Goremongering and Mannhandling the reality of winter weather ‘bombs’

This happened a couple of days ago, where Gore quotes failed climate science promoter (note Dr. Mann that I didn’t say carnival barker as is your favorite slur) and while many rushed to cover it right away, because of the sheer ridiculousness of it,  I wanted to wait and see what the fallout was. There’s plenty.

Al gore Tweeted this:

 

You can read Mann’s reasoning here.

But those darn climate deniers doubters see right through the excrement.

One of my Facebook friends (who is a cop, trained to detect people lying) said this in a Facebook post:

“Snake oil salesman quotes Penn data molester” should be the headline.”

Then there’s this observation by Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com:

Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth did not warn of record cold and increasing snowfalls as a consequence of man-made global warming. And as recently as 2009, Gore was hyping the lack of snow as evidence for man-made global warming. Source: “Gore Reports Snow and Ice Across the World Vanishing Quickly.”

And who can forget this famous quote from Dr. David Viner, which was recently disappeared from the newspaper online archive, but I saved a copy here.

 

Morano further reports:

But as the snow piled up, the climate change claims were adjusted and cold and snow were added to the list of things caused by “global warming.” See: Warmists Wheel Out “Record Cold Due To Global Warming” Argument Again

Predictions of less snow and less severe winters were hammered into the public by global warming scientists. But once that predictions failed to come true, the opposite of what they predicted instead became—what they expected. 

If “climate change” is causing record cold and snow, then it would stand to reason that Gore is suggesting that if the U.S. had ratified the UN’s Kyoto Protocol treaty on “global warming” back in the 1990’s — the winter of 2018 would have been warmer?

Reality Check: But scientists are not buying the claims of Gore and Mann and others linking the record cold and snow to “global warming.”

‘Insanity…It’s Witchcraft’ – Meteorologist Joe Bastardi on claims that cold & snow caused by ‘global warming’ – WeatherBell Meteorologist Joe Bastardi on January 4, 2018: “This is flat out insanity and deception now To tell the public that events that have occurred countless times before with no climate change attribution, is now just that, is not science, its witchcraft. NO PROOF AT ALL. Its climate ambulance chasing, nothing more.”

Bastardi added: “This has happened countless times before and it wasn’t global warming then and is not now. Solid use of past patterns predicted major early cold from OCTOBER! I have tweeted that dozens of times showing the analog years I used, No co2 then.”

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also weighed in, explaining:

“For those who claim USA/Canada nor’easter is stronger because of ‘global warming’, they apparently do not realize that it’s so strong because of especially strong horizontal temperature gradient in troposphere. It ‘bombed’ because of usually cold air!”

Even Dr. Kenneth Trenberth panned the Gore/Mann stupidity alliance:

Global Warming Is Not Causing Harsh Winter Weather – Daily Caller – Excerpts:

Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said “winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change.”

“Such claims make no sense and are inconsistent with observations and the best science,” University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass said of claims made by Mann and others. “The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless.” “And on a personal note, it is very disappointing that members of my profession are making such obviously bogus claims,” Mass said. “It hurts the science, it hurts the credibility of climate scientists, and weakens our ability to be taken seriously by society.” …

Every winter seems to reignite the global warming debate. Things got intense in 2014 when former White House science czar John Holdren put out a video where he claimed that year’s “polar vortex” was actually a sign of global warming. Holdren’s video was largely based on research by Rutgers University scientist Jennifer Francis, which claims that warming in the Arctic is making the jet stream more wobbly, making cold snaps and nor’easter storms more frequent. Holdren later admitted that his video was based on his “personal opinion” of the science, but the argument is still used every time cold Arctic air pours down through the lower 48 states.

Mann wrote that global warming may be “causing the jet stream to meander in a particular pattern” that causes cold spells in the eastern U.S. Mann suggested this pattern was being driven by “the dramatic loss of sea ice in the Arctic.” Yet, scientists aren’t sold on this theory. Mass noted how theoretical research shows the opposite happening, future warming would drive less undulation in the jet stream and heat up the area responsible for cold spells in the U.S. “Research documented in peer-reviewed journals has demonstrated that there is no evidence for their claims of increasing frequency of ‘lazy jet streams’ and blocking over time,” Mass said. “If you substantially warm the source region of cold air, cold waves will decline,” Mass said. A 2014 study led by Colorado State University climate scientist Elizabeth Barnes found no evidence to back up the theory that a lazy or wobbling jet stream was becoming more frequent. “There is much disagreement on whether we have already witnessed substantial impacts,” Barnes wrote in a Thursday blog post for the Climate Variability and Predictability program. …

Climatologist Judith Curry said the “bomb cyclone” currently hammering North America is nothing new. Those extra-tropical storms have undergone “bombogenesis,” or rapid intensification. “The term ‘bomb’ for such storms was coined almost 40 years ago by MIT’s Fred Sanders,” Curry told TheDCNF, “who spent much of his career studying such storms back when global warming most definitely was not a factor.” …

Curry said that while “warmer oceans can cause greater snowfall,” storm intensity is also influenced ” by the patterns of sea surface temperature not so much the average temperatures.” But Mann’s arguments are more based on expectations of what could happen with more warming, and have little to do with current trends in “bomb cyclones.” Weather.us meteorologist Ryan Maue, an expert on cyclones, pointed out there are between 50 and 60 “bomb cyclones” every year in the Northern Hemisphere, many of which we don’t notice because they are too far out at sea. But Maue’s research on “bomb cyclones” also don’t show any discernible trends from 1979 to 2010.

