Oops, Warmists just lost the Antarctic peninsula – it is now cooling

click to enlarge

A warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014.

Remember the much ballyhooed paper that made the cover of Nature, Steig et al, “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year”, Nature, Jan 22, 2009 that included some conspicuously errant Mannian math from the master of making trends out of noisy data himself? Well, that just went south, literally.

And it just isn’t because the Steig et al. paper was wrong, as proven by three climate skeptics that submitted their own rebuttal, no, it’s because mother nature herself reversed the trend in actual temperature data in the Antarctic peninsula, and that one place where it was warming, was smeared over the entire continent by Mannian math to make it appear the whole of the Antarctic was warming.

The peninsula was the only bit of the Antarctic that suited the Warmists.  They gleefully reported glacial breakups there, quite ignoring that the Antarctic as a whole was certainly not warming and was in fact tending to cool.  The study below however shows that the warmer period on the peninsula was an atypical blip that has now reversed.

Highlights

  • We examine climate variability since the 1950s in the Antarctic Peninsula region.
  • This region is often cited among those with the fastest warming rates on Earth.
  • A re-assessment of climate data shows a cooling trend initiated around 1998/1999.
  • This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP.
  • Observed changes on glacial mass balances, snow cover and permafrost state

Recent regional climate cooling on the Antarctic Peninsula and associated impacts on the cryosphere

M. Oliva et al.

Abstract

The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend of 0.54 °C/decade during 1951–2011 recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. While that study focuses on the period 1979–2014, averaging the data over the entire AP region, we here update and re-assess the spatially-distributed temperature trends and inter-decadal variability from 1950 to 2015, using data from ten stations distributed across the AP region. We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 °C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.

Fig. 4. Temporal evolution of the difference between the MAATs and the 1966–2015 average temperature for each station (3-year moving averages).

Fig. 1. Location of the AP within the Antarctic continent. b. Detail of the South Shetland Islands and its stations. c. Distribution of the stations on the Peninsula and neighbouring islands, with inter-decadal MAAT variations since 1956 across the AP region.

Full paper:

Science of The Total Environment. Volume 580, 15 February 2017, Pages 210–223

h/t to “Greenie Watch

Advertisements

233 thoughts on “Oops, Warmists just lost the Antarctic peninsula – it is now cooling

    • Excerpt from:

      Liz Thomson et al 2009
      Ice core evidence for significant 100-year regional warming on the Antarctic Peninsula
      GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L20704, doi:10.1029/2009GL040104,
      2009

      The black curve is the first principal component, shown in the graph but omitted from the text of the paper.

      • There could be a CO2 signal in there somewhere but it is impossible to say for sure because the trend doesn’t go back beyond ~1860.

      • Greg, your graph ends in 2009.

        If you look closely, It is similar to the one published by Oliva et al. which is more recent and covers until 2014. It shows a strong cooling from 2009 to 2014. So, your graph disproves nothing.

        I guess you know that, but you posted your graph anyway because, well, that is what trolls are supposed to do, right?

      • Given that you are using ice core data, I’m wondering why it stops at 1860. Granted, most charts and graphs stops around there, but this seems like an opportunity to give a broader picture. As it stands, it doesn’t show much of anything.

      • Is it just me or does that graph really show the awesome power of the 1998 La Nina even on the Antarctic?

      • You can hardly call it “ice core” data if the “ice” is actually just recently fallen snow and firn. Mercury thermometers would be much better at reconstructing temperatures in that time period.

      • I guess you know that, but you posted your graph anyway because, well, that is what trolls are supposed to do, right?

        Look dumb shit, don’t try to project something out of your head and infer my motivations. I posted that graph because it is complementary information. I did not draw any conclusions or pass any comment, one way or the other so the only one trolling here is you.

        I’m wondering why it stops at 1860.

        Gomez is a much shorter ice core relatively near to the coast . There is nothing like the accumulation that there is at some of the sites in the centre of continent. But it does have almost yearly resolution and is a useful dataset for the region under discussion here.

        … impossible to say for sure because the trend doesn’t go back beyond ~1860.

        The graph I posted from Thomson et al does not show a “trend”. It shows the 1st P.C. which is a cycle peaking around y2000. That is consistent with the paper under discussion. That is why I thought it may be of interest.

        The trough is around 1880 and this is also consistent with sea level data which were showing sea levels dropping up to that point and then century long warming after.

      • Interesting graph. However, and slightly OT, can all people posting ensure that graphics have the scales (as this one does) and the legend (as this one does not) describing what is on the graphic. Additionally, please post the caption, if there is one, and any other information on the original graphic, such as callouts.

      • “Greg April 27, 2017 at 9:37 am

        “I guess you know that, but you posted your graph anyway because, well, that is what trolls are supposed to do, right?”

        Look dumb shit, don’t try to project something out of your head and infer my motivations. I posted that graph because it is complementary information. I did not draw any conclusions or pass any comment, one way or the other so the only one trolling here is you.”

        Why how personally abusive you are, Greg!?

        Nothing like a flagrant ad hominem to set us skeptics back, huh?

        Then, again, I notice you failed to answer another question posed to you. Completely ignored it, you did.

        “RWturner April 27, 2017 at 8:40 am
        You can hardly call it “ice core” data if the “ice” is actually just recently fallen snow and firn. Mercury thermometers would be much better at reconstructing temperatures in that time period. ”

        Tell us all about ice core proxies for firn, unconsolidated ice, granular snow and other ice core surface contaminations Greg?

        Or did you just post spliced surface temperature estimates to actual ice core data?

        They sure are tricky, these trolls.

      • Why how personally abusive you are, Greg!?

        Nothing like a flagrant ad hominem to set us skeptics back, huh?

        Well, urederra started that. And please think first if this ‘Greg’ is the same as the other ‘Greg’.

      • Quote mistake. This is my comment.

        Well, urederra started that. And please think first if this ‘Greg’ is the same as the other ‘Greg’.

      • Greg- my data says it’s penguin farts! We should be able to tell now that they’re all dead. Oh! Hold the presses! Penguin numbers are up a few million! Oh my God! Think of the methane! It’s worse than we thought!

      • Nothing like a flagrant ad hominem to set us skeptics back, huh?

        Then, again, I notice you failed to answer another question posed to you. Completely ignored it, you did.

        Firstly, I have no obligation to respond to every question that everyone asks about every comment I ever make.

        Second, some a-hole comes in calling me a troll and making stupid, baseless ( and incorrect ) assumptions about what my political position is in the climate wars when I post a graph without further comment is going to get all the respect he deserves, ie. NONE.

        Calling someone a dumb shit when they are being a dumb shit, is not an “ad hom”. The ad hom idea assumes someone is making a logical argument and you counter by attacking the man not their argument.

        since Mr A-hole only made a personal attack on me to start with by attributing motivations that he read into what I DID NOT say, there was no logical argument to start with.

        Or did you just post spliced surface temperature estimates to actual ice core data?

        A fairly ridiculous suggestion when the graph axis says d18O ….

        @Retired_Engineer_Jim: It’s not much help but since you make reasonable request.

