last “eemian” interglacial ocean levels were apparently about 20 ft higher….would like to know where the extra water came from and how in hell did the polar bears survive…our present interglacial is long in the tooth and CO2 emmisions will gradually fade out over next 100 years….reglaciation will be the civilization killer…not global warming……save the world economy, the planet will take care of itself

      • It’s quite possible that the claim of a high water mark of 20′ higher than today is the product of confirmation bias since the error bars likely exceed +/- 20′. If it was nearly 3C warmer during the last interglacial and if the oceans were not 20′ higher, one of the scariest talking points disappears. Your point that the ice in Greenland and the Antarctic survived is highly relevant, if not the case, we wouldn’t have the ice cores to misinterpret.

        The whole CAGW scare got its start when we noticed the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the Vostok ice cores. When it was discovered that CO2 concentration changes follow temperature changes, and not the other way around if CO2 drove the temperature, they needed different ammunition to scare you with (although even today, many warmists deny the measured temporal relationships in the ice core data).

        The temperature reconstructions are somewhat tricky too and establish the temperature of the water that evaporated and which eventually became ice. This is ‘adjusted’ (homogenized) to represent the planet as a while. It could also be the case that a slight warming resulted in more tropical evaporation making its way to the poles and biasing the temperature reconstruction.

      • The prescription will be the same. The measures in the 1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming Of The New Ace Age” are identical to the ones proposed for global warming.

    • Earth has NEVER had unvarying climate in it’s entire geological history, simply it is either warming or cooling and never static .

      • Actually, the climate has been “relatively” stable for the last 5,000 years or so — unsurprising in any non linear system (you can eventually expect a string of tails in a series of coin flips if you go long enough). Variance may be the normal — the rare period of stability may be what allowed civilization to take root and flourish. Without drastic temperature swings driving nomadic wandering to find optimal sublimates to hunt or gather, mankind could stay put and use his time to create civilization. Just a thought.

      • Has the Holocene not experienced overall much warmer temps compared to the last 500 years? Hedging bets on which way they think it’s headed seems the most likely scenario.

    • Oh, my. The pesky natural phenomenon of “weather changes” rears its ugly head again. That’s the way God planned it, don’tcha know…

    • its called a polar vortex from earth axis shift. a dalton minimum may occur again. climate changes all the time beyond mans willingness to accept. global warming is a farce at best.

      • When I was young and it knocked out the citrus crops in SW Texas and is S Florida, it was commonly called the Arctic, or Polar, Express.

        Of course, that was before man-made it the “Polar Vortex.”

    • I think the problem lies with our education system which does not promote critical thinking, hence we have a population which relies on it’s emotion rather than it’s thought.

    • Did you know that the personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the average of the other 99%? Not surprising to anyone. What surprises people is this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL U. S. CO2 emissions and were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would immediately (not over decades) 17%. Oddly, ALL the plans proposed and implemented allow this small group to continue their behavior unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. But it is an emergency, we are told (by the 1%). Maybe some of you AGW folks could explain this please? Should we all wait here for your explanation?

    • That’s right Jimmy, Global Warming or Global Cooling it’s still Climate Change, so in those famous words “what difference does it make”, just keep that money coming. Baseball players aren’t the only ones who can switch hit.

  1. Now I’m wanting to have stored up a whole bunch of popcorn like the preppers were six years ago… just so I have a munchy while I watch this freak weather show.

    The reason the Earth STAYS in a specific temperature range is because any time it leaves it violently reacts to go back. Homeostasis isn’t just a definition on a science test!

    • I thought it was a pejorative for those who wish no more “progress” to made on mainstreaming the LGBT agenda.

      • Ah, yes. That’s it! The LGBT is affecting our climate! Gluten, too. All this gluten is clogging up our jet streams and deep ocean thingies, so a good round of gay bashing and a gluten free diet is the answer to bring our global temps back down and usher in the next ice age. Do you have any idea how expensive ice is in Phoenix? It makes keeping the kegs cool more expensive than the keg of budwiser was to begin with…

    • And this is why we now have severe shifts for the last 3 million years? The climate is most certainly NOT stable at all.

      • The climate is now so unstable it changes every day. One day the climate is warm and dry and the next the climate is cool and damp. Every day I now have to tune in to the climate channel on TV to see what the climate is doing today….gads its frightful.

      • …or caused by human actions, if the changes go back 3 million years. The earth is in orbit around a variable star.

    • You’re confusing homeostasis – a property of living systems – with the more general and apt principle of dynamic equilibrium.

  2. Predict all possible outcomes and when one of them happens–voila!–you’ll look like a genius!

  3. Yep classic government expert.
    Predict everything,hope you cover what actually happens.
    Claim credit.
    Damn shame nothing you offered as “expert advice” was useful to anyone.

    • A while ago I had convinced myself that lunar tidal influence was ‘the’ major factor, I understand it has a major role (more so than a rise of 50ppm in global CO2 that translates into a bazillion degrees in some minds lol) but to a lesser degree, the best results I have found that relate to planetary temperature is;

      1. Changes in planetary orbits (including relativistic effects of time)
      2. The suns Polar field rotation and reversal (and it’s interaction with planetary orbits)
      3. Lunar Tidal change
      4. Planetary Composition

      One piece of the jigsaw which I have been researching for years is how the sun produces a rise and fall in planetary temperature and I have the answer now.

      When Willis and Mosher and the like, quit beating a dead horse over TSI and sunspots and degenerating people doing important research into the sun’s role like a bunch methodological reductionists parading around in a derogatory fashion for the crowd (which is far from the sceptical concept I respect) I will openly and comprehensively reveal years of research that definitely explain the suns role in driving temperature on earth. now is not the time ;)

      No ‘climate scientist’ could ever get the result I have, I know this because they would have got it by now if they were actually researching the suns role, the idea is that basic and falsifiable as I have already attempted to do and failed…

      • Sparks,
        I’ve always considered that tidal effects from the gas giants affect the output of the fusion core as the shape of the core is stretched and squeezed (gravity works at the speed of light), yet it take a very long time for the energy produced by the fusion core to make its way to the solar surface obfuscating the precise correlation. This leaves a series of compression waves between the core and the surface corresponding to the past tidal influences that acted on the Sun’s fusion core. When Jupiter and Saturn are on opposite sites of the Sun, the tidal forces are minimum, the core is most spherically symmetric and the most efficient. When aligned on the same side, core becomes less efficient and its output will change. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a 1500 year periodicity where Jupiter and Saturn were both aligned on the same side at the perihelion/aphelion of both orbits.

        Most of the stars we observe in the Cosmos are variable and gravitational influences could be why there is such a wide range of luminosity variability and periods. The Sun’s variability is just at a smaller scale.

      • co2isnotevil,

        There is a tidal effect from the Giant planets on the sun, although gravity from orbiting planets does not have the effect on the sun by stretching and squeezing the suns core, Gravity skims the surface. (but that is only gravity, there is a lot more)

        Gravity does not work at the speed of light, the speed of light is relative to gravity.

        Another interesting point you have raised, is that it takes a long time “for the energy produced by the fusion core to make its way to the solar surface” Maybe this has been a sticking point for you? This is not true, I believe this comes from a a disputed calculation (red herring) that a photon takes from 40.000 to 170.000 years to leave the suns core and reach the surface. The fact is, polarities are instantaneous, there’s a very distinct difference between a “trapped photon” inside the sun and the fact that a polarity exists, the flow of magnetic force doesn’t travel the same as a photon, it is a force of attraction and repulsion (on a scale relative to our own) in terms of the suns poles and the flow of energy from one point to the other by way of E=mc2 (<–) is an intense energetic differential, and it travels instantaneously from the core to the surface.

        A gravitational tidal effect from the planets acting upon the sun actually has a role, and it is a very interesting one as an indicator.

      • Unicorns done it.
        I have proof.
        And nobody can disprove it.

        We could share a nobel…just think

      • As a scientist I have noticed that on the news when subjects that I feel I’m a expert on are discussed the news nearly always gets it wrong… so how can I believe the news on those subjects I am not an expert on? I’ve learned over my career that power and money can and will sway the interpretation of data and in some cases the manipulation of data. One claim that I hear is (there is an overwhelming consensus of scientist that man is causing climate change). You probably have not heard of the OISM petition, in which over 31,000 US scientist have signed stating that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that humans have or will cause climate change. Now our “masters” are even considering criminal charges against those who do not believe. As a scientist one of the fundamental premises is to always have an open mind but to always question established theory. Test Test Test!! And when your results do not match your theory, question your theory don’t change your data to match your theory!!!

      • Nobody really gives a ratt’s ass what you think. And chicks won’t dig it either.

      • Recently came across an Astrophysics Theory confirmed by observation of the Suns activity. The story referenced the Journal Nature. Have done nothing to confirm it as it was of little importance to me. You might want to check it out. Whatever this activity is will precede a three decade period of Global Cooling which in turn will effect Regional Weather patterns.

      • @Steven Mosher,

        I hear that you’re the resident expert on Unicorns, do they cause spikes in ENSO? obviously el nino and la nina drive the planetary temperature anomaly, the CO2 unicorn that you believe in because sightings are up from 350 to 400 can not and do not cause El Nino, and the argument that you’ve been making that Unicorns done it (even with data) has been disproved over and over ad nauseam ;)

    • Have a look at this Lunar graph purely out of interest, notice that all the talking points are there? Look at the date!

    • Before one can ask if there is global warming or global cooling one must first establish what is the norm!!! How can we determine climate change if we don’t have a established reference point?

  4. Warmist will blow hot or cold in the mildest breeze any which way for a free paid for climate conference (As long as it’s not in Detroit) and another further study grant.

  5. “It would suggest that this kind of thing isn’t so likely to happen today,” he says. On the other hand, he adds, “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.”

    There is a wealth of evidence that Greenland had less ice during the MWP than today. Until it melts at least to the same extent, it would seem we have little to worry about.