And Dr. Roy Spencer notes that this ‘bomb’ phenomena is nothing new:

For those wondering, the meteorological term “bomb” was coined by Fred Sanders in 1980 in a Monthly Weather Review article, it refers to “an extratropical surface cyclone with a central pressure that falls on the average at least 1 millibar per hour for 24 hours”.

It’s also not uncommon, as Dr. Ryan Maue points out:

Dr. Roy Spencer adds this – “My imagined conversation with Al Gore:

MR. GORE: This cold wave and snowstorm are just what global warming predicted!
ME: And what if the weather had been unusually warm and snow-free?
MR. GORE: That would also be consistent with global warming theory.
ME: So warm winters, cold winters, snowy winters, and no-snow winters are all predictions of global warming?
MR. GORE: Yes, that is correct.
ME: Are you aware how foolish that sounds to many people?
MR. GORE: I am aware that there are deniers of the current climate crisis we are in, yes.
ME: Ugh.

I’ll just leave this here:

 

Advertisements

195 thoughts on “Goremongering and Mannhandling the reality of winter weather ‘bombs’

  1. the CAGW alarmists are getting desperate and grasping at any straw (occurance of extreme weather) to try to make their case. Unfortunately there are a lot of uncritical thinkers (sadly many of them are scientists themselves) who accept the absurd notions as truth.

      • Martin Hovland,

        Last nail? Only until the next warm season. Even if it were, thanks to all the hyperbole and government buy-ins on wind mills and “clean” energy, there are no coffins for the un-dead. They are committed to the CO2 as polluition path no matter whi8le academia’s credibility is committed to CAGW to the extent they can’t just saw the limb off that they’ve climbed out on..

    • Look, people, if your very profession was at stake, wouldn’t you fight tooth and nail to preserve it? Even to the point of absurdity?

      • “I would look for another job, but hey, everybody’s different.”

        It depends on what your job is. If you were a scientists, decades of failed predictions might suggest you get another job. On the other hand, these people are propagandists that can point to their success brainwashing generations of people into wasting trillions of dollars on this fr4ud. They probably think they are very successful.

      • Your livelihood wouldn’t be in danger if you were a scientist of high integrity and went where the evidence took you. I’m mindful of a common discovery of Williis Eschenbach when he almost always is taken by surprise by counter-intuitive findings in his research.. He delights in Nature’s apparent obtuse offerings. I suspect that that is the true nature of science. i t must be exceedingly boring to be a climate scientist who knows all the answers ahead of 5he research and marks such surprises as a need for observation adjustments.

      • No, I would take the opposite approach, to wit: “No, this is not the direction of change we were expecting. We know we are affecting the climate by the tons of pollutants we are adding to the atmosphere, and thought we had a handle on what to expect. Clearly we don’t. This is the worst possible scenario. We are making drastic changes and have no idea of the final outcome. We need to greatly increase our efforts in climate research until we understand what is happening, and what course of action would be the most prudent to mitigate or adapt to those changes.
        Send us more research funds. The future of your children depend on your doing that today.”

        This approach would make you seem honest, humble, sincere and concerned, yet keep the money flowing in. Just maintain the fiction that man is causing a future catastrophe, and always claim that the situation is ‘worse than we thought.’

      • phillip bratby has the correct answer. i strongly suspect many of today’s mannian virtue signallers could not spell integrity.

    • ” so much global warming would bring us the next glacial age”
      unless there are drastic cuts in the CO2 emissions in California, the Manhattan glacier will become a major tourist attraction.

      s/c

    • Well if the Arctic doesn’t warm and the ice doesn’t melt, where will the moisture come from to create the great northern ice sheets when our orbital changes really due usher in the end of this interglacial.

  2. Yes but will the people get the message? I believe so. You can’t continually change your lie to suit your narrative and expect people to believe you every time. The MSM may be powerful but they can’t change facts.

  3. On the hemispheric chart, looks as for the most of the time the pendulum is swinging between the North and the South or at standstill as is in the 93-97 period. Next time maybe green for the North with lot of land and greening of the planet, and blue for the oceans of the South.

  4. Prof. Mass thinks climate science has a credibility problem. Quite easily the understatement of the year, and the year has just begun.
    lololol🤣

  5. Newton’s Fourth Law:
    “For every climate model prediction there is an equal and opposite observation”

    Though actually perhaps Gray’s Law is more apposite:
    “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”

    (with apologies to Arthur C Clarke)

  6. Alarmist Guardian is more circumspect in their factual Brutal and ‘bone-chilling’ cold report.
    Interesting quote : “It’s definitely cold and the type of bone-chilling cold that happens every few years,” said Dan Hofmann, a meteorologist with the NWS in Baltimore. He added that the last time such extreme cold occurred was in February 2015.”

    Well, if a meteorologist says ‘that happens every few years’ there can’t be ‘unprecedented’ or even unusual.