        Figure 1. Gomez annual average d 18O (blue), running
        decadal mean (red) and nonlinear trend (black). The running
        decadal mean is derived using an 11-point Gaussian
        window filter.

      • I understand that it is a thankless world out there where the only skepticism allowed is of skeptics, but I think the triggers are a little too hairset on the posting of this graph. notice that the poster inserted a trend for the first principal component (somebody with some statistics skills can tell me what that represents) that emphasizes that there is little different between early and late 20th century trends and then illustrates the pause.

        I don’t spend enough time reading comments to be suspicious of certain posters, but this really doesn’t seem that loaded and this site ought not be known for the kind of intolerance that is found in the consensus. I think it fair to ask the gentleman what he implies if it is ambiguous rather than jumping to conclusions. (Greg, I hope you will consider that a fair question)

    • In the recent months there has been a noticeable revival of idea of the solar link, either in relation to the pause or a prospect of possible global cooling.
      It is not certain or even clear if the science on the subject is settled, beside the TSI, there are still UV component, GCR and other electro-magnetic factors, apparently minor but not entirely ineffective according to the current state of knowledge.
      Strong inverse correlation of the solar and the Antarctic’s long term magnetic variability during the last 400 years ( link ) is not necessarily proof of any link to cooling/warming of the Antarctic region but it shouldn’t be summarily dismissed as irrelevant either.

    • Fits the narrative just fine.

      We expect the global average to rise…Over time..
      We expect short periods of cooling.
      We expect some small regions…Typically those by oceans and especially peninsula’s to have occasional cooling.

      Fits the narrative fine

      • The obvious problem being, EVERYTHING fits the warmist narrative. The coming of the next ice age fits the warmist narrative.

      • The obvious problem being, EVERYTHING fits the warmist narrative. The coming of the next ice age fits the warmist narrative.

      • We expect short periods of cooling.
        ___________________________________

        As a physicist this is what does not make sense to me. If the increase in CO2 increases the spectrum in which IR radiation is absorbed, then it is a one way street to warmer temps. This is just simple, basic physics IR radiation absorption and emission.

        You can’t have it both ways.

      • I am not sure you understand exactly what is happening looking at the spectrum of CO2?

        it has absorptions in both the emission spectrum of the sun and earth

        hence the ‘closed box’ experiments from those scientists who lived 100 years ago are not valid [anymore]

        The net effect of more CO2 could be cooling rather than warming…..

        [do you have a balance sheet?]

      • “We expect short periods of cooling.
        We expect some small regions…Typically those by oceans and especially peninsula’s to have occasional cooling”
        Can you provide evidence to backup the assertion that the cooling in Antartica during these years was expected? And did those studies/models also accurately predict the magnitude of the cooling? How long is the cooling in this region expected to last?

  1. Oh No! The Ice Age Cometh!! It’s all Man’s fault!!! CO2 is cooling the Planet!!!! Repent for the End is Nigh!!!!! (Sarc… just in case somebody can’t tell)

    In a more serious vein… Any particular weather shift associated with the cool down?

    • If you should find yourself there without adequate clothing or shelter, you will now die several seconds faster than you would otherwise have frozen to death.

    • We should boost CO2 and methane emmissions as the interglacial is coming to an end. I wonder if there is any way to slow the glacial advance when it comes?

      • Back in the 70’s when every one was freaking out about the coming ice age. Spreading soot on the glaciers was recommended.

      • Sorry
        Working on my phone.
        I meant to say thst you must cover the approaching ice with carbon dust to the refkection of light by ice and snow.

      • Giant fusion-powered blow dryers?

        Massive snow removal project, using enormous, fossil fuel-guzzling dump trucks?

        Tampering with the atmosphere?

        Mark’s soot suggestion might be the best option. But the climate system is mightly and men are puny. Contrary to alarmists’ imagination of human omnipotence, we aren’t a pimple on the posterior of our planet.

      • BCBill- That would be an excellent idea if we had any reason whatsoever to believe that these trace gases have an effect on temperature.

      • Co2 is a bad choice because of its long residence.

        HFC. If you want to warm the planet fast and cheap.

    • Yes SMC, over here in South West Australia we are now surrounded by unusually cold surface waters and we just had the coldest winter for 50 years or so and also a very cool mild summer. Something is definitely changed in the weather patterns over here in the last 12 months.

    • Not only the coldest but one of the wetter ones although the winds early on dried it up.
      The worst summer I can remember in my 63 years.

      • MarkW,
        RE: It’s not cold till the water gets hard!”
        HA! Just so! Were you born in WI, MN, or the UP of MI?

        It’s not cold till the hairs in your nose feel ‘twiggy’!

      • We have been told that last year was the warmest on record. Well I must have blinked because I certainly didn’t do my usual overnight forays into the woods, so it wasnt that warm for me.

    • We’ve all been burned to death here in Oz, at least if the MSM is correct…

      Meanwhile in the real world, it’s been fairly cool here in the north lately.

    • While some are bemoaning the the loss of ice in the Arctic, depends on whether you look at NOAA or DMI, Europe is having snow and cold all the way down into Med. Some really huge snow amounts. Were they spaying water on the vineyards to keep the grapes from freezing ? And out here in Colorado we have a winter storm coming in this weekend.. 8 inches of the stuff. The high temp Sat is suppose to be a very balmy 28 F … ah springtime.. where oh where did the warmest year ever go ?

      • Snow in Western Canada and about 10C cooler than normal. Whatever normal means in a place where you get snow in about any month of the year a occasionally temps over 100F in the summer.

      • Woke up this morning to snow here in southern Wisconsin. I might have been premature in planting the tomatoes.

      • If the rhetoric had been about global cooling, all of these places would have been offered as proof. Instead it’s strangely quite. Or they make it out that the warming is causing the cooling. Which is really nuts. And it’s cold this late into the spring ? Why ? It isn’t global warming that’s killing the crops in Europe.

    • Yes Birdynumnum, while east Oz cooked here in the South West we’ve had twelve months of below average temperatures, both day time maxima and night time minima have been about a degree or more less than the long term averages.

      • Here in the southeast part of the best state in the Union, MN ;-), We’ve had 19mo in a row of above “normal”. And people now complain if it isn’t above normal all the time, such as these past 3 days. Nice earlier than average green-up this year. Love it.

  2. Climate is defined as the weather integrated over 30 years.
    Why do we agree that 30 years is appropriate for all regions?

    Some areas that are particularly stable may have “weather” dominating climate trends for longer than that period.
    It’s been cold in Antarctica for a while so why do we use the same definition of climate there as we do in Temperate zones?

    • imho there is nothing wrong with using 30 year periods to define climate. it is good for observation purpose.

      that means: it’s good to see the changes in an everchanging process which earth’s climate is.

      it’s bad and wrong when it is used as a norm, believed to be this way for hundreds of years.

      • Matt:

        You state that you are still mistaken when you write

        By way of pedantry, Climate is defined as average weather over thirty years… by the WMO. They may not use it routinely for practical purposes. And it may not have any real significance as a physical definition. But that is the official definition.