      • J. Philip Peterson
        July 2, 2016 at 9:24 pm

        You kinda just disappeared after asking for proof

      • Me Kan She the link is worthless, it discuss seasonal melt, the real question is what has Greenland done in the last few thousand years and is the trend down or up, quit frankly like most things, we don’t know! Because how and what we are measuring has only started in the last thirty years even if it that long. We know the melt in the medieval warming period was greater because some of the settlements are now just coming out from under the ice that was deposited in the little ice age. We don’t know that Greenland even looked like before the Vikings settled it.

    • Currently? Currently it is -60 C somewhere, and +35C somewhere. That’s weather.

      Greenland is nor ‘melting,the surface gains more mass each year than what melts.

      Greenland might loose some mass from fjords, but even that is insignificant at 200 year scope.

      • Regardless of what is or isn’t happening now, Greenland margins did retreat during the MWP a thousand years ago.

      • Can you wake us all up when the Norwegians resettle the southern tip of Greenland to take up dairy farming again?

    • Jtom, the first rule for call center agents, encyclopedia salesmen and climate alarmists is, stick to the script. When you try to wing it you run into problems and you lose the sale. Or your funding.

    • jtom you forget the holocene optimum where it was even warmer then during the MWP…. on greenland they found shorelines of 6000 years ago that did prove the arctic was nearly completely ice free during summers….

  6. When the albedo increases, the energy reflected back into space increases, the energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface decreases and the atmospheric temperature decreases.

    When the albedo decreases, the energy reflected back into space decreases, the energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface increases and the atmospheric temperature increases.

    The energy must then move, i.e heat, through the atmosphere per Q=U*A*dT.

    As the atmosphere cools more clouds and ice form increasing the albedo leading to more cooling etc. a positive feedback cooling loop.

    Could it be that simple? Why not if it explains the observations.

    • Nicholas Schroeder:
      Could it be that simple?

      I’m afraid not. It ignores evaporation and precipitation rates.

      If you consider the complete water-cycle as a whole I think you’ll find that you are looking at an overall negative feedback, not a positive one.

      • We no longer have a complete water cycle. Urban sprawl has dangerously interrupted the replenishment of our ground water!

      • RP,
        Philip,

        The unambiguous evidence of net negative feedback from the hydro cycle is weather. Hurricanes leave a trail of cold water in their wake (i.e. cooling) and encompasses the entire water cycle in a localized region. If the net feedback from water was positive, Hurricanes would leave a trail of warm water in their wake.

        The Second Law of Thermodynamics has something to say about this as well, since weather is the manifestation of a global heat engine that uses water as its refrigerant and a heat engine can not warm its source of heat, which of course is the surface of the ocean.

    • Positive feedback runs to the rails VERY quickly and either sticks there or destroys its own mechanism. By your theory Earth should be a frozen snowball with no way to come out of it.

      • It actually was, at one point. Thank god (or any other substitute) for volcanic action or it wold till be Ice Ball Earth.

    • How about prosecuting the warmers e.g. Hansen and PSU’s Prof. Mann if there is global cooling – even if they then are older farts?

      Search “Global Warming Skeptic Responds To Massachusetts AG’s Subpoena: ‘F**k Off, Fascist”
      The debate goes on.
      Search “Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare”
      and “climatechangereconsidered”
      From search Report: “There is no 97 percent global warming consensus”
      “To be part of the “consensus” one need only agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.”
      “Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of skeptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” writes Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”

      Obama’s puppet Loretta Lynch admitting to investigating potential prosecution of deniers must have been studying burying witches at the stake in medieval times denying climate change. Search:
      “Two irrational responses to climate change: Witch hunts and denial”

    • Exactly – with this trick they can use any kind of climate trend as a proof for their anti-CO2 religion. Never mind if we have further warming or a change into a cooling phase: In both cases they are always right and fossil CO2 has to be the culprit. Consequently, this belief system is a mad sort of anti-monotheism: they don’t believe in one positive divine being but in one common devil (= fossil CO2) who is to blame for everything…

      • You two will really have to make an effort to catch up.

        The possible mechanism has been understood for decades: fresh, less dense, Arctic melt-water disrupting the global current conveyer belt by spreading out in the North Atlantic disrupting the warming effect the north east flowing Gulf stream has on northern Europe.

        Raising of global temperatures can cause localized cooling. Does that make sense?

      • Hi Tony

        Thanks for your critical comment but you misinterpret the real point of my remarks.

        Of course do I know the orthodox hypothesis for the Younger Dryas event (though there are some other possible reasons) and I would not exclude the possibility for such a climate phenomenon if there would be really such a strong warming during the next several centuries as some of the extremer IPCC proponents claim.

        But at the moment and for the next decades there is no sign for such strong melting of the Greenland ice-shields as would be needed for this. But nevertheless, alarmists like you will use this excuse if the temps for the Northern Hemisphere might cool down due to the cooling AMO and a possible further waning of the solar activity and magnetic field in the very next years.

      • tony’s explanation raises a question—if raising of global temperatures can cause localized cooling, in reality, it look precisely like what we have now: weather that is averaged over 30 year intervals and called climate. Unless one looks at the statistical construct called “global average temperature”, there appears to be no difference between hypothetical raising of temperaures and current weather and climate. If we lacked computers and statistics, could we even imagine there was a difference?

      • Seems the jury is still out (and may remain so) as to whether the observed slowdown of the AMOC is climate related or cyclical.
        Gentle Tramp you may know more about the YD event than me. I merely described it as a “possible mechanism”.

      • What “observed” slow down?
        If SL was higher within the last five thousand years, why did this ice age crash not already happen?

      • Exactly – with this trick they can use any kind of climate trend as a proof for their anti-CO2 religion.

        Well, it is actually worse than that. They are claiming that the earth is a chaotic climate system that they can’t predict – but it is going to get dangerously warmer sooner or later.

        The global warmer theory has gone from pseudo-science to fortune-telling. Their future prediction now is the sheath of all possible outcomes. When your prediction is that there will be climate in the future – the likelihood of being right is very high but the value of your insight is very low.

        This is in the “sun will come up tomorrow” class of prediction.

        Further, if they are right the 1°C target won’t be reached by 2100 so it is pointless to do anything about global warming.

  7. From the article: “The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades.”

    Don’t you first have to prove that humans are spurring ice sheet mass loss? I have seen no evidence of this. Have you?

    • Is the dilutive effect of Greenland icemelt just a negative feedback to the AMOC? If so, won’t the process reverse once the AMOC slows enough that the ice sheets start growing?
      (Icemelt => dilution => slower AMOC => high lats colder => ice formation => saltier/denser water => faster AMOC => high lats warmer …)

    • There’s no dissuading people from ideas they WANT to believe.

      “…a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
      -Paul Simon

  8. “Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).”

    This statement is not true–hundreds of radiocarbon and beryllium isotope dates of glacial deposits in both hemispheres now show that glacial conditions were synchronous in both hemisphere during the last Ice Age. This undercuts the basic premise of this study.

    • “This undercuts the basic premise of this study.” You’re too generous, this would falsify the premise.

      • Yup. And they show that the Medieval Warming Period, etc. was not just a single hemisphere effect either. Odd how they skipped over that, now isn’t it?

        The timing of the AMO in phase with the solar magnetic activity, and hence TSI, leads this guy to think that our dear old personal variable star has more to do with this than CO2.

  9. Indeed, as the Holocene comes to close, things will get dicey. T Spikes for a centiry or so both ways.

    But whatever happens, iChirch of Climate Change dogma says it must be the result of man’s carbon energy sins.

  10. Rubbish, the currents are driven by the Corriolis. They won’t change much unless Velikovsky was right.

    • I agree that the Gulf Stream was always flowing due to the Corriolis and the winds and the confining continental margins.

      But there is another issue to consider, sea level.

      There would have been times that sea level was too low to allow the Gulf Stream flow path next to Florida. The ocean was not deep enough at times to allow a full Gulf Stream flow. There would also have been choke-points on the western side of Cuba which stopped it.

      A good ocean current like the Gulf Stream needs to have at least 200 metres of ocean depth to flow properly and times when sea level was lower, there was simply not enough ocean depth in these two spots.

      There would have been times in the ice ages, when the Gulf Stream changed course and flowed around the outside of the Caribbean Islands. I don’t know why no one has talked about this before but it clearly had to have happened.

      This disruption and course change probably took decades to establish itself.

      This is a far more logical explanation for Greenland temperature instability in the ice ages. (Although I will note that the North Atlantic sea surface temperature reconstructions do NOT show the big changes that the Greenland ice core borehole models show.)

      • This is an area barely talked about for some reason that baffles me.

        I have read of indications that generally during the MWP time frame that the Gulf stream that is currently flowing towards the southern British isles now was flowing more towards the Mediterranean region.

      • The Gulf stream changes direction in the North Atlantic ocean when the North Atlantic becomes much colder not too dissimilar to Greenland.

        North Atlantic marine sediments have been found many years ago now to show ocean temperature constructions that change suddenly with big changes, similar to the Greenland ice cores.

        “Our new findings are the strongest evidence so far that Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are imprinted in marine sediments of the North Atlantic ocean. The temperature shifts, especially in V23-81, occur on millennium timescales and have asymmetric shapes, sharp boundaries and strong amplitudes (up to a change in temperature of ~5 C), features which characterize the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles.”

        https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Jouzel/publication/230891708_Correlations_between_climate_records_from_North_Atlantic_sediments_and_Greenland_ice/links/00b7d525ca5295c2a8000000.pdf

      • Found a map of sea level at the Last Glacial Maximum which i have annotated. The Gulf Stream would have been diverted right around all of the Caribbean Islands at the LGM starting at the South American coast because sea level was too low. (But sea level was not as always as low as at the LGM during the ice ages so there would have been other times when it held the current course).

      • I acknowledge the low sea level around Caribbean, but it was a result of the ice age not the cause. If any thing this may have helped towards getting out of an ice age because shortening the Gulf stream with less detours, would have likely only strengthened the flow towards the North Atlantic ocean.