  7. Alarmist Guardian is more circumspect in their factual Brutal and ‘bone-chilling’ cold report.
    Interesting quote : “It’s definitely cold and the type of bone-chilling cold that happens every few years,” said Dan Hofmann, a meteorologist with the NWS in Baltimore. He added that the last time such extreme cold occurred was in February 2015.”

    Well, if a meteorologist says ‘that happens every few years’ there can’t be ‘unprecedented’ or even unusual.

  8. Climate Crisis? Al Gore and Michael Mann Fail Science 101

    Facts are, even if Michael Mann and Al Gore are 100% correct, they have absolutely no viable solutions to the problem. Their nonsensical solutions make society worse off, and their cure is far worse than the illness. That being said, let’s take a look at Michael Mann’s explanation as to how CO2 can cause such record cold spells.

    Ignoring the facts that the current cold is a weather phenomenon, not a change in climate, the problem Michael Mann and the climate alarmists face is that the only mechanism defined by which CO2 can affect climate change is be trapping outgoing IR radiation between 13 and 18µ. That is the only defined mechanism, and the only result possible is the “thermalization” of those wavelengths resulting in atmospheric WARMING. There is no way for “thermalization” to result in cooling…none. How then, does Michael Mann address this issue?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/climate-crisis-al-gore-and-michael-mann-fail-science-101/

  9. Nope. In following this (AGW) debate for most of this century and reading a ton of stuff here and on other blogs and books I have yet to recall any quote of Mann’s where he predicted screaming cold Winters as being the precursor to or evidence of global warming.

  10. “Climate ambulance chasing” a very very apt terms. These poor excuses for human beings take relish in any weather related disaster, and instantly start pushing their barrow with complete disregard to any human misery that is rolling out before their eyes. To me its a weird kind of sociopathy.

    • Very good point, yarpos. Climate ambulance chasing is about greed at its worst, and that’s all I see coming out of Algore and Mann.

  11. Also remember David Vine. “Our children will not know what snow is” it is a complete travesty of honest science to change the theory to match the results.

  12. With apologies to Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy
    “It’s global warming but not as we know it.”

    Or to to vary the old saying
    “When you’re under six foot of snow it’s hard to remember that the objective was to convince the populace that global warming is a real and imminent threat requiring taxes and promotion of subsidised inefficient wind and solar farms”

  13. The very last image in this post is uncalled for — rank name calling — violates WUWT policy and standards. This isn’t junior high, after all.

    • I’ll agree with Kip, observation of the gravity these two have in the press leads me to believe they are anything but dunces, to the point of being cold and calculating above average mentalities. They seem to mirror others in power in different sectors.
      Jr High yearbook does come to mind.

      • I’ll agree with Kip and Pop. Lord knows I have called those two men all kinds of names in my mind, but if I put it out there for all to see, I am loading bullets in their guns.

      • In deciding whether or not we stoop too low in the act of “rank name calling”, where Dr. Mann is concerned, we might do well to weigh our penchant for dignity against the following:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude

        Rather than present data or debate the science, Mann mostly engaged in the sophistry that has gradually undermined the credibility of climate science. He repeatedly referred to a bogus “97 percent consensus” about man-made climate change, and accused the Heartland Institute of being a “climate-change denying, Koch brothers–funded outlet.” He engaged in one ad hominem attack after another against his fellow panelists and the committee’s chairman, Representative Lamar Smith. He questioned whether Smith really understood the scientific method and read a nasty quote about Smith from a smear piece in Science magazine

        Mann’s rhetoric became so inflamed that he was finally upbraided by Representative Dana Rohrabacher. “From the get go, we have heard personal attack after personal attack coming from those claiming to represent the mainstream of science,” Rohrabacher said to Mann. “Call people ‘deniers’ all you want, use any kind of name you want . . . when we talk about Mr. Lysenko, that’s the kind of thing they did to the scientists in Russia. Try to call people names and beat them into submission, that’s a Stalinist tactic.”

        Mann’s name-calling prompted Representative Darin LaHood (R., Ill.) to bring up his defamation lawsuit against National Review. After getting confirmation from Curry and Pielke that they had been subjected to attacks by Mann — Pielke said he couldn’t “keep up with all of Dr. Mann’s epithets” — LaHood called Mann on his hypocrisy: “You mention in your opening statement about staying away from that and yet we have a suit that’s been filed based on those exact same things. There’s a real disconnect between a defamation suit that does the exact same thing you’re engaged in that in this public forum.”

        In light of such information, I cannot agree with Kip on this one. If a guy with Mann’s seemingly dignified credentials can play this game, then “game on” might not be such a bad way to go in his case.

      • I have to agree with Kip. The rank name calling can be pointed to by those who want to disparage all the work that Anthony has done. The other side can use it to dismiss everything that is on this site. It is so readily taken out of context.

      • henryp and Sheri ==> Different strokes for different folks.

        I’d like to hold this blog to its original standards…and not let “funny” slip in where good taste and collegiality belong.

      • Kip: That would be good, but that rarely seems to happen. I wish it wasn’t so. It would be great to discuss global warming science as science, not as personalities and “good guy/bad guy”. On blogs that allowed the name-calling, trying to reign it in is difficult once it takes hold. So it probably will remain in the “wish” catagory as long as AGW is so political and snarly.