        No. Please read the explanation I provided for you because you are mistaking
        (a) the time period used for any of the variables
        with
        (b) ‘the classical period’ (also known as the climatological normal) for averaging the variables’.

        The IPCC Glossary correctly states the definition of climate.
        I stated it, quoted it and linked to it. It says that climate is

        Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.

        and the classical period is

        The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization.

        Clearly, a climate variable and a classical period of the variable are NOT the same thing because “a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” is not the same thing as “30 years”.

        I explained what the classical period is, why it is, what it is used for, and when and why it was defined as being 30 years.

        Values of the climate variables averaged over 30 years are also known as ‘climatological normals’. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides this similar explanation that which I provided where it says

        The average value of a meteorological element over 30 years is defined as a climatological normal. The normal climate helps in describing the climate and is used as a base to which current conditions can be compared. Every ten years, NCDC computes new thirty-year climate normals for selected temperature and precipitation elements for a large number of U.S. climate and weather stations. These normals are summarized in daily, monthly, divisional, and supplementary normals products.

        As I said, any period can be chosen for the length of a climate datum but it must be stated. As illustration I explained that GAST is usually computed for individual months and GASTA for individual months is obtained by comparison of the monthly GAST values to a value of GAST of a 30-year classical period.

        Another illustration would be the use of 4-year periods by the IPCC in 2004 as a comparison of hurricane frequencies.

        Dad

    • Matt:

      You mistakenly say and ask

      Climate is defined as the weather integrated over 30 years.
      Why do we agree that 30 years is appropriate for all regions?

      Sorry, but climate is NOT “defined as the weather integrated over 30 years”.The UN IPCC Glossary provides this definition of climate.

      Climate
      Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. {WGI, II, III}

      So,
      climate is ‘average weather’ over any “period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” but the period needs to be stated.

      And, for example, a monthly value of global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) is a climate datum and time series of monthly GASTAs are plotted for since ~1850. If the period of a climate datum were 30 years then we would only have 4 or 5 measurements of GASTA since 1850.

      30 years is rarely considered appropriate for any climate datum in any region although the IPCC glossary definition does not state this clearly.

      The 30 years refers to the WMO “classical period for averaging these variables” to provide a standard datum to which climate data are compared: it is NOT climate.
      It means that, for example, a monthly datum for GASTA is obtained by comparing the monthly value of global surface temperature (GAST) to the average GAST for a 30 year period (the teams providing GASTA time series use different 30 year standard periods).

      The 30 year length of the WMO “classical period” is arbitrary: it was adopted in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) because it was then thought there was insufficient data for use prior to 30 years before 1958. It is an unfortunate choice because 30 years is not a multiple of the solar cycle length, or the Hale cycle length, or any other climate cycle length.

      Dad

      • commieBob,

        With respect, and I know I could be wrong and reading too much into it, but I think it’s an inside thing. Please look at the first commentator’s name then see how richardscourtney signed off.

      • By way of pedantry, Climate is defined as average weather over thirty years… by the WMO. They may not use it routinely for practical purposes. And it may not have any real significance as a physical definition. But that is the official definition.

        So I stand by my suggestion that the official definition should be regionally sensitive.

        PS. I am no more offended at any rudeness of tone than you are at my being too cheap to buy you a Father’s Day Card. Which my tradition, that I will be maintaining this year.

      • Dear “Dad,”

        Richard S. Courtney,

        A Father’s Day card for you. This video is not about something you and your son have gone through. It’s not about two men who are exactly like you two. It’s about what these two have very much in common with you:

        LOVE.

        Dedicated to a dad who, as we all here on WUWT can see (we can read between lines, too, you know), who deeply loves his son.

        Who is there for him.

        (youtube — Richard and Rick Hoyt story)

        Together.

        To the very end of the race.

        Thank you, all of you genuine, really “there,” dads.

        HAPPY FATHER’S DAY (early)!

        With love,

        Janice

        {Also, in memory of “asybot,” who showed the concern of a real dad to me. In the hopes that at least one person might read the obituary I wrote (so far, no one has) for him, here it is: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/24/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-267/#comment-2484355 }

      • Janice:
        Thank you for posting the link to asybot’s obituary.

        On a side, totally irrelevant note; I rarely read the comments under TWTW articles. The sheer breadth of most TWTW articles makes confusing reading of comments.

        Perhaps WUWT could post your sensitive and illuminating asybot eulogy elsewhere?

      • Matt:

        My reply to your recent post addressed to me appeared in the wrong place. So I am copying it to here in hope that it will appear in the right place this time.

        Dad.

        Matt:

        You state that you are still mistaken when you write

        By way of pedantry, Climate is defined as average weather over thirty years… by the WMO. They may not use it routinely for practical purposes. And it may not have any real significance as a physical definition. But that is the official definition.

        No. Please read the explanation I provided for you because you are mistaking
        (a) the time period used for any of the variables
        with
        (b) ‘the classical period’ (also known as the climatological normal) for averaging the variables’.

        The IPCC Glossary correctly states the definition of climate.
        I stated it, quoted it and linked to it. It says that climate is

        Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.

        and the classical period is

        The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization.

        Clearly, a climate variable and a classical period of the variable are NOT the same thing because “a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” is not the same thing as “30 years”.

        I explained what the classical period is, why it is, what it is used for, and when and why it was defined as being 30 years.

        Values of the climate variables averaged over 30 years are also known as ‘climatological normals’. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides this similar explanation that which I provided where it says

        The average value of a meteorological element over 30 years is defined as a climatological normal. The normal climate helps in describing the climate and is used as a base to which current conditions can be compared. Every ten years, NCDC computes new thirty-year climate normals for selected temperature and precipitation elements for a large number of U.S. climate and weather stations. These normals are summarized in daily, monthly, divisional, and supplementary normals products

        As I said, any period can be chosen for the length of a climate datum but it must be stated. As illustration I explained that GAST is usually computed for individual months and GASTA for individual months is obtained by comparison of the monthly GAST values to a value of GAST of a 30-year classical period.

        Another illustration would be the use of 4-year periods by the IPCC in 2004 as a comparison of hurricane frequencies.

        Dad

      • Dear Theo,

        Thank you, so much, for taking the time to let me know. How good that made me feel — that I did not write that in vain. Yes, that Weekly is awfully dense reading. That’s why I suggested a few weeks ago that WUWT post it late Saturday night, so it would be there as sort of a “Sunday Edition,” when most people have more time to read. And, even so, it would likely still be too much for many to take the time to peruse.

        I almost posted that obituary via “Submit a Story,” but, my personal experience with attempting (via Tips, mainly) to get something noticed at WUWT (or suggestions heeded) is too much one of failure to want to put something that precious (to me) into what felt like a very iffy place.

        Gratefully,

        Janice

      • “Also, in memory of “asybot,” ”

        Janice, I am SO sorry to hear this. I missed your original post on April 24, and this is the first I heard of it. So sad.

        Asybot and I had a few private email conversations about a mutually interesting subject, and although I only knew him through WUWT and a few emails, he seemed like a very nice person, and a very smart person.

        God Bless You, Tobias Smit. Rest in peace. Save a place for us.