    • Yes, that great big heating element in the sky is the thing that makes it hotter or colder here on our little rock circling this heating source. And lots of people don’t want to believe this! Never ceases to amaze me.

  11. Think interns of water viscosity. When the Atlantic cools, the Gulf Stream slows and logically Europe and New England cools. When the ocean warms, the system speeds up and delivers more heat to the north. The idiot warmists want to claim that a bit of fresh water from melting ice will stop this flow, such that warming slows the flow and cooling accelerates the flow—the opposite of whet is observed. As the above record indicates, melting ice had nothing to do with the thermostat effect of the AMOC.

    • I may be getting cynical in my old age. What I see is manufactured evidence that if we don’t stop global warming soon, Greenland melt will trigger global cooling. This plays well into the great push for stopping global warming. Think tail and dog going in circles. One might think that this is all planned because many of these researchers are simply different divisions of the same bureaucracies. Someone is doing the master planning. I’m not sure there is anything like an “independent” scientist in the government lot. If university-based researchers want money, they, too must play the game.

    • A sverdrup it a unit of measure of water flow.

      1 sv = 1,000,000 cm^3/s

      1 sv*yr = a very big number.

      60 * 60 * 24* 365 * 1,000,000 = 3.1536e013 cm^3

      1 sv*yr ~ 13,140 olympic sized swimming pools.

  12. If one considers the past history of the different climate cycles then the extension to the future results in a decreasing global temperature trend for the next 300 years down to some 13.2°C. This is not a forecast,
    however more realistic than theoretical computer models based on assumptions.

    • So warming would be verification?
      No, I didn’t think so. “Theyist” are evil and always wrong.

      • Yes, warming at rates higher than observed since LIA would be at least strong confirming evidence. But if you huff and puff that catastrophic warming will happen, and it doesn’t warm (or even cools), then well…what is a logical person supposed to think? Don’t bother answering, you don’t qualify.

      • It’s got to work both ways.
        If there is no CAGW then well and good, if there is we could all be right royally screwed (or not of course).
        Anyone for Roulette?

      • The evidence strongly supports that the observed warming is primarily net beneficial and at best 1/2 to 1/3rd the IPCC models predicted warming throughout the troposphere. How much of that warming is natural, (primarily a result of disparate rates of energy release and absorption from the oceans and solar changes with un-quantified effects on cloud formation and jet streams) and how much is due to the increase in CO2 is unknown, but the beneficial effect of CO2 on plants is known and natural cooling cycles have overcome much higher CO2 levels many times in earth’s past.

        Right now reduce atmospheric CO2 to 280 PPM, and you will instantly create the “catastrophe” you fear, as global starvation and resulting wars would be certain.

        Just because a human being can conceptualize an idea of “catastrophe”, does not mean that the political and economic structure of the world must change to their ideology. This is particularly true when the means and method of forcing humanity to bend to the will of alarmists to “save the world” are known to be entirely ineffective in reducing GMT to any major degree, but certain to create global political conflict, potentially ending in real human tragedy. (See the EU for a current example and their threating hardball approach to G.B. where they may very well cause the negative economic results they predict)

        It is also rather pathetic that the proposed solution to CAGW just happens to mimic the same goals of political tyrants throughout history; central authority national or international government demanding tyrannical power over others. Why is anyone surprised that if politicians can tax the very air you breath, they will?

      • As a scientist I have noticed that on the news when subjects that I feel I’m a expert on are discussed the news nearly always gets it wrong… so how can I believe the news on those subjects I am not an expert on? I’ve learned over my career that power and money can and will sway the interpretation of data and in some cases the manipulation of data. One claim that I hear is (there is an overwhelming consensus of scientist that man is causing climate change). You probably have not heard of the OISM petition, in which over 31,000 US scientist have signed stating that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that humans have or will cause climate change. Now our “masters” are even considering criminal charges against those who do not believe. As a scientist one of the fundamental premises is to always have an open mind but to always question established theory. Test Test Test!! And when your results do not match your theory, question your theory don’t change your data to match your theory!!!

  13. “… a fallback prediction of imminent abrupt cooling does conveniently make it rather difficult to falsify anthropogenic climate theories based on temperature alone, should global temperatures suddenly drop …”.
    ===================================
    It wouldn’t matter, it would be an impossible narrative to sell under those conditions to a public desperate for plentiful cheap reliable energy.

    • The Sun’s rotation period varies with latitude on the Sun. Equatorial regions rotate faster than polar regions. The equatorial regions rotate in about 25 days. The regions at 60 degrees latitude rotate in about 31 days. Polar regions rotate in about 36 days.

  14. The cooling has to come accompanied of a slowdown of AMOC, and be of regional nature, otherwise it is of not use to Hansen’s hypothesis. Very difficult conditions to meet indeed. A global cooling wouldn’t cut it.

  15. In the real world where the data is even modestly scrutinised, not the kind of imaginary mal-constructed number series, as the so called global temperature is, the CET data is among the best or perhaps the best long term data set we have.
    The most recent data shows that the short term average temperature has followed the fall in the solar activity with about five years delay. It may be of some concern that this is the sharpest fall since 1870.


    here I used 11 year (solar cycle length) low pass filter, but a very similar result is obtained by 11 year moving average, the LPF processing is preferable since the moving averages introduce some minor artefacts.

    • Vukcevic – thanks

      I did not know what CET temp meant. I found this:

      “The Central England Temperature (CET) record is a meteorological dataset originally published by Professor Gordon Manley in 1953 and subsequently extended and updated in 1974, following many decades of painstaking work. The monthly mean surface air temperatures, for the Midlands region of England, are given (in degrees Celsius) from the year 1659 to the present.

      This record represents the longest series of monthly temperature observations in existence. It is a valuable dataset for meteorologists and climate scientists. It is monthly from 1659, and a daily version has been produced from 1772. The monthly means from November 1722 onwards are given to a precision of 0.1 °C. The earliest years of the series, from 1659 to October 1722 inclusive, for the most part only have monthly means given to the nearest degree or half a degree, though there is a small ‘window’ of 0.1 degree precision from 1699 to 1706 inclusive. This reflects the number, accuracy, reliability and geographical spread of the temperature records that were available for the years in question.”

      I can see that its value is in the length of time within the record. What is you view on the “precision of 0.1 C” from 1722 onward” How is this possible in the 18th and 19th century?

      A question for statisticians: If enough stations, over enough time, are measured to precision 0.5-1 C, can the mean be calculated to 0.1 C? Stupid question?

      • Mr. Carter, thanks for your comment
        The Central England Temperature (CET) records cover the triangle London-Bristol-Liverpool. Yes, I would agree that 0.1C accuracy for the early records as the result of averaging from number of meteorological stations may appear problematic. However from the climate change point of view, when data are further averaged over period of years as in the graph above these errors make very little difference.
        I did a following test: all monthly temperatures before 1900 rounded to the nearest degree C, than calculated annual average (using monthly weighted values), than calculated 11 year average to one decimal point, the result for all practical purposes was identical to using the officially quoted values, to calculate the same average.
        The UK met office changed their method of the CET annual calculations to using monthly weighted values in January 2015 after my personal urging them to do so, outlining the advantages of the method.
        The CET data are available from here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

    • Before one can ask if there is global warming or global cooling one must first establish what is the norm!!! How can we determine climate change if we don’t have a established reference point?

  16. No melting, fewer minerals for the oceans. No El Nino and no occasional Big Dusts from inland Australia mean fewer minerals for the ocean. Phytoplankton need their vitamins. All meant to happen. What goes around etc…

    Just enjoy this warm moment in the Holocene before we get clobbered by a Bond Event or Laki-scale eruption. (We can put our climate experts to work wiping down solar panels, more as punishment than help.)

    • So true. There are many more natural disasters with higher catastrophic effects than pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. A large San Andreas Fault earthquake in the L.A. basin, or Laki-style eruption, or landslide from La Palma in the Canary Islands, have the potential to collapse entire economies of nations around the world. These are the “known unknowns” that should be researched for survival’s sake, much more than trace atmospheric gases.

      • The Storegga Slides, with tsunamis, occurred a mere 8000 years ago. And Northern Europeans now worry about a bit of chill coming off things?

  17. “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.”

    How could they possibly know what went on in “most” interglacials? We have a good chunk of Eemian ice left over from the last one, which was for 4000 years warmer than this one, but as far as I know there ain’t nuthin’ left up there of the prior interglacials.

  18. The reason for NH instability and oscillation contrasting with SH stability and smoother, slower transitions is well established oceanography. The NH has more land and more complex ocean shapes and this leads among other things to the AMOC. The AMOC contains a positive feedback involving salinity, and in the context of the dissipative quasi-chaotic ocean system this positive feedback leads inevitably to spontaneous nonlinear oscillation.

    The salinity positive feedback works as follows: the gulf stream brings warm and high salinity water to the north east Atlantic from the Carribean. In the Norwegian sea thus water is rapidly cooled, where its higher salinity gives it exceptionally high density causing it to sink to the ocean floor, forming the cold bottom water downwelling that drives the THC. This bottom cold water flows south, which impells the contrary surface flow of warm water northward, that is, reinforcing the gulf stream.

    This positive feedback leads to rapid excursions of strong gulf stream which warm the NH high latitudes. These excursions are ultimately terminated by Greenland melt freshwater interrupting the downwelling.

    In contrast to this NH instability, the larger SH oceans and glibe-encircling southern ocean isolating Antarctica lead to slower more stable oceanography. This contrast is clearly sern in these proxy reconstructions of temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica:

    • What was that massive warm period 120 to 130 thousand years ago?
      Man, that was hot !

      Good graph, puts things in perspective.

      • What was that massive warm period 120 to 130 thousand years ago?

        It’s called the ‘Eemian’. Much warmer than now. But CO2 was much lower, therefore CO2 can be disregarded as a major cause of global warming.