      • Sheri ==> Anthony Watts has held the line for many years. It is not easy, particularly when others have spent lots of time and money smearing your name everywhere they can with false accusations and misrepresentations — endlessly — until total strangers call you home phone or appear at your door with threats and violence in their hearts.
        Nonetheless, we hold ourselves to a higher standard just because it is right — and when we fall short — we admit it, straighten our shoulders, and carry on trying our best.
        [end of sermon — kh]

    • I don’t know about the very last image in this post being uncalled for? On my web page the very last image is an advert for warm coats, definitely called for in this weather!

    • That’s what Anthony’s vacation last summer was all about (giving himself a time out for future bad behavior… ☺)

    • Maybe, Kip.

      What are the options?

      1) incompetence
      2) utter greed while ignoring misery caused to others.
      3) malice
      4) sloth and laziness, again ignoring misery caused to others
      5) inappropriate education, pretending to conduct science they are fail to comprehend.
      6) ignorance, again pretending to conduct science beyond their comprehension.

      A) Following a history of accusing others of lying, carnival barking, etc; Mann could be depicted as a carnival barker. Though, in my mind, a cruel animal trainer is more apropos.

      B) Their utter dependence upon fooling victims to demand their funds, depicting the losers as snake oil salespeople. Peddling nonsense, witchcraft, voodoo and violated data.

      C) An uncaring Scrooge persona; personal gains instead of civilization benefit.

      D) couch potatoes; except the dreadfully lazy rarely exert themselves.

      E) Then there are both Mann & Gore’s communications at all forms of communication. Gore may not be as foul mouthed as Mann, both feel they can freely injure others’ personally and professionally as much as they can.

      Leaving depictions of ignorance and misused educational funds.
      It is interesting how Mann makes a dunce cap look smart.

      What would be terribly wrong would be to depict these character assassinators and science abusers as professionals.
      They’re not professional at any level.

    • Kip, point noted, but in this case it seemed warranted to me. Dr. Mann has called me all sorts of terrible names, and I’ve not really taken up any retaliation. This particular episode was so exceptionally stupid (even Trenberth says it isn’t true) and desperate, I thought it appropriate.

      Both are public figures, both can expect ridicule (just as I receive) in that capacity when the ideas they espouse on “climate science” are over the top.

      We now return to our regularly scheduled conversations.

      • As Alinsky noted, ridicule is one of the most powerful weapons and it is very deliberately employed by the left, and people like Mann and Gore, all the time. In this case Mann deserves nothing better than ridicule, and really deserves much worse.

        My only criticism of that last image is the dunce hats. Neither of them are dunces. They both know full well that they are lying, and why they are lying, and some of their lies have been clever enough to fool many, many people.

        So not sure what kind of hats that would involve. Pinnochio noses wouldn’t be right because that would be a major insult to Pinnochio – that puppet was not nearly so purposeful or devious.

      • It’s going to get worse before it gets better. WE are just beginning year 2 of a 4 year hostile Trump Admin to the climate shanaigans of climate rent seekers. Their money woes are just starting. It’ll take 3 years before existing grants dry up. Then all Hell will break loose as they hit level 11 on their caterwauling.

      • I am ok with year 2 of an 8 year program. By then I hope to see the last gasp, a death rattle if you will, of the CAGW bandwagon.

      • Alinsky tactics ultimately result in failure. (how powerful are the left in the good ol’ USofA these days?)

        And David, Anthony mentions “carnival barker” in the post. He was also called a “denier of mainstream climate science” right before his summer vacation. (those are two examples that i know of and i don’t even follow this stuff that much)…

      • The dunce cap works for Mr. Gore, but a better choice for Dr. Mann might be something along these lines (rough draft):

        Dear Dr. Mann, feel free to deface my avatar in retaliation, as opposed to filing suite. Call me names … please — it gives me more material to work with. I can take it.

        Stooping low can build stronger muscles. Firms the buttocks, strengthens the thighs. Sometimes gives one stronger legs to stand on.

      • Anthony ==> They are your long-term standards — any you can keep them or give them a little slip now-and-then — your right and privilege — Heavens know you have amply cause for ill-feelings towards them.

        It is such a minor slip — I really don’t blame you at all. I did, and do, feel the need to simply point it out. (and hope you’ll do me the same favor when I let my slip show :-)

  14. I have just have to keep asking: if more CO2 leads to more heat, AND more CO2 leads to more cold, what exactly is LESS CO2 supposed to do?

    • I have just have to keep asking: if more CO2 leads to more heat, AND more CO2 leads to more cold, what exactly is LESS CO2 supposed to do?

      The same only in reverse.

    • “I have just have to keep asking: if more CO2 leads to more heat, AND more CO2 leads to more cold, what exactly is LESS CO2 supposed to do?”

      Good question, Notanist. You have now become completely unemployable as a journalist!

    • “what exactly is LESS CO2 supposed to do?”

      The dead serious answer is that it would cause world wide hunger and death from starvation.

      If CO2 levels would suddenly drop back below 300 parts per million and the planet cooled by 1 deg. C to conditions similar the start of the Industrial Revolution, well over a billion people on this planet that currently have enough food to eat would go hungry, many would starve to death.
      The price for all crops would probably triple.

      http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

      Probably 75% of the increase in crop production that we’ve seen over the last 100 years has been the result of technological advances. The other 25% has come from atmospheric fertilization from increasing CO2 in tandem with the best weather/climate for growing crops in the last 1,000 years(since the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm).