      • Janice Moore April 27, 2017 at 10:11 am

        … {Also, in memory of “asybot,”

        Thank you Janice. :-(

      • Hey, TA, thank you for acknowledging that post. Yes, what a caring person. I thought he was much older, around 75 or so. Tough for Mary Anne to lose him so young.

      • Thank you also Janice for reposting this here. I usually just skim through the weekly roundup to see if anything catches my eye, and rarely make it all the way to the comments.

        Asybot will be missed. -_-

      • “So, climate is ‘average weather’ over any “period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” but the period needs to be stated”

        Well yes, but for practical purposes there has to be an appropriate period suitable for humans, to experience, to compare and to contrast.
        Two months is hardly “climate” for humans but would easily be for mayflies ; some adult mayflies have a lifespan of 5 minutes. Millions of years is also unsuitable as weather/climate can vary markedly in that time; it could include the appearance and disappearance of 2km thick glaciers. The last glacial period began about 110,000 years ago. Most of the ice was gone by 12,000 years ago.
        Climate determined for our green blue planet by astronomers 20 light years away [or from however far they can “see” us] would be much more of an average condition than the climate experienced by residents of the planet.

        So then 30 years……it may be arbitrary but it is, perhaps by chance, close to the 25 years reckoned to equate to one generation through most of human history.

      • GregK:

        Use 30 years if that makes you happy but don’t think anybody else is constrained to other than the official definition of climate; i.e.

        Climate
        Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.

        ref. IPCC Glossary

        Richard

    • commieBob:

      It is a DEFINITION. Of course I am being pedantic. Anything else is plain wrong.

      You are being rude.

      Richard

      • …30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization.</i
        Seems plain enough.

      • No, half a sentence taken out of context is not clear enough. What is your point and how does that relate to anything you have not tried to change the meaning of by selectively quoting?

      • Hey Commie Bob did ya notice the synomyms and that thar page? ‘Academic’ or ‘Donnish’ or ‘Scholarly’. For a lot of people those are positive attributes. Pendants have for some silly reason got a bad rap, maybe because of the simple fact some people would prefer to remain wrong and ignorant than have someone correct them?

      • templedelamour April 27, 2017 at 9:42 pm

        Hey Commie Bob did ya notice the synomyms and that thar page? ‘Academic’ or ‘Donnish’ or ‘Scholarly’.

        You’re cherry picking. :-)

        At a first approximation, knowledge is good and ignorance is bad. On the other hand, knowledge without context is bad. Over the years on WUWT we’ve seen example after example of scholars who say ridiculous things because they lack simple generally known information. Exhibit A would be Dr. Mann who could erase the MWP and LIA because he had no clue about world history.

        Experts have worked hard to get their encyclopedic knowledge of a subject. They, and most other people, think that means the experts can predict the outcome of events. That is simply false. Tetlock gives the example of a secretary who is better at predicting the behaviour of a patient than is her boss, the psychiatrist.

        Knowledge is bad when it gives us the illusion of understanding. It then leads us into grave error.

    • I know others have replied, so if I say something duplicating someone else, or I’m just flat wrong, please forgive me. The important aspect is looking at weather as a trend over a 30 year period or longer. Anything less than 30 years is simply considered weather. It’s too difficult to discern meaningful climate patterns in periods of time less than 30 years.

      • But my original point was that 30 years may not be sufficient to distinguish trend from weather everywhere.

        For example, Antarctica has stable weather (it’s cold and dry) so is thirty years sufficient to spot a trend rather than the rare weather events that do occur?

      • Joz Jonlin:

        Sorry, but you are “just flat wrong”.

        Please read my above explanations to my son who made the same misunderstanding as you.
        They are here and here.

        The magnitude of your mistake is demonstrated by your saying.

        Anything less than 30 years is simply considered weather. It’s too difficult to discern meaningful climate patterns in periods of time less than 30 years.

        In fact, that is the opposite of reality. As I say in one of my linked posts

        And, for example, a monthly value of global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) is a climate datum and time series of monthly GASTAs are plotted for since ~1850. If the period of a climate datum were 30 years then we would only have 4 or 5 measurements of GASTA since 1850.

        Richard

    • Excuse me, but that was Al Gore-mless who fixed the planet, with his co-winners of the Nobbled Prize.

      • That’s right, Oboy didn’t heal the planet. He stopped the rising seas. Complete different. ^¿^

  3. The results are interesting. The west coast has been warming, the east is now cooling. But the west appears to have a very distinctive 10 year cycle. That may just be the effect of variation or there might be something interesting in it. I’d love to see average wind speed and direction to see whether they can explain this apparent cycle.

  4. “And it just isn’t because the Steig et al. paper was wrong, as proven by three climate skeptics that submitted their own rebuttal, no, “

    In fact, the Steig et al article was about “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface
    ” and covered the period 1957-2006, so it is on neither count contradicted by the Oliva paper. The sceptics, however, found that “Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, we find warming over the period of 1957-2006 to be concentrated in the Peninsula (≈0.35oC decade-1). “.

      • Phillip Bratby, I assume it’s because there are so few defenders on this site that he is trying to provide a vital part of the science – Debate.

      • So few defenders?

        Nick, griff, Mosher, whatever sock puppet sou is using this week, and that doesn’t even count the ranters that pop in for a few days and then give up when the realize their cries of ‘There’s a Consensus!’ Didn’t make any converts.

        Though I will admit, there are far fewer then in the old days. Maybe the Climate Cash really is drying up. ~¿~

    • Would be nice if you’d read the paper before putting that paid shill rapid response keyboard into action.

      “During recent years several studies have analysed the evolution of
      Antarctic climate during the second half of the 20th century and the beginning
      of the 21st century.While there is no agreement on the magnitude
      and rate of warming for the whole continent (Vaughan et al.,
      2001; Steig et al., 2009; Schneider et al., 2012; Bromwich et al., 2013,
      2014), all studies consistently show evidence of the pronouncedwarming
      that occurred on and around the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) prior to the
      2000s”

      “The low number of meteorological stations with climate records in
      Antarctica prior to the 1970s–1980s hinders inferring clear trends for
      the entire continent (e.g. Steig et al., 2009; Bromwich et al., 2013).
      This situation is less marked in the AP region, where a significant number
      of stations have recorded climatic data during the second half of the
      20th century, providing a higher density network in comparison with
      the rest of the Antarctic continent. Using climatic data from these stations,
      we examine to what extent the recent widespread cooling of
      the AP region since the mid-2000s fits within the long-term spatiotemporal
      variations detected in the AP since the mid-20th century as
      well as how the seasonal changes observed during the last decade
      may have impacted the cryosphere in the region.”

      Over the last decade the AP region has largely been described as one
      of the fastest warming regions on Earth, with comparable amplitude to
      the Arctic region. The IPCC (2007) suggested an increase of MAAT
      between 2 and 3 °C for 2080–2099 with respect to the average 1980–
      1999, although this range was later reduced by the latest IPCC assessment
      (IPCC, 2013) to circa 1.8 °C for the entire continent. It should be
      stressed that these recent temperature increments are significantly
      lower than the corresponding temperature increase projected in the
      Arctic by the end of the 21st century estimated at 4.9 °C (IPCC, 2007,
      2013).