        We see that current global temperatures are nothing unusual, and that the real threat comes from global cooling:

  19. When natural AMO and PDO ocean cycles both are in their respective 30-yr cool cycles from 2020, and as natural solar cycles continue to crash, I expect to see many more spurious papers and predictions from the warmunists suggesting manmade global warming is causing global cooling, rather than admitting the painfully obvious that the CAGW hypothesis was a complete and utter failure, and the biggest and most expensive scam in human history.

    Unfortunately, there will be many Lefitsts that will continue to believe man is a scourge upon the earth, and will gleefully accept any alternative weather explanation as long as man is the cause of all calamity…

    • You could be correct Sam.

      The global warming alarmists have utterly failed in every prediction they have made.to date, but that will not likely stop them from trying to spin their new falsehood that “global warming really means global cooling”. The warmists’ deceitful conduct to date predicates their false response.

      The warmists’ honest response should be that global temperature is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and they were completely wrong in their scary predictions of catastrophic humanmade global warming due to fossil fuel combustion.

      I wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, based on a phone conversation with Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson:
      “If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

      This now-14-year-old global cooling prediction is looking increasingly probable, plus or minus a few years. Global cooling will not be caused by atmospheric CO2 – the cause will be entirely natural.

      • just like the global warming we see now is entirely natural, seen the fact the LIA ended only in 1850-1900 (depending which source).

        this whol cycle MWP- LIA – current warming corresponds with the holocene “bond events”: the LIA was a sudden drop of 2-2.5 degrees that lasts 300-500 years followed by a slow recover during 250-350 years. (with cyclic ups and downs in this recovering event)

        so if we reached now an anomaly of +1°C, that would be entirely normal as either way which starting point you take: we’re roughly “halfway the warming cycle of that Bond event.

        At the current rate, with the cyclic warming and cooling we would reach the permanent + 2°C mark somewhere around 2140 – 2180.

        this is without science to back it up except all the very interesting articles and findings posted here on WUWT: when i connect the dots, i suspect if solar cycle 25 will be as weak as they forecast it, the AMO and PDO will flip both negative in the coming 5 to 10 years, we may see a 0.5 to 0.7°C drop. that if everyhing goes well in synch, then if solar activity will turn back up to the levels in 1900, it will rise again sharply with a positive amo and PDO.

        lots of warmists forget that even with the much adjusted data we are now on a top of a warm cycle and just reaching the +1°C anomaly mark. it will go down for the coming 30 years. this last el nino was perhaps the warmest episode for a long time to come. unless the coming 5 years we would see another strong el nino, we aren’t going to see any “hottest year ever” s for a while…

        unless they torture the data to make it worth that we are living in the adjustocene….

        so seen this bond event, we are half way

  20. They know the AMO will soon turn cold, which will at the very least ensure that the 18-year pause extends for another 30 yrs.

    They need to prepare the ground for that.

      • When you stop using your already falsified predictions as an excuse to implement world socialism, then perhaps fewer people will think you are evil.

      • tony,

        “Whether its turns hot or cold they are evil.”

        What planet are you from? On mine, evil people controlling/exploiting vast populations is not at all unusual, it’s pretty much normal.

      • I’m still trying to work out exactly who some of you guys think “they” are. You’re going for socialists William?
        Socialist scientists I guess?

      • tony mcleod commented: “…I’m still trying to work out exactly who some of you guys think “they” are….”

        A common question begging an answer. Whether AGW is real or not the amount of effort and money directed to promote the narrative is massive and must come from somewhere. Personally I think “they” are mostly willing or naive useful id*ots, environmentalists, carpet baggers, crooks taking advantage, well funded NGO’s, and some wealthy patrons who have succumbed/been persuaded to the Marxist/Socialist meme after they acquired their money through Capitalism and now think their legacy (or perhaps penance) is to back a One World Government to save us. Well organized, funded, protected, and directed. Take your pick.

      • tony,

        I’m pretty sure it’s people with enough money/power to select a given scientific hypothesis they see as useful for controlling/exploiting vast populations (like the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis obviously is) and hype the hell out of it. Which ones exactly by name is not particularly relevant to me. There’s always bound to be some arrogant and ruthless ones among the hyper-wealthy elite of this world, it seems to me. And don’t get me started on the incredibly low probability that all people with degrees in some scientific realm are incorruptible angels or saints . . please ; )

      • markl,

        ” … and some wealthy patrons who have succumbed/been persuaded to the Marxist/Socialist meme …”

        I feel it wise to remember, always, that the idea of socialism/communism is a fine way to convince many people to agree to handing over sweeping powers . . to people who will, once they have the sweeping power, institute whatever they feel like. It doesn’t have to actually be socialism/communism as advertised.

      • markl you may well be right.
        However when you look at the resources of the powerful vested interest whose business model is threatened existentially by limits placed on the emission of CO2 and those resources and power are magnitudes greater then on the balance of probabilities I have to disagree with you.

      • tony mcleod commented: “…when you look at the resources of the powerful vested interest whose business model is threatened existentially by limits placed on the emission of CO2 and those resources and power are magnitudes greater then on the balance of probabilities I have to disagree with you….”

        Except the “vested interest(s)” haven’t actively attacked the AGW meme…..have they? Those “vested interests” have donated more money to the AGW causes than the skeptics side…..no? And “maginitudes greater” is questionable when you consider many entire nations are supporting AGW. In fact the absence of the “vested interests” in the debate has been conspicuous and only a propaganda point manufactured by the alarmists.

      • Tony, says, “resources and power are magnitudes greater then…???
        ===============]
        Then what Tony?
        Where is your evidence that fossil fuel companies “A” are controlling the narrative, and B, have more financial backing then the combined resources of all Governments pushing CAGW alarmism?

        Leif S asked for names of who “they” are. When I provided dozens of names he then changed the subject.

        The great irony is that politicians demanding greater tax revenue (and political power over others) from society via the CAGW scam would, were they successful, very shortly economically destroy the source of their revenue. This has been repeated by central governments over and over throughout history. (See Brazil for the latest example)

        Another irony is governments gain far more profit from fossil fuels then the companies actually doing the work, and it is now dawning on their dense minds that wind and solar companies will fail to generate any net tax revenue without massive increase in energy billing rates. Raising the cost of energy to this degree would of certainty put those societies on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, and yet again the wealth they desire to accumulate would end in tragedy. Wash, rinse and repeat for every society that turns to central authority and control of people and economies. The “invisible hand” is real and rooted in human nature, and statists ignore it at societies peril.

      • Reminded of something said a long time ago.

        “”There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
        govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

        Noah Webster

    • Paul H says, “They know the AMO will soon turn cold, which will at the very least ensure that the 18-year pause extends for another 30 yrs.”
      =======================================
      Indeed, just as Mann was well aware that the AMO and PDO was taking a positive turn in the 1980s. The magicians trick is dependent on hiding the cause.

  21. Models predicting the future are the way to riches – provided the right future is predicted

    Seemingly with climate change models any future does it, right or wrong.

  22. I`m not impressed by any soothsayer talking about climate.
    There are some established facts. There have been some energy uptake, and som ocean heating. Shorter timespan than 60 years is of no interest whwn we are talking of climate change.
    And I think heat storage in oceans will counteract all global cooling of timespans more than 60 years.
    So let`s improve statistics for the last 250 years, and take some conversation from that.

    • Yes indeed, I have mentioned this in the past. The Ice Ages coincide with that change in circulation. Previous, small changes in solar energy output didn’t do much but cool down somewhat, our planet.

      Now, it spins out of control with vast ice sheets whenever the stellar output of energy slacks off a tad!

  23. “But a fallback prediction of imminent abrupt cooling does conveniently make it rather difficult to falsify anthropogenic climate theories based on temperature alone, should global temperatures suddenly drop.”

    difficult but possible. since amoc is just a heat distribution system it neither adds heat to the planet nor removes heat from the planet and so those who want to prove AGW under cooling conditions in europe must show a heat balance in which the earth is still gaining heat net of changes in ice and snow albedo effects if any.

  24. There have also been more stories about noctilucent clouds being caused by human generated CO2 and methane. Wanna bet the next part of the story will be noctilucent clouds cool the earth?

  25. I look at the graph from 1850 to 2016, I see minor perturbations, that’s history. I look at the graph from 2016 to 2200, I see perturbations that are magnitudes of order greater than those of 1850 to 2016. I’m going to have to go with ‘my gut’ on this one, “They currently don’t understand the climate enough for their projections to warrant consideration.”

  26. Oh look, these “scientists” have just added a new brand of lipstick to the CAGW pig! How refreshing.

  27. Meh, CAGW theory has covered all the bases. Warming or cooling, it’s all Man’s fault.

  28. “evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming could be dangerous”

    This is just an alarmist spin of James Hansen. What it means without the spin is Greenland glacier melting is a negative feedback that mitigates global warming. When North Atlantic cools it will cool Greenland and reduce glacier melting. AMOC will stabilize. There will be no runaway cooling nor runaway warming. It’s not dangerous

  29. This study found that variability in heat transport of the AMOC warms and cools the North Atlantic. The currents brought more warm during warm periods and transported less warm water during cold periods. These are shocking revelations, next they’ll discover that charcoal and ash often appear after fires.

  30. The scientific domain is infamously limited through the application of the scientific method. Scientists need to stop conflating logical domains, substituting models/estimates for physical systems and processes, and restore a separation of the scientific from the philosophical.

  31. Now wait, if it cools even a bit and even for a short period, the failure of the AGW hypothesis will be trumpeted by its opponents. But if the cooling might be caused by weird, mysterious, cyclical ocean currents then this conclusion is forestalled. Being on both sides of a debate means never being wrong.

    • It has already failed at the rate that so called needs action taken and now over a few decades there are no signs this positive feedback from CO2 gases are there at all. 40 years is plenty long enough to show it’s FAIL and this period is almost up.