      Recent years have featured record warm global temperatures and increasing, record CO2 levels. Look at how food production(cereal crops) responded during that time frame:

      http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

      Not in spite of the conditions but BECAUSE OF them.

      Take the beneficial warming and CO2 from the last century away and crop/food production would plunge.
      Imagine if conditions ever reverted back to what they were like during The Little Ice Age, including the dangerously low levels of atmospheric CO2 for life/plants back then?

      The crop failures,famine and widespread death would be unimaginable.

  15. Its tough for warmunists when Mother Nature does not cooperate. Except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino warming blip, no warming this century (except by Karlization) despite that time interval comprising ~35% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1958. Sea level rise not accelerating. Polar bears thriving. Earth greening. Snow falling. Arctic ice not disappearing. No climate refugees anywhere. Hansen labelling Paris agreement a sham. South Australia suffing renewable caused blackouts. German Energiewende economically imploding.

      • A bunch of blue states, that went for Trump are dreaming of some warming right now. But what they really believe in is a warm home, that has a furnace that works, hot water that they can count on, and reliable transportation. All the things we depend on fossil fuels to deliver. And get us through during a difficult “life threatening” period. Someone asking us to do with less, or pay more, in the next election will not be “warmly received”.

  16. “Penn data molester” – that’s a lot nicer than anything I’d say about Mr. Mann.

    All I’m really interested in is accurate and reliable weather forecasting. Since neither of the Almanacs predicted a beastly and bitter cold snap for my region, I feel free to thumb my nose at both of them, as well as the Algorebullspew and the Mann prognostications, because those two mordant blowhards are also wrong, wrong, wrong. And now, they’re becoming crashing bores – both of them. If you take a jaundiced look at what these two yahoos are doing, it’s almost entirely for the sole purpose of getting attention, and maybe more money into the bargain.

    If this weather cycle is similar to the 1978-1979 cycle, when Chicago had a snow load so heavy it shut down both major airports and was followed by several beastly cold winters with some snow, but not a lot, and was repeated about 18 to 20 years later, then it’s just a weather cycle.

    Here’s the timeline for my area: February 2011 – major snowstorm (blizzard) shuts down traffic, nearly buries my neighborhood, requiring one of those small diggers to come out with a shovel and pile the snow in heaps for pickup. People got stuck on country roads where snow had drifted because the plows were busy on the major highways. Some people froze to death. Great Lakes freeze over and Superior doesn’t melt until July.
    Next winter (2011-2012), just as bad. I measured 14 inches of new snowfall and the cold was horrendous. Lots of birds showed up at my feeding station, including a rare (for this area) white-throated sparrow.
    2012-2013, not so much snow, but bitter cold. 2013-2014 mostly normal cold, dry roads, modest snowfall.
    2014-2015 cold but manageable, and normal snow for the area. By mid-March, the migrating birds had returned but the snow had not melted and there were no bugs or anything else for them to eat. I fed grackles, redwings, and cowbirds, even a few starlings, until things thawed. Spring was late in coming. Bugs did not appear until end of April – too confounded COLD!
    2015-2016 very cold but manageable and normal snow for the area, and my pipes froze. Had to have the plumber come thaw them and wrap them with foam. The spring weather was late again. Trees did not leaf out until mid-April. No bugs for the birds to eat. I fed them until mid-May.
    2016-2017 very, very cold in December, then snow, and 15 days after the cold snap, the weather warmed up to a mild winter with modest snow here and there, BUT the snow continued to fall until April 2017.
    2017-2018 – VERY cold end of December, modest snowfall. The weather is supposed to warm to 30s by Sunday. Fine by me. Snow will melt and the birds will be back.
    I have not used air conditioning spring or summer since 2012. Haven’t needed it.
    As far as I’m concerned, Algore the Bore and Mann the (snort!) Panhandler can go pound sand.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this.

    • Sara
      yes
      the sun has a number of cycles
      I have been able to find correlation with the position of the planets and with what goes on at the sun. Maybe there are a few others who found the same.
      Before me there were people who also found the same patterns as me, namely the 87 year Gleissberg sine wave, measured by by looking at incoming energy.
      But it seems they were forgotten?
      e.g.
      http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
      note tables 2 and 3….
      Thanks for reading.
      Stay with wuwt and get wise.

      • “I have been able to find correlation with the position of the planets and with what goes on at the sun.”

        Shhhh…..Don’t let out any secrets. This is supposed to be a surprise.

      • Henryp, I’ve given that a lot of thought, too, and have asked myself repeatedly what the correspondence is between severe winters and sun cycles (start and finish), e.g., how much lag there is.
        I do not understand why anyone who sees/observes the seasonal changes in the hemispheres cannot make the connections between Spring + Summer = warm and Fall + Winter = cold. It’s as plain as day, but these are cycles within other cycles. How can anyone miss this?
        Thanks for the tables. I’m already a weisenheimer!

      • I don’t think there is a Gleissberg cycle. I think it is an artifact from the re-averaging averages. Didn’t Willis write a blog post on this?