      • I have read the paper (from here. I don’t see how any of what you quoted counters my points. Steig et al analysed the period 1957-2006, and the paper confirms that overall that was a period of strong warming. And that was the point emphasised by the sceptic authors, even more so.

        From your Oliva quote:
        “all studies consistently show evidence of the pronounced warming that occurred on and around the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) prior to the 2000s”
        That was Steig’s period.

      • What a bloody pointless paper and ensuing discussion. It’a peninsula attached to a permanent ice sheet. When sea ice is lower the air temps reflect the marine environment. When ice abounds the air temps reflect the wind direction and land ice temperatures. To discuss these air temps as if they reflect some underlying truth about the state of the world is flat out idiotic!

    • In fact, the Steig et al article was about “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface

      Indeed, and it was garbage. There was no warming across the surface of the Antarctic ice-sheet. They managed to create warming across the whole continent by improper interpolation and blending the very sparse data across vast regions.

      It was incompetent at best.

      …. so it is on neither count contradicted by the Oliva paper.

      Did anyone suggest it was? It does not need further contradiction since it was BS to start with and has been thoroughly rebutted.

      The only warming in Antarctica was on the AP and now even that is reversing.

      • “Did anyone suggest it was? “
        Yes. From the article
        “Well, that [Steig] just went south, literally.”

        “and has been thoroughly rebutted.
        The only warming in Antarctica was on the AP”

        Here is the table from O’Donnell et al. Hardly a rebuttal – they get positive trends everywhere, and a huge one in the AP, where Steig’s is quite modest:

        I did my own analysis here. Probably closer to Steig than O’Donnell.

      • Nick Stoke — from your own work referred in the text clearly shows the Peninsula met network is closely covered over the other three regions. Also, the trend according to O’Donell is insignificant in the first three regions and only Peninsula trend appears to be significant. In the case of Steig, Peninsula present nearly one-third but around the same level of the first three regions. Steig data questionable or warming trend is insignificant.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • Nick,

        Trends are under half what Steig had and in almost all areas was not statistically significant. — that is a big difference. It’s hard to believe people would reference Steig still and ignore an obvious rebuttal which you seem to be having a hard time noticing. His math was completely falsified, yet it still counts as “not rebutted” in Climateland.

        Jeff

      • From Steig et al, we had such memorable lines such as these:

        We use a method adapted from the regularized expectation maximization algorithm (RegEM) for estimating missing data points in climate fields. RegEM is an iterative algorithm similar to principal-component analysis, used as a data-adaptive optimization of statistical weights for the weather station data.

        Now I here use an equally effective method from the irregularized maximization of bullshit algorithm (IregMBS) for estimating manipulated points in climate science in general.

      • NS,
        It is interesting that in many cases the uncertainty (one sigma?) is larger than the trend value. What are the R^2 values for these trends?

      • “they get positive trends everywhere”

        0.06 +- 0.08 ; 0.04 +/- 0.06 : that is NO trend not a positive.

      • Let’s have a look at the development of the temperatures of the Antarctic as GISS it does:

        The region with warming as record:

        These are the facts about the most rapidly warming region of the earth!

      • While Nick doubles-down on his failure, where’s Mosh to claim that Antarctica should have been cooling and continue to cool for decades to come as the globe warms? I wonder how long it will take for Nick to jump on that bandwagon.

      • Jeff,
        “ignore an obvious rebuttal which you seem to be having a hard time noticing”
        Your lead co-author, writing in an article at your site, summarised the situation thus:

        Overall, we find that the Steig reconstruction overestimated the continental trends and underestimated the Peninsula – though our analysis found that the trend in West Antarctica was, indeed, statistically significant. I would hope that our paper is not seen as a repudiation of Steig’s results, but rather as an improvement.

        In my opinion, the Steig reconstruction was quite clever, and the general concept was sound.

        I didn’t ignore the rebuttal. I wrote a series of articles, eg here.

      • “Nick is co-author of nothing Antarctic related that I know of.”
        Interesting to contrast with this recent WUWT post (“Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles”). Now a blog reanalysis is worthless? We have a paper! Sceptics can’t win scientific arguments by reference to weight of published papers.

      • Well, since you know math, you also know our lead co-author was being nice.

        Steig’s math was borked beyond all recognition. You know it, I know it, others know it too.

        What I don’t like is when people who ‘know’ play games. When they do they are not funny, not realistic and worse than all of those — not correct.

      • Nick,

        “Well, people then got angrier, as they do. But the published math didn’t change.”

        You actually expected them to admit error? I didn’t, they are never wrong. What is surprising is when knowledgeable people who are uninvolved try to claim that Steig wasn’t in error.

      • Jeff writes

        You actually expected them to admit error? I didn’t, they are never wrong.

        Tiljander being a case in point. Seeing Mann admit error would be bizarre.

    • Nick, you can’t rebut the argument by omitting half of it or inventing your own straw man.

      Paraphrasing Anthony
      1. Steig was given much publicity by alarmists
      2. That publicity is now invalid
      3. Because not only was Steig shonky [pruned] in the first place
      4. But also because the temperature trend Steig relied on has reversed.

      Have a go at the “but also” part above. Hope that helps.

      Oh, and have you in fact every been wrong about anything?

    • Some warming –

      Halley Research stations 1- 4
      “The first four were all buried by snow accumulation and crushed until they were uninhabitable”

      Halley V
      “Main buildings were built on steel platforms that were raised annually to keep them above the snow surface”

      Halley VI
      “Two-storey buildings constructed inside four interconnected plywood tubes with access shafts to the surface. The tubes were 9 metres in diameter and consisted of insulated reinforced panels designed to withstand the pressures of being buried in snow and ice.[18][19]
      Designed to cope with being buried in snow”

    • Steig paper was wrong because he uses faulty data. In his paper the data from Harry station is mixed with the data from Gill station.

      That paper should have been retracted on account that the study only uses the data of four West Antarctica AWS stations and the one with strongest warming trend was Harry, and it had that strong warming trend because its data was mixed up with Gill’s data.

      https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/statio5.gif?w=500&h=608

      As you can see, the station with steepest slope was Harry,

      https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/01/west-antarctic-stations/

      Steig used faulty data. Data generated from two stations Harry and Gill, as it were generated from only one station, Harry. And despite that Harry’s trend was very different from the other 3 stations, nobody checked whether was something wrong with Harry’s data that gave Harry a 0.81C/decade trend. Not Steig, not the other authors of the paper, not Nature’s reviewers.

      https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/01/west-antarctic-stations/
      https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/02/when-harry-met-gill/

      BTW, If you read the comments on those blog entries, you will recognize the names of some WUWT regular posters. :-)

      • ummm… the pretty graph of the antarctic stations is not shown. Sorry about that, one last try.

  5. Somebody needs to get down there and find an upside down bristlecone pine pronto, before this gets out.

  6. In the Exxon knew documents of presentations by scientist James Black, Exxon was told that the polar regions would warm by 10 C with a doubling of CO2. That’s at least 2 C by now.
    Surely Exxon is now off the hook?