  32. Ferdinand Engelbeen July 3, 2016 at 9:08 am
    “If you can’t explain the 1910-1945 warming from natural causes, you can’t blame humans for the 1976-2000 warming, as you don’t know the influence of natural causes.”

    Agree. The N. Atlantic SST should provide a clue

    There was one off jump of 0.2 C in the SST around 1925.
    This could have been caused by recalibrations in the methods used (e.g. bucket to engine intake etc).
    It is also equally likely that this is due to the N. Atlantic’s currents intensity or velocity changes due to unknown factors affecting the Mid Atlantic Ridge around the same time (1925) as clearly detected by the geomagnetic stations in the area.

  33. The last time this happen it lasted 40 days n 40 nights ,it happen n the spring,around may 5.Pray it don,t happen n late fall or early winter!!!

  34. My initial response to the question posed in the headline was NO. After reading the article that view was confirmed.

  35. We see here another blatant (and I suspect intentional) miss-interpretation of a legitimate scientific study on the part of a media reporter. Nowhere within the the abstract do I see the suggestion that the Atlantic currents triggered glacial-interglacial change. It observes an association. That is all. If I were the author of the study I would be very angry. These editor-reporters need to be sued for spreading miss-information

    When we compare the flow volume of the Nth Atlantic currents with the total of all other oceanic currents it is minor. It is THE trigger? Just another article to sell media to the American public

  36. I stopped reading when they made the claim that Greenland was melting.
    Send it to the shredder.

  37. So Hansen is suggesting that instead of moving the goal posts back that the alarmists should move the goal posts side ways by changing their primary metric from global temperatures to “Global Energy Imbalance”? I guess he foresees that no amount of tampering with the temperature data is going to keep the scam alive.

  38. Mr. Michael Carter July 3, 2016 at 1:13 pm Asks an important question, often raised by other readers.

    “The monthly means from November 1722 onwards are given to a precision of 0.1 °C. ………
    What is you view on the “precision of 0.1 C” from 1722 onward”
    This is an important point often raised.
    In this graph:

    – blue colour represents the monthly CET data as quoted to one decimal point precision.
    – Red colour represents the monthly CET data rounded to the nearest integer (whole number)
    Graph shows that for the practical purpose of the ‘climate change’ research it makes very little difference.

      • Vukcevic … I have a particular interest in the question of temp rounding. In your test, all monthly temperatures before 1900 were rounded to the nearest degree so it’s not surprising the 11 year averages were identical in whole and decimal. However, it assumes that there was perfect 50/50 up-down rounding by the observers who first recorded the temps on a daily basis. It’s very unlikely that happened. In my opinion it was more likely a 40/60 up-down rounding.

        Many of the thousands of observers who wrote the thermometer readings in the Midlands and in locations around the world weren’t meteorologists. Most were ordinary folk, a fair few with poor eyesight at 6am or whenever they were trying to read the tiny markings on a Fahrenheit thermometer. Many who saw it was 67 point something would write 67. For many people who aren’t pedantic, 67 is true but 68 is a bit of a fib. Some observers were lazier than others. More would round 67.6 to 67 than would round 67.4 to 68. A smaller number would round round 67.7 to 67 but even fewer would round 67.3 to 68, etc. Human behaviour and psychology would create a downward bias in the recording of whole F temperatures – not universal, of course, but 40/60 up-down rounding is a fair guess.

        Well over half of all temperature recordings in Australia before 1972 metrication were rounded .0F. Numerous countries went metric in the 1970s, a decade that supposedly heralded the beginning of rampant global warming.

        A presumed accuracy of daily temp rounding within historic records is an unlikely presumption. Australia’s BoM concedes that rounding bias may have caused a 0.1C artificial cooling in pre metric temps but chooses not to adjust the historic record because of heavy rainfall in the early 70s (?). I estimate the F rounding bias in Australia was somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3 C.

        Historic temp rounding is an influence that is consistently ignored, often on the false assumption that there was reliably equal rounding that averaged accurately over a month, year or decade.

      • WAC Thanks for your extensive comment.
        in the graph above all monthly temperatures from 1722 to 2015 were rounded to the nearest degree

        “However, it assumes that there was perfect 50/50 up-down rounding by the observers ”
        No it doesn’t, since there are errors between two, which decrease when averaged across 11 years (one solar cycle) of + and – 0.1C (click on the graph to see the error time line).
        as it was said:
        “Graph shows that for the practical purpose of the ‘climate change’ research it makes very little difference.”

  39. whatever gets them the most government grants will be the position they take. “follow the money “

  40. Give it a rest you silly human slaves! You don’t control the weather, volcanoes, asteroids, or your own life. You are debt-enslaved robots, working your a$$es off, voting in the “right vs left” paradigm, overly worried about fake/cyber/virtual reality BS like facebook, NFL/NBA/MLB, and esoteric nonsense. You are essentially dead for all intents and purposes. Just enjoy the day off the elite give you today, and get your a$$ to work tomorrow and shut the hell up already. Sheesh, I’ve never heard so much “noise” from a group of mutes!

  41. Back in the 1960s, the government Iron Mountain Report, they said there were going to be a new ice age.
    Since Vietnam they have made man made weather changes with chemtrails and co-engineering.

    The latest news is that all this man made climate by the NWO idiots is out of control and causing all this weird weather.

  42. Let’s cover all possibilities and just call it Globalist wealth redistribution.

  43. Frankly, I didn’t waste my valuable time reading the whole article. It grows increasingly obvious to anyone with a grain of common sense that so-called climate “scientists” are clueless, and what they say has all the credibility (and maybe less so) than a primitive witch doctor. Where goes the grant money? That’s a much better predictor of scientific “findings” than objective evidence.

  44. None of this is surprising for those of us who have kept our minds open and not fallen for the “religion” of Global Warming. As predicted, all the time, energy, and untold billions spent on trying to change natural cycles has been a complete waste.

  45. Once again this shows that our climate is too complex for anyone to clearly understand. It also shows that the use and cherry picking of proxy data can show anything the user wants to show.

  46. This is really funny! It is amusing to consider the massive combined scientific ignorance of how the geological earth actually works, yet we “know” that CO2 causes global warming!

    What we DO know is that any conclusive theory that Al Gore could understand is akin to the Tooth Fairy!!!

  47. It is all a scam foe taxes to bribe democratic voters and keep them in the hellholes they created for them 55 years ago.There is never enough money to bribe democrats, Marxists or UN dolts.Some facts:

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/28/climate-change-the-biggest-conspiracy-against-the-taxpayer-in-history/

    Many of us knew it was a giant scam to enrich Professors, lobbyists, Marxists, those promoting “green” products and politicians. We can now sleep better.

  48. Global warming is a hoax.

    Look at the chart from 1950 to 2016 and you will see only a one degree change in temperature, which is well within the normal variance.

    The fact that it’s tapered off just illustrates the absurdities of the claims.

    • You’ve got it — they’re right (and you’re to blame) no matter what happens. I’ll have to give them credit for clever rhetoric…they’ve come up with a faux-scientific, fear-inducing fabulation that’s impossible to falsify!

  49. Here’s a hint. Check the warming from below the ocean. There just might be energy transfers from beneath the oceans bottoms to the water.

    • Well of course there is. The earth is very hot at the center. The oceans are cool. But the oceans are insulated from that center by thousands of miles of rock. With that much insulation, the energy transfer is very slow. It’s just not a variable. Energy from the sun shows up minutes later, arriving at the speed of light. Energy from the earth’s core has a long, slow trip to the oceans.

  50. The article uses the term “ice age” when it is really referring to a “glacial period”. Glacials average approx 85,000 years, ice ages average millions of years. We currently live near the end of an interglacial period (average approx. 15,000 years) within an ice age that began over one million years ago. During an ice age, there is permanent ice at the poles. We are now transitioning from an interglacial to a glacial period. The transition alone takes thousands of years.

  51. Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.

    Sheep, lemmings, and Leftists are easily manipulated.

    zazzle.com/firstprinciples?rf=238518351914519699

  52. Al Gore predicted all along that Global Warming would cause glaciers to cover the N. American continent. Boy, it sure is warm, it’s minus 45 degrees today!
    It’s not what idiocy you believe that matters. What matters is that you believe the official idiocy of the Demochit Party!

  53. In the real world, Global Warming is something you use to bich out a white pig, when you’ve run out of anything else to bich out a white pig about. It has little other meaning!

  54. Here is the bottom line: temperatures are going to fluctuate over time and nothing we do or don’t do will change much. We are ticks !

  55. These climate scientists have entirely too much time on their hands. Perfect example is James Hansen who first warned in the 70s of a coming ice age, then warmed to global warming using his clown hockey stick theory. And of course global warming stopped years ago so the new scare became climate change and nobody can prove any of this is cause by human activity. I recently saw an episode of NOVA talking about climate change causing the movement of the continents as they had noted climate change through out the history of the earth has caused almost everything to make the earth as we know it to be today and of course the climate change causing this is completely natural. Unfortunately the lemmings listen to the fool scientists’ musings.

  56. In order to stop global warming-cooling we need to ban all types of firearms in the hands of law-abiding American citizens. Also, establishing a global government controlled by bankers and big corporations will help. If everything fails, then we need to impose a stiff global tax on farting — the 1 percent billionaires would be exempted.

    • As a scientist I have noticed that on the news when subjects that I feel I’m a expert on are discussed the news nearly always gets it wrong… so how can I believe the news on those subjects I am not an expert on? I’ve learned over my career that power and money can and will sway the interpretation of data and in some cases the manipulation of data. One claim that I hear is (there is an overwhelming consensus of scientist that man is causing climate change). You probably have not heard of the OISM petition, in which over 31,000 US scientist have signed stating that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that humans have or will cause climate change. Now our “masters” are even considering criminal charges against those who do not believe. As a scientist one of the fundamental premises is to always have an open mind but to always question established theory. Test Test Test!! And when your results do not match your theory, question your theory don’t change your data to match your theory!!!