      • @ crispin
        I stumbled on the Gleissberg when I looked at some data from a military base in Alaska, who had good reliable daily data going back to 1940.

        This was back in 2013, so the data runs until Dec. 2012.
        (looking at maxima or minima is more reliable as there is nothing much that can go wrong with a thermometer stuck at the Min/Max in the meter and changes in calibration procedures over time can be eliminated if you look at the rate of change, like I did)

        Unfortunately, at the time most of my information that I looked at gave the Gleissberg at 88 years, (on average, over 12000 years)
        e.g.
        https://simsee.org/simsee/biblioteca/CICLO_SOLAR_PeristykhDamon03-Gleissbergin14C.pdf

        I subsequently determined that over the past few 200 years the cycle was in fact just 86.5 years. The last half cycle is equal to two Hale cycles that ran from 1971 until 2014. Hence, the lowest point in the wave has been passed already, the sine wave is going up now again but it is still globally cooling until about 2037.5

        Since the Gleissberg is real we have to consider some of the dire consequences that is coming up in a few years from now, especially for north America….:
        http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
        Now from 1932, count back another 87 years: 1845
        http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/habitat/documents2/Woodhouse.pdf

        The logic for the coming drought is as follows:

        As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapor available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier. On and around the equator it will become wetter [which we have already seen on the Philipines, in Brazil, Indonesia and more recently with Irma, in the Caribbean, etc.

        @ Sara

        Just a tip. It might be a good idea to make some hard copies of the tables and the reports that I quoted. One day you might find that it is all removed from the internet.

    • Yes, Sara. Here in the SH(NZ), summers have been feeble and short for most of this century too. An LIA sort of thing, it seems to me. The Quiet Sun seems to allow excesses of cold, wet in particular, snow nearer the Poles. Now waiting with trepidation for droughts…… Jennifer from Rutgers was an early responder in twisting the causes of the wavy jetstream 180degrees.

  17. Liberals can take one position, that the recent record cold is normal and natural, when they are taking the position opposite of President Trump. Liberals can then take the exact opposite position when they are defending Al Gore and Michael Mann. The position a liberal will take isn’t dependent upon the science, data or facts, the position a liberal will take is dependent upon who is making the claim. If Conservative believe the facts point to climate change being a fraud, liberals will defend it to the death as scientific truth. Liberals are so oblivious to the facts that The Guardian recently published an article about global warming and defended their position by using quotes that disprove the very position they were intended to defend.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/climate-change-double-standard-double-speak-proves-slimate-clience-is-a-fraud/

  18. The Marxist shills for A-Global Warming … are like my 8yo kids who make-up ever-changing, fanciful, excuses for why lamp in the living room was broken. The wind did it. My brother/sister did it. The cat did it. It tipped over on its own. The bulb burned out and the shock caused the lamp to fall over. The dog did it. YOU did it … I saw you !

  19. Extending the Gore/Mann style of science a.k.a. perverted logic, it follows that every location that did NOT set an extreme cold record in the last two weeks must have been enduring even GREATER global warming when their most extreme cold temperatures were recorded… in 1968, 1950, 1911, … whenever.

  20. Climate change simultaneously responsible for Aussie heat!
    “Emergency services in southeast Australia are warning people to stay indoors as a dangerous heatwave batters the country, with temperatures so high that the asphalt on some roads has been melting. “

      • No. The formula is modified to account for the higher temperatures that are normal here. In Australia, it regularly gets higher than is predicted for this week. Canberra is predicted to reach 39C today, dropping to 30C from Monday. In the late ’80s, early ’90s it went over 40C for as much as a week at a time.

      • Yes, but if the media do not say something aimed at inducing panic in the population, those vapid reporters might lose their jobs!!! Da Horreure!!!

      • Wait a second, asphalt melting is not uncommon in the US?
        It gets soft, but melt?
        Is it in Australia?
        No.
        Okay, no, it is not uncommon?
        Meaning…um…it is common, or thereabouts.
        No idea?
        What, that it gets hot in Australia?
        Really?

      • I live in south east OZ we had one day of 40C north wind of the desert by 6.30 in the evening we had a south wind that dropped the temp to around 25 C. Not a heat wave just one hot day for the next 5days max around25C with some showers. The hype for this one day was Algoricle.

      • all the global change believers should state there age as most were not around in the 50s and 60s when it was HOT and no air conditioning in houses and cars in Australia

    • What melted was one lane of a freeway over a length of around 10km. The maximum temperature on the day was 30C.

      It so happened that the forecast temperature a day or two AFTER the event was around 40C. The bitumen just got in early and avoided the rush of other roads melting. As you might expect there were no reports of roads melting when the temperature reached 40C.

      • You took the words right out of my mouth Forrest. The tarmac coming up on the Hume Hwy was the day before the 40º+ day, yet it was reported as if the heatwave cause it. Prior to the event temperatures in the area varied between 23º-29º the week of the road coming unstuck. New bitumen was laid along that stretch a few weeks prior to Christmas. It looks like VicRoads did a rather shotty job of it, so it can’t be the fault of the government road authority, it must be climate change.