  7. modest in the Orkney Islands,

    The Orkney Islands are part of the UK, off Scotland. May be the authors meant South Orkney Islands

    • Thank you Greg!

      That clarified it greatly for me. Though I admit to not quite pulling up a map and searching for Orkney islands around England. It was nagging me though.

      • Damnit people, stop doing that, it takes forever to reboot the universe when you crash it that way.

    • That’s one difference between the USA and Germany: instead of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” they have an actual professor of astrophysics giving a short weekly talk about real science.

      Well worth following on youtube, if you speak German

  8. The biggest mistake is to use short-term and regionally limited temperature changes and to extrapolate into the future. The climate varies, both world-wide and regionally. It gets warmer and then it gets colder again. Sometimes it gets so cold that people are forced to emigrate. I have never heard of people being forced to emigrate because of a warming!

  9. Quote: … mother nature herself reversed the trend in actual temperature data in the Antarctic peninsula…

    Wait for it. Who wants to hazard a guess at how long it will take the data fiddlers to reverse the reversal. If they are still game to be as brazen as Karl.

  10. My results of 27 weather stations in the SH for the last 40 years show no warming. Zilch. Zero.
    OTOH my results for the NH show warming of about 0.024K/annum since for the last 40 years.
    I balanced these stations by latitude so overall, the warming of earth was about 0.012K/annum over the past 40 years; which in fact does not compare too bad with the satellite data.
    I think to explain what I am seeing – this report on Antarctica confirms it again – is that earth’s inner core must have shifted a bit. Go down one km into a gold mine here and see how you start sweating. Does anyone really have any figures on how big this elephant in the room is?
    Going by earth’s north pole, it has shifted north east quite dramatically over the past 50 years. This would explain why we see melting of ice in the arctic.
    I understand that it is the sun who has this magnetic stirrer effect on the sun.
    Might be interesting to hear other people’s opinions on this.

    • Henry there has been a dramatic shift in the direction of the magnetic pole from around 2003 and its heading towards Siberia fairly quickly.

      Snow and ice should theoretically build up where ever it wanders.

    • Simple explanation , the Earths orbit has become slightly more eccentric.
      From all those great scientists of the past, spinning in their graves at what science has degenerated into.

    • You mean temps went from -58C to -57C and back again? That gives us an entirely novel relative dimension to the concept of CAGW..

  11. Heralding the peak of the current warming?

    And pointing to an active ~250yr climate cycle in the ocean-dominated southern hemisphere?

    Don’t you love scientific hypothesis?

  12. Poley Bears, Antarctica, Ruined Crops, Raging Cyclones, Spreading Deserts, Drying Rivers, Dwindling Glaciers, slowly all the wonderful lights are going out, one by one all over Global-Warming / Climate Change Land. When people finally notice the big money being siphoned from their pockets to finance ‘renewable energy Ponzies’ they may just ask for their lights to go back on.

    • On the brighter side, world poverty is lower than anytime in history, corn crop yields are at record highs, life expectancy is increasing concomitant with energy use, US forests are spreading rapidly, global greening is occurring, global financial losses due to weather-related disasters are decreasing, US fatalities from floods are at an historical low, global malaria deaths are sharply declining, deaths due to natural disasters are going down, polar bear numbers are increasing, and we have Donald J. Trump as president.

      • and testing of growing vegetables on Submarines at co2 levels of 8000ppm are proving productive-

        “He tested 83 vegetables in the first phase of testing and found that 51 of them were able to grow, such as different kinds of lettuce, kale and some root vegetables.

        Others weren’t suited to the confined space and temperature, such as tomatoes, which required more heat, and cucumbers, which grew out of control and tangled around the lighting”

  13. As I recall reading somewhere, possibly even here, the AP just happens to be a volcanic ridge covered in ice. So obviously the “heat” melting the glaciers there MUST be from elevated CO2 levels caused ONLY by man , right? Am I right? /sarc.

    • A subglacial volcano on the peninsula has been erupting during the alleged warming interval. Maybe it has quit doing so. I don’t know. But the peninsula and the rest of Antarctica is festooned with volcanoes:

      • I doubt that’s much of a factor. The main thing to note is, “West Antarctica” is part of the Pacific Basin and takes in a corner of the Indian Basin. Meanwhile East Antarctica takes in the Atlantic and the other southern corner of the Indian. Different basins, different thermal regimes.

      • Volcanos ?! … You mean another potential source of heat besides humans?! … No, no, no, … don’t complicate things. Please stay on script. Humans are germs. Humans are evil. CO2 is the soul of Satan.
        We need to be saved. And it’s all in our power. We caused it, and so we can fix it. We’re THAT much at fault and that much in control at this time. Now turn to page 97 of your hymnal.

      • James at 48 said, The main thing to note is, “West Antarctica” is part of the Pacific Basin and takes in a corner of the Indian Basin. Meanwhile East Antarctica takes in the Atlantic and the other southern corner of the Indian. Different basins, different thermal regimes.

        To put this in perspective, maybe we should remember this:

      • In other words, let’s focus on a peninsular sliver of a continent the size of continental USA and Mexico COMBINED, and make a big deal out of a regional temperature variation.

        … or do I have it all wrong ?

      • James,

        Dunno how much of a factor, but that the eruption melted ice over it is a fact.

        Robert,

        Good comparison.

        John,

        You’re welcome. Maybe not the ideal example of festooning, as the volcanoes get a little thin over most of East Antarctica, where most of the world’s supply of fresh water resides.

  14. Figure 4 above only extends to 2014.
    In 2016 was another el Nino which would be expected to add a further temporary peak, this I guess might cancel out the cooling statistically. It would be good to see data up to the present.

  15. As always, the warmunists will find the one place in the world that’s warming, and use it as their poster child.
    When that spot stops warming, they will switch to some other spot and make that their poster child.

    Beyond that, they will continue to point to the earlier papers that showed warming and pretend that the later papers don’t exist.

    • Like the ocean acidification taking place in their lab aquariums. Especially the ones they pour acid into!

  16. “much ballyhooed paper that made the cover of Nature”

    As will this article, I’m sure. Because science does not have an agenda, only data. /sarc/

  17. proven by three climate skeptics that submitted their own rebuttal

    Why identify them as “climate skeptics”? The other side instantly discounts their opinion as confirmation bias, or even discredits them as not being scientists because they are skeptics.

    They are just “scientists” or even “climate scientists”.

  18. Remember the much ballyhooed paper that made the cover of Nature, Steig et al, […]

    As the old song goes … Yes, I remember it well. Particularly the cover, about which I had speculated:

    One might conclude that it was destined to become at least a candidate for an iconic symbol of climate change aka “global warming” – which could replace the notorious hockey-stick in future annals of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Certainly it has become a rallying cry of the paint-by-numbers “big picture” painted by climate scientists and their supporters.