      • The “news” as in MSM will Always attempt to tell you only what they want you to “know”.

    • It’s the climate-changers, with their snake-oil climate nostrums, which — oh, by the way — will re-arrange many of the most basic relations of culture, commerce and society to conform to the demands of the New World Order.

  57. If you’ve ever wondered how a crazy mania could happened, then look at how easily billions of people were fooled by GW … err, I mean CC. Seriously, look at how fanatically people believe this “science” with absolute certanity.

    Also, notice that there is usually huge amounts of money and power at stake.

    The only thing real about GW is the money and the power.

    Never trust the NWO global elitists.

  58. The sceptics read any revision or correction to the scientific account of how the extra CO2 figures to affect our climate as proof that scientists are just trying to pull one over on the general public so they can get more grants or world government or something.

    Imagine the talking points if scientists dug in and insisted that the current understanding was correct and complete and not subject to revision no matter what further facts might intrude!

    But science doesn’t work that way. Hence, there will be a continual stream of amendments and even differences of opinion as to the details of what we should expect. Within all this, it is easy to lose track of the basic fact that isn’t changing: the earth receives energy from the sun mostly in the visible wavelengths, and discharges energy to space not only by reflection, but by way of infrared. Everything that has a temperature radiates. The rate at which energy is discharged to space depends on both how easily IR gets from the surface past the atmosphere, and on how hot the earth is. To strike a balance, if IR is obstructed [by CO2] then the temperature must rise to offset that. This is why the earth is warmer than the moon, and with more CO2, it will be warmer by a wider margin.

    Either that, or the energy from the sun that we do not void to space can, for a time, go to melting ice and warming deep layers of the ocean. How large that effect will be? We’re not sure. How long it can last? Until we run out of ice and deep cold waters.

    But we cannot BOTH keep our ice caps and our cold ocean depths, AND our current surface temperature, while driving up atmospheric CO2 levels.

    • ” This is why the earth is warmer than the moon, and with more CO2, it will be warmer by a wider margin. ”

      Of course CO2 doesn’t work in dry areas like deserts or Mars. I wonder what would happen if we added more water vapor to those places?

      • In dry areas, CO2 is effectively the only greenhouse gas worth mention. Even deserts are warmer at night than the moon in darkness. Now true, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and a very important one. Humid areas don’t cool off as rapidly.

        Why do mountainous desert areas cool off faster at night than low-elevation desert areas? The answer is that there is less air, and with it, less CO2, between the mountaintop and space.

        More CO2, all else equal, means that less energy gets back into space. So the extra energy must go somewhere. Heating deep ocean water? Melting ice? Heating the earth’s surface? Pick at least one.

      • Apparently you don’t live in Florida. At this time of year it is very humid and it stays very warm at night. However, in winter when cold dry air comes in from the midwest, we get radiational cooling and temps go way down at night. Or would you suggest that CO2 is a less at that time of year? No it is the difference in water vapor.

      • Technically, the Moon is warmer than the Earth, or at least the part of the Moon in equilibrium with the Sun is warmer than the part of the Earth in equilibrium with the Sun.

        The Earth spins fast enough, relative to the Sun, that the entire surface can be considered as being in thermal equilibrium with the Sun. The Lunar day is so long plus is has no atmosphere to redistribute warmth, only slightly more than half is in equilibrium with the Sun at any one time, moreover; its albedo is about 0.12 compared the the Earth’s average albedo of 0.3. So rather than an average input of 239 W/m^2 for the surface of Earth in equilibrium with the Sun, the average total forcing for the surface of the Moon in equilibrium with the Sun is about 600 W/m^2 corresponding to an average temperature of about about 320K which is the approximate average temperature of the bright side of the Moon.

        Identifying what’s in equilibrium with the Sun is also important for understanding Venus. Unlike Earth, where the surface (solid surface above oceans and top of oceans) is in direct thermal equilibrium with the Sun, it’s the top layer of the Venusian clouds that are in direct equilibrium with the Sun.

        The ‘temperature’ of a body is not the temperature of an arbitrary Gaussian surface enclosing that body, but is the temperature of the specific surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun. Consider the Earth, whose solid surface below the deep oceans (about 2/3 of the planets solid surface) is at about 0C and if we considered only the temperature of the Earth’s solid surface, the average would be far lower than is currently stated. The mass of the Venusian atmosphere is the same order of magnitude as the mass of Earth’s ocean, so its surface has more in common with the solid surface of Earth below its oceans than the specific surface of Earth in equilibrium with the Sun and whose temperature we care about.

  59. It just stuns me that the self proclaimed global warming experts don’t really have a clue about the sun. This recent sunspot disappearance is my case in point. An eleven year sun cycle has vanished. That cycle was cast in stone. Who’s to say there isn’t a 40,000 year sun cycle that runs the ice ages? Or a 10,000,000 year cycle that runs mass extinctions?

  60. Cooling, warming doesn’t matter. The solution to anything of course is international communism.

  61. that is why the have the Term” CLIMATE CHANGE” they are covered either way.
    climate change has been going on for millions of years. If wasn’t for climate change Washington DC would still be under ice

  62. Well, there has been something like 27 ice ages and more will come so they are bound to be right at one time or another. However, there is no proof whatsoever that the current warming/cooling/neither is man-made.

  63. “Global Warming” is so 2000’s. It was then replaced by “Man-Made Global Warming” which was then replaced by “Man-Made Climate Change” when none of the actual data supported warming at all. Let’s just call it what it IS, “Climate Change”. And guess what, we can’t do anything about it, nor should we try. Gore has egg on his face, he is an emperor with no clothing. They talk of a “penalty” for “Man-Made Climate Change DENIERS” I say we have a penalty for “Man-Made Climate change BELIEVERS.

  64. The dinosaurs got killed by the ice age. We found remnants of their big, honking,’ SUV’s alongside their fossilized bodies!

  65. This is serious! We need to take action NOW! Raise taxes and increase government control of the economy…those are the only things that the weather responds to. We should get every Really Smart Really Rich person on a private jet immediately and they should lay down a trail of black smoke to meet in a super-expensive resort so they can co-ordinate Saving The Planet with ‘donations’ to The Clinton Crime Family Foundation while they plot new strategies to indict The Deniers for conspiring to destroy the planet. Even the definition of ‘Settled Science’ will have to be changed from an expedient that achieves the same results every time to a threat to ‘settle’ the hash of anyone who doubts that the Gubmint can fix the weather by canceling human rights. We need action. For The Children!

  66. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”

    And there should not be the slightest doubt that there are many other things scientists don’t know about climatology. But that doesn’t stop them from making climate predictions. They say that as long as they’re doing the best they can do, we should believe what they say and do what they say– even though they may well say the opposite later.

    Scientists are like liberals– they expect to be judged by their intentions and their credentials, not on their actual abilities.

  67. “Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism.”
    ~~Dr. Malcolm Ross

  68. Circumlocutions, triple-plus, double-speak, fancy talk for another day in paradise.
    The job of maintaining deceit must pay quite handsomely, but I digress out of turn.

  69. Oh, please. We all know people are responsible for climate changes…not natural balance of natural forces.

  70. Here is another theory to climate change. As the moral imbalance ( includes religion) continues its global decline the earth feels the growing negatives and reacts accordingly.

  71. We should be far more worried about Islam than global warming, despite Imam Obama’s rants to the contrary.

  72. The second word should be “supposed” not “alleged.” Words have meanings.

  73. O.K. guys which is it? Cooling or Warming? I guess they will say anything as long as they can defraud governments and gullible celebrities for more research money to keep themselves in luxury cars and expensive mistresses. Keep on pimpin’ global weather scientists.

  74. So will someone tell me once and for all, what id the best temperature for the globe? No one seems to know, and I mean NO ONE!.

  75. Before one can ask if there is global warming or global cooling one must first establish what is the norm!!! How can we determine climate change if we don’t have a established reference point?

  76. As a scientist I have noticed that on the news when subjects that I feel I’m a expert on are discussed the news nearly always gets it wrong… so how can I believe the news on those subjects I am not an expert on? I’ve learned over my career that power and money can and will sway the interpretation of data and in some cases the manipulation of data. One claim that I hear is (there is an overwhelming consensus of scientist that man is causing climate change). You probably have not heard of the OISM petition, in which over 31,000 US scientist have signed stating that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that humans have or will cause climate change. Now our “masters” are even considering criminal charges against those who do not believe. As a scientist one of the fundamental premises is to always have an open mind but to always question established theory. Test Test Test!! And when your results do not match your theory, question your theory don’t change your data to match your theory!!!

  77. Climate change is a bunch of nothing. You have to know this due to the fact that the so called experts don’t know if it is heating or cooling. A whole lot of scientists that want to make money on an uninformed society world wide. It is like Chicken Little, the sky is falling.

    • Nah, I’ve been watching the statistical analysis that they’re calling science despite the fact that the scientific method calls for a lot of controlled experimentation before a hypothesis even becomes a theory. The climate IS changing. It’s always changing, only now it’s changing in ways they didn’t expect it to change because they don’t understand the forces that drive it nearly as well as they thought they did. The idiocy is that rather than devote our resources to preparing for what looks to be inevitable, they think for some reason that we’re responsible and they can stop it. It is vanity, pure and simple. It might doom a lot of people in the end.

      That being said, there are good reasons to do some of the things they’re trying to accomplish. Their methods are foolhardy, their reasoning is flawed, and the idea of rushing headlong without first examining the path ahead is insane. Getting away from importing oil is probably a good thing. Algal bio-fuels could do that with current technology and a section of the desert we don’t use anyway about the size of maine. You don’t hear too much about it because it’s not electricity, solar, or wind. It doesn’t use all kinds of crazy patentable technology that will make some billionaire even richer. In fact, some people are already running their diesel pickups of of it using algae grown in their back yards. A gasoline drop-in replacement, biobutanol can also be made, but that gets to be risky for the back yard tinkerer. Nuclear is another good thing to think about, especially since we have so much waste that could easily power a set of breeder reactors for decades renderibg that waste SO much less dangerous to store. These are just two things, but the time scales and reasons for doing so need to be more based on reality, not some overhyped scare that we’re bringing about the end of the world.