        MSM scared the hell out of everyone, just as they did when a rainstorm event was expected in Victoria in early December. It was called “stormageddon” by the media. We were told major flooding was expected (100-200mm of rain expected), to bunker down. Roads would be unsafe to travel on and power may be cut in many areas. Farmers worked 36 hours to harvest crops in expectation of the stromageddon. Turned out to be a complete flop. We had 50-70mm of rain in some areas. I actually mowed my lawn as the sun was shinning in the morning. The media will cause a panic one day with his ridiculous hyperbole.

    • I’ve endured the last three days of Australia’s national TV broadcaster leading its major bulletins with stories about the impending and occurring “extreme” and “catastrophic” heatwave set to devastate the south-eastern states, with live crosses to reporters and newsreaders advising in grave tones that the temperature, in the middle of summer, was forecast to exceed 40 degrees.

      The hot weather lasted for less than a day. Sydney experienced the brief heat today and got to 43.4C which the warmists might laud as the fourth hottest day ever recorded in the city, but still short of the 45.3C on 14 Jan 1939. It’s now true that four of Sydney’s top 10 hottest days have happened in the new millennium, but it’s also true that the other six hottest days happened before 1961, including 1896. I could mull over the influence of UHI and mercury thermometers requiring a bit more sustained heat to reach maximum than the few seconds of an electronic AWS, but they’re different topics.

      It’s little wonder there’s a belief that humanity has never before experienced so many “extreme” weather events. The media goes into a headline frenzy every time there’s some hot, cold, wet or dry weather forecast or event and many people still believe the modern media is an objective and wise source of facts (usually produced by attractive oracles aged in their 20s).

      Young people in particular weren’t yet born and have no memory of when truly hot, cold or otherwise “extreme” weather was happening.

      Meanwhile, it remains relevant that NOAA temps show 2007-2016 in the contiguous United States averaged 0.02F cooler min and 0.03F cooler max than 1997-2006, entirely because winters were 1.41F min and 1.33F max cooler in the most recent decade.

      Based on their preliminary 2017 data, Met Office temps show 2008-2017 in the UK averaged 0.27C min cooler and 0.20C max cooler than 1998-2007, with all UK seasons cooler over the past decade except Spring in max. Again, winters were the main coolant in the UK with min dropping 0.56C and max dropping 0.46C when comparing the recent and earlier decades.

      Australia averaged 0.22C warmer max and 0.10C warmer min in 2008-2017 than 1998-2007, based on ACORN anomalies, but that’s probably because all the Antarctic ice hasn’t melted and sent waves of cold winter air over Australia. /sarc

  21. Even if Mann and Gore were right… how would that help?

    If AGW predicts everything – but never guessing exactly when each will come – then it provides no guidance for policy making.

    Climate Science is worthless, by Gore’s own admission.

    • It makes us helpless victims dependent on the “goodwill” of the politicians willing to make the hard choices and take money from those that didn’t contribute to their campaign, and give it to those injured by the reckless “carbon polluters”.
      They get to be generous with other peoples money, and create voters out of people that would rather work, and rather be independent, but the “dependency politicians” chased all the jobs away.

  22. I heard an interview last night with a Frank Adams who is an astrophysicist. He explained how sad it was that a handful of scientists like Curry and Willie Soon just wouldn’t face the reality of what Co2 is doing to the planet–he laughed and said ALLLLL the real scientists knew it was true and had the science behind them but for 4 or 5. When the moderator (whom I know to be on the side of the skeptics) asked for a concrete example, he answered that Willie Soon kept trying to make it about sun cycles and that hundreds of papers have come out to refute his theories. If he were really practicing science, he would look at the refutations and accept that his theory about what drives climate is wrong. But instead, Frank says, Wille disappears and says nothing because he can’t admit he is wrong (I’m paraphrasing). Made me wonder about the hundreds of papers in favor of a sun-driven climate. Hmmm. The guy kept laughing and acting as if he felt sorry for Curry, Soon, Bastardi–et al.

    He claimed that “we” (deniers) just don’t practice science. Or understand the consensus in science. then he claimed that we based our misguided conclusions on a handful of emails that were taken out of context. he also claimed that not one–not one– investigation of the emails showed any wrongdoing. I thought that several investigations showed it to be almost criminal..or do I remember that wrong?

    I ask you, how can we make any progress when they claim that we don’t understand the science–and believe our “wrong” conclusions. When they claim that only 4 or 5 scientists are holdouts, and when they dismiss the emails out of hand and say no investigation showed any wrongdoing, when I read that they did! ow do we live in such alternate realities?

    • Well, Shelly, when you run into someone whose entire shtick is built around a lie, you have encountered someone who practices the coarse art of propaganda. The ‘it is because I say it is so’ type of fellow is the person you described.

      • Sara: ” when you run into someone whose entire shtick is built around a lie??????”
        ..
        You mean like DJT?

        [???? .mod]

      • Rob: I have no idea why you would throw politics at me. If you don’t like Trump, fine. But remember that YOU brought that up. I did NOT. And for your information, ROB, he filed for bankruptcy to keep Ivana, his first wife, from getting a rather massive chunk of his STUFF during divorce proceedings. Geez, you don’t even try.

        Furthermore, if you do not GET that AGW/CAGW is rapidly becoming a form of religion, hence the hysterical buffoonery and uncalled-for damage and attacks on infrastructure, and on people who don’t agree with CAGWers and Warmians, then you aren’t paying attention.