    And – notwithstanding my admittedly statistically and graphically challenged eyes – I was able to note:

    Nature had done its best to sustain and preserve the illusions of requisite scientific “novelty” presented in S09 by declining the paper from O’Donnell et al, who subsequently made a submission to the Journal of Climate where their work was subjected to the mother-of-all-peer-reviews prior to acceptance for publication […] in December 2010.

  19. Should this paper be a stock market indicator there is no way that I would buy short on global warming based on this evidence alone.

    The AP is a snout extending into the only ocean that circumnavigates the globe and has a great chunk of ice right up its butt.

    Get a slight variation in SST due to cyclical sea current change or prevailing wind then bingo. Ya can’t study trends in fleas by observing one on a dog.

    But this is earth science: many snippets of information that over time clarifies the picture.

    What I would buy short on is a continuing upward trend in mean global temperature. There will be a downward spike of decadal scale sooner rather than later. This is based on historical patterns. In them I trust.

    • Like what I said only better! Nobel prize for comedy for the papers on Antarctic whatever.

  20. It looks to me that this cooling is evident in the Google Earth Panoramio photos (see ’em while you can).

  21. Yeah right conspiracy theorists. Do you not believe humans have landed on the moon? The odds that 2014 was the hottest year until 2015 which was the hottest year until 2016 are 3.4 million to one. You all are all so 1980s. Finding more sand to stick your heads in is your prime motivation in life.

    [??? .mod]

    • jtrobertsj

      People often confuse weather with climate. Take the long view on global warming.

      Hmmmmn. That the world is cooling off? That each high peak (Minoean, Roman, Medival, and today’s Modern Warming Period) is cooler than the previous peak? That we are near the peak of the MWP, if not today (2000 – 2010), then after the next 70 year short cycle in 2070 – 2080?

      • The odds that 2014 was the hottest year until 2015 which was the hottest year until 2016 are 2.7 million to one. Are you going to bet your grandchildren’s future on such slim odds?

      • You do realize we’re talking about years since 1979, don’t you? And that these “hotter” years differed only by tiny fractions of a degree, well within the margin of error. And that in the less tampered with satellite record, 2015 was not the hottest year. And that 2016 was a super El Nino year, which may or may not actually have been warmer than 1998.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3388407/2015-NOT-hottest-year-record-Satellite-data-shows-temperatures-lower-thought.html

        Since satellite records began in 1979, 2015 the third warmest year, with a mean global temperature of 0.27°C (0.49°F) above the average. Based on these data, 1998 holds the record for the warmest year at 0.48°C, followed by 2010, at 0.34°C (0.61°F).

        You really want to bet the fate of industrial civilization on such minor fluctuations over such a short time period?

        It was warmer in the 1930s, during most of the Medieval Warm Period, and the Roman, Minoan and Egyptian WPs, as well, and warmer still during the millennia of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

      • mR Roberts,

        where did you find those odds?

        and when do you want to get together and play some poker?

  22. Chimp do you have the expertise to pass judgement on the research of hundreds of climate scientists at NASA? Christ I have a PhD in a STEM field and I am unqualified to do so. Your qualifications? What exactly are they?

    • Yes, I do, as to which my comment should be sufficient evidence. So-called “climate science” isn’t rocket science. Any BS degree in a scientific discipline provides enough basis to evaluate the ho@x, if you take the time to study the issue.

      Now kindly demonstrate that you understand science and respond to what I said rather than going full ad hominem, the first and last refuge of losers.

      Do you really imagine that all NASA and other government scientists really believe that man-made global warming is a catastrophic threat, even among those whose jobs depend on the sc@m? If so, you’re wrong.

      You must be new here:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

      The charlatans of NASA GISS are not representative of all NASA scientists.

      Now please act like a scientist and respond to what I said, rather than demanding to see my credential papers, like a good Econ@zi.

      • Really? I have a masters in stats and I would not willingly take on those billions of climate data points reported by sensors world wide. Just the normalization of that data is a task no single PhD in stats could ever accomplish. Thus I guess they use super computers. If you want to get my attention do not quote bogus science free articles. Go read articles in Nature and Science. It is remarkable how peer review will legitimize a scientific study.All of a sudden their data sets, their statistical analysis and their science means something.

      • No article on this site has ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Out of tens of thousands of articles. What exactly does that tell you?

      • Pal review, as practiced in the hopelessly corrupt enterprise of “climate science” delegitimizes their bogus, repeatedly falsified GIGO models. A mining engineer showed how pathetic were the statistical analyses of so-called “climate scientists”.

        Peer review doesn’t apply to a letter by NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts. Did you bother to read the link? I guess not.

        If credentials are more important to you than the scientific method, then please compare and contrast the CVs of NASA GISS mis-Directors Gavin Schmidt and Jim Hansen with those of Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Ivar Giaever, the late William Gray and Reid Bryson, to name but a few for starters.

        You still haven’t bothered to respond to the substance of my comment, apparently because you can’t.

      • Do you have a BS in a STEM field? Just asking. And there is a huge unbridgeable gulf between a BS and a PhD. If you do not understand that then …

      • Yes. Undergrad Stanford, with highest honors. Grad Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship. Danforth Fellowship not used. Former college genetics prof. Not that it matters. All that matters is what I said and how well I can support it with evidence. Apparently you don’t do evidence, which puts you in bad company with the gnomes of NASA GISS.

        As noted it took a Canadian mining engineer to set the so-called “climate scientists”, ie computer game players, right.

        I forgot Will Happer, national Science Adviser candidate.

        Now please reply to the substance of my comment or kindly STFU.

      • And in one post, jtrobertsj demonstrates that he is lying when he claims to know anything about statistics.

  23. DonM. It is simple basic probability which you can study at any JuCo in the US. It is basic sample without replacement on a deck of 142 cards. Basic math.

    • Yes they use supercomputers to come up with their amazing models, and I really mean amazing, as in unbelveable, but so what? They programmed the computers so the computers say what they a programmed to say. It doesn’t mean the models are correct.

    • Oh good heavens. The average mean temperature of the Earth is not a crap shoot. So probabilities are almost irrelevant. A warm year s much more likely to follow other warm years than it is to suddenly get cold an very warm then cold at random. The atmosphere doesn’t respond instantly to change.

  24. Chimp I have no idea what many of the acronyms you used mean. A mining engineer has absolutely no clue about climate science. How could he? His field of expertise never sees the skies.

    Of course I did not read that link. It may have been a link to Infowars as far as I am concerned.

    There have been thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles focused on global warming. Including hundreds authored by NASA scientists. And would you please explain to me what the scientific method means to you? I would recommend you look it up on Google first.

    • I also taught the history and philosophy of science, so I know what the scientific method is. NASA GISS and NOAA don’t practice it. It has nothing at all whatsoever to do with peer review. It existed long before peer review and was better without it. Just ask Einstein. It has everything to do with falsification of testable predictions made on the basis of an hypothesis.

      Check out the famous Feynman video on Youtube if you want to learn what the scientific method is. CACA has not only been repeatedly falsified, but was born falsified. The CACA hypothesis can’t even reject the null hypothesis. It’s not just unscientific, but deeply antiscientific.

      Should I add that I was Phi Beta Kappa in my junior year, and graduated in three years?