  78. Since we don’t know what’s going on, why don’t we toss scores of trillions of dollars we don’t have at the problem, and give the government more control over our lives in the process?

  79. We have the AMOC possibly heading to a cooling trend. We also have the sun at a very low point in the sunspot cycle. What is the combined effect?

  80. Someone please smack the “author” of this “news article” that CO2 is NOT POLLUTION.

    GAWD it’s like I’m taking crazy pills!!!

  81. Ice also evaporates and doesn’t always melt. Are they confusing sublimation when humidity and temps drop, with melting when they increase? The way to tell is by looking at temperature trends. Antarctica loses ice at its central land mass as it gets more frigid. Then ice mass increased in the seaside area as colder air expands over humid areas there — and wrongly called “melting like ice cream” while getting colder.

  82. Where is the grant money! That is all that really matters. Wild warming or crazy cooling, the more dire the more cash to stuff into computer models.

  83. Using the word “scientist” any where near the idea that we are experiencing man-caused climate change is a joke. Is the climate change occurring? Yes. Is it man caused? No, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, that it is man-caused. Money grabbing P.T. Barnums are all these people are – a disgrace to the idea of “science” and to the scientific community. Shameful.

  84. The bottom line is it is all about money, how much money can they steal from the taxpayers

  85. Hmm. Will those ‘scientists’ who believed in global warming now going to be prosecuted for not believing in global cooling? Why don’t they just call it what it is? Weather.

  86. vukcevic –

    CET is of interest to me due to 2 factors

    – Its long continuous record

    – This was the industrial heartland of England, and indeed the world, at one time. There has been an awful lot of coal burnt in this region throughout history

    I see an opportunity for someone to integrate the influence of anthropogenic aerosols into this data
    I would love to see a comparison with say Scotland or Ireland throughout the 18th and 19th century. It may show that aerosols have a cooling influence

    You have the written history to do it. A good student’s project :-)

    • Hi gain
      I did comparison some years ago with data from Armagh observatory (N. Ireland), for all practical purposes there is no difference except that the CET is about 0.2-0.3C warmer.


      (I have no idea why I did comparison only to 1990)
      Up to 1945 N. Ireland was warming slightly faster than England (possibly more affected by N. Atlantic proximity and its warming cycle- AMO). In the 1970s roles were reversed, there is rise in the CET while Armagh was cooling. I suspect that one of the reasons for this could as follows:
      In 1970s N. Sea oil and gas came on stream and densely populated Central England had rapid expansion in central heating installations, while N. Ireland didn’t have access to it (pipeline was completed in 1996). In addition N. Ireland was in the midst of religious strife with high unemployment and very little investment.

  87. “AMOC slowdowns have long been suspected as the cause of the climate swings during the last ice age, which lasted from 110,000 to 15,000 years ago….” Uh…I thought climate change was the result of CO2? These idiots have absolutely no idea what the heck they are talking about. We have enacted extreme regulations on the energy businesses and its based on a hunch. It’s time to tell these scientists to go pound sand and put the reigns on the EPA.

  88. NONE of those ‘Climate Change Environmental Predictions’ of the last 45 years have come true…

    “Dang! I hate it when the world ends and I miss it!

    Happens every time, too. EVERY…SINGLE…TIME!!!”
    ~recent anonymous post

  89. Man made global warming/cooling is purely political and has nothing to do with science other than provide grant money to scientists. These scientists and their employers are paid to bolster the political argument for politicians to raise taxes (which provides for more grant money to flow). As a defense against constant accusations of doctored science the opposition has resorted to using an infantile “they do it too” strategy as they point fingers at oil companies.

  90. So weary of man exaggerating his impact on this earth. Compare all that man has done, and it pales in comparison with one medium size volcano. We just aren’t as powerful or intelligent as we think we are. My estimate is that all of science knows less than .0001% of the forces involved in long term climate.

  91. The stars are aligning and the crop gods want virgins tossed in volcanoes. Bring them forth.

  92. So weary of people exaggerating their impact on their environment. Compare all man has done with one medium size volcano. We still should be careful with our environment, but this Climate Change nonsense is causing us to lose focus on what we should be doing. CO2 is good!!!! If we moved towards natural gas it would burn cleaner and we have more of it. Climate change is turning natural gas into a non-starter.

  93. I blame the Sun for “Global warming”, “Climate change”, “Climate disruption”, all of it, including giving life-giving energy to the clima-socialist-ologists.

  94. adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.” – but, wait a minute!! I thought the “science was settled”!!! How could it be that something’s occurring that “they” don’t know about??!!! Is it possible they don’t know as much as they say they know? Is it possible this has all been a scam to make money and gain control over the populace? … Nah! /sarc!! They should all be defrocked of any scientific titles.

  95. Does this mean the beach isn’t going to get closer to my house? Dang….I was looking forward to the shorter drive.

  96. See “Disgrace to the Profession”, edited by Mark Steyn. The whole “climate change/global warming/global cooling thing is made up by a bunch of 82 IQs who are too lazy to work for a living.

  97. I wonder when climate scientists are going to address the UNCERTAINTY in their predictions? Who’s stepping up and prioritizing ALL if the potential climate drivers on (and off) planet Earth? I’ve not seen these, yet they are critical to science.

    • “I’ve not seen these, yet they are critical to science.
      You’ve not seen them because what’s going on is not “science” — it’s politics in white coats.

  98. Why can’t they admit that they may have some guesses, assumptions, etc. they actually don’t have a clue as to what’s really happening?

  99. Does the imminent onset of global cooling require we start emitting MORE co2? Get those coal fired plants back on line… GoveRnment incentives for SUV’s…. Tax those non-co2 emitting electric cars into oblivion…. Exhale more…. Our very existence depends on in.

  100. Why not? Climate change means ANY kind of change. So let’s go with global cooling for a while and see how that plays. Liberalism IS a mental disorder.

  101. Jim Hanson knows his shit… when it comes to Venus!

    What got me is the 33% increase in CO2 since 1900 represents only a 1 in 10,000 increase in a vital gas within the atmosphere on whole.

    1 in 10,000?

    Yep!

    How about we focus on the massive pollution that is created by China, India, Africa, etc…?

    The third world is burning pretty much everything they can to cook and keep warm. This is killing the planet… or at least a lot of people.

    • Hansen doesn’t even have Venus right. It’s not a runaway a GHG effect, but a runaway cloud effect, where the clouds and not the surface are in direct equilibrium with the Sun and the temperature of its surface is connected to the equilibrium temperature of its clouds through a lapse rate set by density and gravity. A runaway GHG effect requires active gain which is precluded by the fact that the ‘amplifier’, which in the classic climate system feedback model is the atmosphere, and is passive like an RLC circuit and not active like an OP amp, i.e. its output comes from consuming its input and feedback, rather then measuring them to determine how much to deliver from an infinite source. Without clouds, Venus would be far, far cooler since the transparent window in ‘clear sky conditions’ is actually wider than Earth’s owing to the lack of water significant vapor below its cloud layers.

      As I’ve said before, the Feedback Fubar started by Hansen and made worse by Schlesinger has tentacles reaching throughout all of climate science.

  102. I am about to describe a climate model created in one tiny region of the world. I am inclined to trust it more than any other model I have seen.

    It is not based on measurement but rather memories and stories. The stories started when I was a child growing up on a grassland farm in New Zealand 60 years ago. The first thing farmers discussed on the phone was current weather and grass growth. When growth declined so did bank balances. No bought supplements are used. It’s all reliant on rain and sun.

    We are pretty good at what we do, having calculated our livestock carrying capacity, even down to how many head each paddock can carry when set stocked during lambing. We remember, we talk – particularly about the very good or bad years. We remember the bad years when lambing percentages dropped by 50%. We remember the warm growthy winters when 10% of all the ewes in the district died through uterine prolapsed (overfeeding). Wool yields too are a direct indicator of the weather.

    Then there was the rain: years when tractors would sink to the axles in a flat paddock and others when one could not see 10 feet through the dust when driving stock.

    I remember winters with only 3 light frosts and others with 30 in a row. Then there was 82 El Nino when all deciduous tress had their leaves stripped off throughout the entire summer.

    Then there is the exceptional: snowfall 4 years ago – first in my living memory. My mother told me about one in 1928. There was the recent tornado: “unheard of!!”, almost. A real old-timer talked of one in his youth

    There are many newcomers now. Anything unusual within their short time frame is blamed on climate change. We old-timers just smile

    My prediction: more of the same

    • You’re right on, Michael. Leftists find a way to politicize everything, then get angry at you and demand money. That’s what “climate change” is about.

    • You comment is an excellent example of why it is important to remember the past. In the old days that skill was a necessity for the survival of any group of people anywhere around the globe.

  103. Anthropologic responsibility of effective resource utilization , is understood . The international gamesmanship to allow “any”country “some say ” in how “your nation squanders “. “most favored nation status “,allowing supposed “less developed nations to Deviate”; a sham. Politicians are manipulators . Good Science speaks for itself .

  104. Hmmm. The AMOC is showing a cooling trend and the sunspot cycle is at a minimum. Methinks the combination portends more cool/cold weather than warm. Time will tell.

  105. I hope Al Gore and pres burikk ubamma will be able to save us from warming/cooling. I’d better send them a check, quick.

  106. I really hope that Al Gore and Pres. burikk ubbama will be able to save us from earth’s warming/cooling. I’d better send them a check.

  107. Basic incontrovertable fact. As long as we have rain, and clouds, global warming is impossible ! Fact #2,
    heat moves from warm to cold. That happens to be a law. Always works that way…turbine engines and steam engines depend on it. Have you forgotten that the earth happens to be suspended in a vacuum ?
    My classmate went to the moon. ” Jim, whats the outside air temp when you get pass 50 miles out ?
    Ready for this ? It is minus 435 degrees F.! Remember, heat travels from hot to cold. And the hot earth is suspended in minus 435F. Guess which way the heat moves ? Right on…the earth continually louses heat
    to cold and is always moderated by our distance from the sun, and spinning at the rate of 1200 miles per hour [ one day ]. We are 75% covered by water which continually evaporates, and then condenses into rain. Which falls on your head and cools you off, and then evaporates from the ground, which cools it off.
    A very noble and most elegant system. It can be changed by moving the earth closer to or away from the sun, or changing the speed of rotation of the earth ; faster or slower. This would be most difficult to do, and may even require an executive action.

  108. This article is total garbage, just an attempt by the deniers to spin again.. Sad attempt

    • Andre,
      I presume by deniers you mean the warmists who consistently deny the applicability of first principles physics, deny the reality of the data, spin tiny truths into big lies, adjust data until it fits expectations. bamboozle the weak minded with fears of a global catastrophe and promote the lie because the truth contradicts their political beliefs?

      I know of no climate science skeptic who denies anything about the science (not that such people don’t exist at the fringes), but all strongly disagree with the wildly over-estimated sensitivity claimed by the IPCC and the self serving consensus it created by virtue of what it decided to publish in its reports. Although if the current presidential race is telling us anything, it’s that conflicts of interest carry no weight with the political left as long as the ends, regardless of means, fits the narrative.

  109. As usual…the “scientists” change their opinions (and data) to follow the most likely source of funding. I wonder if the loonies at the University of East Anglia have emailed each other–again–to finalize the details of THIS climate scam…

    As usual the Earth will do its thing and endure…just fine.

  110. Global warming? What is global warming? It has ALWAYS been global cooling. We have always said CO2 leads to global cooling and that you need to change your ways and pay us lots of your money to stop it. We have always been at peace with Eurasia and always been at war with Eatasia, too.

  111. I was hot yesterday, I am chilled today… It was sunny yesterday, it is cloudy today…
    what is a person to think about all this climate change…
    we must do away with all this man made CO2 so that everyday the temperature will be be the same… the climate change makes me so confused I don’t know if I should carry my umbrella or not.

  112. The wow-statement of the piece:

    “On the other hand, he [McManus ] adds, “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.”

    So – what did it do during the Eemian period?

  113. Everyone had best pay attention to our sun and its lack of spots.
    ….oh, and what John Casey wrote.

  114. The AGW extremists will still find a way to link it to CO2 even though it has nothing to very little to do with it. However the sun cycles, volcanic activity and orbital effects.

  115. Thee was a science fiction short story a few decades ago that quipped that human caused global warming was a non-starter and might have delayed the cyclical ice age by a few weeks or months.The only way the “Scientists!” will flip this particular flop is if if fits the internationalist collectivist power-grab narrative and generates grant money.

  116. People who suggest that change isn’t real just because we are talking cooling don’t understand the science.
    Should also consider that China, India and that whole area of the world will increase their energy output, not decrease it. They will green some and take advantage of some of the new tech, sure, but vast numbers of them still burn wood and coal for basic needs

  117. So long as the taxpayer money continues to roll in for government funded “studies”, I see nothing new here, just more of the same we have been exposed to since Mr. Spock told us it was “global cooling” back in the 70’s.

  118. If the cause is CO2 they need to snuff out all the fires out west AND cap all the volcanos! Then more importantly Ground all the frequent fliers in their private jets to the “climate change” meetings!

  119. I am not even going to try and pretend to know anything about climate and how it changes from one era to another! My only point is if this does happen how funny would it be? For a decade we are smothered with tales of doom about heat destroying us! Now it will be freezing destroying us! Make up your mind Mr Scientist

  120. I think CAGW has spent a lot of time, effort, and money to prove that anthropogenic pollution is the only cause of temperature either going up or down. It is the control nob that determines temperatures. If you believe in CAGW there literally isn’t room for anything else. No matter what, the ever increasing load of co2, according to their theory results unequivocally into global warming. Not someday, …. NOW. although I’ve failed to see much warming in the last 20 years, and nowhere near the predicted 95% certainty rate, nor the calamities that are past due.
    I’m only reminding the faithful of the tenets of AGW.

    So when the major warming didn’t occur, the line was that was to be expected. When monster snowstorms occured after they predicted children just aren’t going to know what snow is, that was global warming. After the drought in the midwest US began to fall apart, they began to look elsewhere. And ” the skies are not cloudy all day”. Wonder why they wrote that line in the song? And I have no idea why the called most of the west, The Great American Desert?

    So what’s their explaination for this cooling they are expecting? The heat is hiding?

  121. ‘If you pay scientists enough, they’ll eventually turn into investment bankers, day traders or George Soros-type figures’.

    The real problem is the patronising media claiming that ‘presenting the truth to the public would be too dangerous’.

  122. The highest human aspiration the neo-scientists can possibly muster!
    The Quest for Eternal Funding!
    (there really i$ a sun god)

  123. Well, on a more micro level, La Nina is making its presence felt here on the US West Coast. We now have what I consider to be classic La Nina conditions. Cold ocean, thick marine layer and even a prog of the precip-capable part of a Cold Front making it down to 37 N later this week. Beyond that, I would deem us to still be in Negative PDO. The short sharp El Nino events early to mid this decade fooled many into proclaiming that PDO had flipped back positive. I never bought it. In fact, I suspect the long term Negative PDO was one of the factors that dulled the past two El Nino events. In any case, we have a cold North Pacific. Now, if that phases with a cooling Atlantic, things might get interesting.

  124. Global cooling is a leading indicator of global warming.

    And global warming is a leading indicator of global cooling.

    That’s a short-term perspective.

    A long-term view is that our planet has been in a cooling trend, and the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air has been declining, in the pst 4.5 billion years.

    The climate trend depends mainly on what starting and ending dates you choose.

    The future climate is just a wild guess, whether you have a PhD, or are a village idiot.

    The climate in Michigan USA has been getting milder since I moved there in 1977.

    Those are the start and end dates of the trend that matters most to me.

    I have a hard time calling climate modelers “scientists”, and see no science in their inaccurate predictions and climate scaremongering.

    Climate modelers are the village idiots of 2016 — making the same scary predictions again and again for 40 years, so far, and expecting different results (the climate just keeps getting better and better ! )

    • As a scientist I have noticed that on the news when subjects that I feel I’m a expert on are discussed the news nearly always gets it wrong… so how can I believe the news on those subjects I am not an expert on? I’ve learned over my career that power and money can and will sway the interpretation of data and in some cases the manipulation of data. One claim that I hear is (there is an overwhelming consensus of scientist that man is causing climate change). You probably have not heard of the OISM petition, in which over 31,000 US scientist have signed stating that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that humans have or will cause climate change. Now our “masters” are even considering criminal charges against those who do not believe. As a scientist one of the fundamental premises is to always have an open mind but to always question established theory. Test Test Test!! And when your results do not match your theory, question your theory don’t change your data to match your theory!!!

  125. I loved this part:

    “Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate.”

    Hansen is blaming it all on the DISCREPANCY between the models and the actual planet.

    • The government is probably studying ways to make the planet conform to the climate models.

  126. From the Ancient Societies of Rome and Greece, to the Middle Ages and the power of the Vatican, and even unto Today… those with Wealth and Power have ALWAYS managed to modify the interpretation of scientific data to suit their wishes. We have numerous examples of this in History. Are we to believe that it is not happening – or at least being attempted NOW??

  127. That’s why the wackos changed their name/cause from “Man-made Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.
    First it was proven that man COULDN’T changing the climate of the world, then it was proven that the planet ISN’T warming (Remember the leaked e-mails, anyone?). So what do you do now? “Hey! How about ‘Climate Change’!? The climate is always changing, so we’ll always be right!”
    And so their propaganda machine cranks on, and the money keeps rolling in so that the super-rich can keep flying in their private jets to receive their “Enviro-Caring” awards…….

  128. CO2 =roughly 1/2500 of Earth’s atmosphere. Man’s contribution of CO2 =1/30,000 of Earth’s atmosphere. So if there is a correlation between global temperature changes and CO2 levels, it probably means that temperatures create CO2 changes and not the other way around. Correlation does not mean cause and effect . CO2 is just the only gas that politicians could find a way to tax.

  129. GREENLAND “ISN’T” MELTING !

    Check your facts !!

    Greenland, as well as “North” America just went through a “normal” warming pattern, AND this “isn’t” the first time it has happened !!!

    Climate “cycles” come and go every “20” or so years, AND about every 100-200 hundred years or so, “one” gets worse than the other !!!

    “Factor” in the “Sun” (You know, that BIG bright thing in the sky that “usually” rises in the Morning and sets in the Evening (Usually)) ?

    When good ole “Sun” wanes, global “Earth” temperatures tend to “drop”, AND sometimes tremendously !

    New Technologies accompanied with New “Realities” that are not yet totally “Understood” bring about “New” (Unknown) events that could/can possible occur within a very “Short” time !

    AND… Unlike the “current” pathological “liars” who only know how to (How to… ? Look up Satan), the “possibility” exists that good ole Planet “Earth” could be entering a “Inter-Glacial” period that could make life “extremely” difficult for those who dwell on the surface, AND of which “should” be known within the next “3” years (Circa 2019 – 2020) !!

    NOT “50” to “100” years in which by then good ole Planet “Earth” could be “Annihilated” way before then “because” of “many” more things more “likely” that could “happen” waaaaaaaaay before then !!!!

    That said…

    Set “oil” prices at $1000 dollars a barrel, Set “natural” (Natural ?) gas prices at $100 dollars a cubic foot, and remove “COAL” (Eradicate) “completely” !

    No effect on Me, I’m Rich !

    Besides, eventually, there will be a “lot” more “room” for Me and My Loved Ones…

    MoveOn

Comments are closed.