      The engineer in question is familiar to anyone with even a passing interest in the failed CACA hypothesis.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

      My last word to you until and unless you respond substantively instead of with ad hominem and argument from authority logical fallacies.

      • According to a Google search Steve McIntrye has a BS in math and a masters in such fields as philosophy. Why would you ever think he is a scientist? Christ I have over three years of scientific and math training on him and I do not believe I am competent to criticize NASA’s conclusions. Not to mention that 30 years of employment in the scientific community.

      • Steve practices the scientific method, unlike Schmidt, Hansen, Mann, Briffa, et al, of whose abysmally bad statistics he made mince meat. Which you’d know if you knew anything at all about “climate science”.

        Most of the most important scientists in history didn’t have PhDs. All that degree is is an academic union card. The work speaks for itself.

    • Chimp am I to actually believe you on your qualifications? Every single scientist for decades have had to have a deep understanding of statistics. Most of them do the statistical analysis on their own data points, for better or for worse. Please explain to me how to calculate the probability of choosing the three highest cards in a deck of 142 sequentially. Basic sampling without replacement. Or better yet explain to me what a Monte Carlo analysis reveals about a data set. I honestly do not believe you will have a response to this comment.

      • Genetics is the science for which the mathematical field of statistics was invented. My prof at Stanford went on to pioneer the study of the spread of haplogroups around the world. My undergrad thesis on statistical analysis of certain human genes won a prize and led to a co-authored paper.

        I have no further responses to any of your time-wasting drivel, since you refuse to reply to my original comment, but only engage in the crudest of logical fallacies.

        Since you don’t even know what GISS stands for, you’re not qualified to comment on so-called “climate science”, which isn’t science.

      • Given the fact that you have demonstrated a complete absence of knowledge about statistics, your claim to having a degree in that field is debatable.

      • “Please explain to me how to calculate the probability of choosing the three highest cards in a deck of 142 sequentially.”

        May I?

        I’m going to say, 1 in 2, or 50%, i.e., either you’ll get the three highest cards, or you won’t.

        (H/T Charles Pierce)

      • Really? You attempt to answer a single question I have asked here. GLWT. You cannot do it. And I have understood the math and science for decades behind every single question I have posed.

      • The question has been answered. However, since the answer doesn’t coincide with what you want to believe, you have resorted to standard troll behavior of simply insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with you and claiming bogus degrees in an attempt to intimidate those who fail to agree.

  25. Chimp would you care to discuss the methylization of DNA base pairs and the probability that epigenetics can pass down traits from parents to children without ever modifying the actual DNA itself? How about the science behind CRISPR-cas9 genetic alteration? I would love to hear your opinions on those topics.

      • I guess I know much more about your pretend scientific expertise than you do. Funny that. Few on the internet can actually back up their claims.

      • Here’s on for you J. Which mitochondrial haplotype labelled the small group exiting Africa via Sinai ~ 60,000 years ago to become the modern ancestors of most humans outside of Africa today? And which African people group show the strongest genetic signal of gene inflow from H heidelbergiensis ancient remnants up to ~ 30,000 years ago? Where do they live now?

      • I’m not sure you even know what the topic of this post is, it is not genetic, it is not Ad Hominem attacks, and isn’t appeals to authority.
        I wonder if you have anything at all to say on the issue.

      • jtrobertsj April 27, 2017 at 7:46 pm

        You know less than nothing, because you have never done anything, other than pollute a blog.

    • You are boring, but in an hilarious way, so I’ll reply to your total total nonresponse to my original reply.

      I’m now on my fifth startup in the genetic engineering line, happily with my son and daughter on this one, both of whom have doctorates in relevant disciplines.

      The discovery of the effects of what was once thought “junk DNA” on evolution has been a major achievement of the past 40 years. I’m happy to say that my first four companies played an important part in elucidating that fact.

      As a grad student, I showed that corn (maize) and its wild ancestor teosinte are identical in terms of “genes”, ie segments of their genomes coding for proteins. This was an important development in recognizing that “junk” DNA was functionally significant.

      What have you contributed to understanding the natural world?

      It is to laugh. Go away, little boy. You bother me.

  26. I thank it’s really cool what you guys can do with Crayola Markers, some white paper, a ruler and a trip to a cold as *$#& barren waste land were you have nothing but time. When I look at it makes me feel really bloody cold.

    • richard on April 28, 2017 at 1:51 am

      Of course: this GHCN unadjusted, far away from what you obtain after having eliminated outliers etc.
      But the map must be correct!

  27. I remember the Sahel rainfall decline being the poster child of proof of global warming in the late 90s when I was at University. It has had a nonstop rising trend since the low point in the 70s and 80s. Arctic Sea Ice loss was causing cooler wetter summers 2007-2012 in Europe…been drier and warmer ever since. Stratospheric temperatures were plummeting because of global warming….Strat temps have flat lined since 1994. Droughts and famine will increase due to global warming…..global droughts and famine have been lowest for many decades. Maldives and Pacific atolls are disappearing under rising sea levels from Global warming. Maldives have not been mentioned for decades. Pacific Atoll land areas are increasing not decreasing. Californian mega drought was signal of global warming. California reservoirs are overflowing. Similar predictions from Tim Flannery about rainfall in Australia. Australian rainfall is highest in decades with desert greening. The list of failed predictions is seemingly endless.

    There are three things that are certain about the whole Global Warming debate.

    One is that there will always be some NEW signal proving global warming no matter how many previous predictions failed.

    Two is that all the past failed predictions will be quickly forgotten or attempted to be erased from history.

    Three is that those who believe humans are bad for planet earth will always believe any global warming message no matter what evidence is placed before them.

    So if the above is correct, I am not sure you can fight the global warming argument with facts or data and I am not sure how you turn around this juggernaut. I find it a bit all a bit depressing. Only a major shift cold will stop it and even this will have to happen over decades. So I may not be around to see it.

  28. The continent as constantly below 0F most of the time besides the fringes. And people worry about 1/10ths of a degree and melting. Wow. Just wow.

  29. guys

    especially MarkW

    if you knew anything about stats you would have long got the same result as I did a few years ago

    = you can see the variation of the half Gleissberg cycle (88 years)

  30. This … just …. innnnnnnnnnnnnn!

    Ginormous rivers under Antarctic glaciers. Antarctica’s gone from way, way, way below freezing, to, way, way below freezing. Dontcha know? Them rivers gonna fill up the ocean! California’s gonna go underrrrrrrrrrrr!

    More at 11.

  31. Latitude-height cross section of zonal mean temperature in the Southern Hemisphere.

    You can see how the cold troposphere shrinks over the south pole.
    The above graphic also shows that practically in winter the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere over the polar circle disappears.

  32. Interesting! Air and sea temps appear to have spiked for about a decade before 1999. 1999 marked the beginning of Earth’s Great Year. The precession of the equinoxes formed a perfect erect cross in July 1998. Subsequently, arctic temperatures are lower, though not uniformly so. The 25,000-28,000 year sidereal cycle is certainly difficult to factor into the picture, but it scientists know that it does influence climate.

Comments are closed.