        Your “point”, whatever it is, has no value. You completely missed MY point, which is that dictating the terms of something like climate science and labeling people “deniers” or “UNBELIEVERS”, is selling a belief system. Look up Lysenkoism, ROB. Then try paying attention.

        Like I said, I don’t care whether you like Trump or not. You tried to change the subject, for no reason at all. You’re way off base there, sport. Get over yourself.

    • Shelly – I think it may not be possible to make progress against the AGW religion. You express a reasonable issue, but believers divert the discussion to convoluted explanations. You can show simple graphs of the past, but those are ignored, and the subject is changed. Compare this to “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” It is impossible to reason with such people.

      • It is impossible. Thanks. It just gets so discouraging. Why isn’t a simple graph, simple? You are right though. give them facts and they are ignored. Then you are told Sun-cycles mean nothing and if you really understood science, you would understand the sun has nothing (or little) to do with the planet warming. Sigh. It was a frustrating interview to listen to. Since when are there only 4 or 5 scientists that are skeptics?

    • When they claim that only 4 or 5 scientists are holdouts, and when they dismiss the emails out of hand and say no investigation showed any wrongdoing,

      Well the investigations were blatant white washes so technically the claim that none showed wrong doing is accurate.

      As for the 4 or 5 scientists, that’s actually an improvement. The alarmists used to argue that anyone who disagreed with them wasn’t actually a climate scientist. So admitting that there are 4 or 5… wow, that’s abig admission, lol.

      • Whitewashes are everywhere where “dirty doings” keep going on. Recently, an “internal investigation” cleared the Chairman of South Africa’s electricity authority of misconduct after a company got an umpteen million Rand contract when (a) the contract wasn’t advertised and (b) his daughter was a director. Similarly, the number two of the SA’s IRS was ‘cleared’ after being found depositing enormous amounts of unexplained cash into some ATM machines.

    • Shelly,
      I thought I could answer your question by googling Frank Adams, to see who pays his bills. I clicked on Adam Frank, astrophysicist, accidentally, and I’m glad I did. This guy calls anyone who disagree with him deniers even as he’s whining about scientists not getting the respect they used to. He compares “climate deniers” to anti-vaccine campaigners and evolution deniers, and wonders why people don’t take him more seriously. Looks like most of his media exposure is through NPR and NY Times, so I imagine the irony is lost on his audience.

      • “Climate deniers” is almost as funny as the irony. So, if you question, at all, the catastrophic part of CACC, you’re not only denying that, you’re also denying, not just man’s role, and not just that the climate is changing at all – you’re denying the climate itself. By the time people like Adam Frank respond, they’re four strawmen removed from the original question.

      • Okay, change that to, “By the time many warmists respond…”; Professor Frank may actually distinguish between different levels of denial (known in the rational world as skepticism and/or science).

  23. The great certainty of climate “science” is the uncertainty of the reality that it claims to explain.

    Is it any surprise, then, that the claims about a chaotic system start to become chaotic too? It’s poetic justice.

    That’s why the phrase, “global warming”, now seems to take a back seat to the phrase, “climate change”.

    CHANGE can be warming OR cooling — it doesn’t matter to the cause, … as long as humans are the cause.

    If the climate became completely unchanging worldwide, then this too would be a problem caused by humans — the problem of static climate that interfered with evolution of the planet — causing immune system lack of adaptability, leading to increased susceptibility to disease unheard of, crop failure, war, and stuff I can’t even think of.

    Climate death — the new climate change, … formerly global warming, … formerly the coming ice age.

    Chance itself is a human-caused problem. My failures at gambling are YOUR fault. The reason that I never win Publisher’s Clearing House is YOUR fault. My lottery-ticket number never comes up, because it’s YOUR fault.

    Send money now to help me figure out a way to improve my odds of overcoming this catastrophic threat to my well being.

    • Oh, and now back to uncalled-for images (sorry, Kip):

      Have I stooped low enough yet?

      You’ve heard of the song, Sultan of Swing

      Well, I give you Satan of Science … as in science going all to hell.

      • Seriously, though, how does more CO2, which is supposed to cause more heating, cause frigid cold?

        Focusing on an explanation for more snow merely distracts from the issue of the supposed cold that the warmth is supposed to cause.

        Diversion = Explanation = Sophistry

        All of Dr. Mann’s education and study has given him a greater command of manipulating words in a way that people without his exposure cannot spot the flaws. Maybe I should have depicted him as a word magician.

  24. not just a bomb cyclone when it impacts on the entire northern hemisphere as can be seen here
    “””American cold not Global issue it’s just weather say AG warmist disciples – O wait met video shows it’s affecting NH, Iceland UK Spain Portugal France Italy Germany, Nordic & Baltic countries, Russia Korea China Japan Apologies any missed – but wait it’s warm in SH O it’s summer https://t.co/dyewxy1xpt “”

  25. I developed a theory that this is how ice ages start.

    Ice ages are obviously driven by orbital cycles (obliquity and precession), but the nascent ice age will then shrug off a subsequent orbital warming period, when obliquity and precession return to the warm side of their cycles. The reason an ice age can ignore warmer conditions, is ice albedo – the ice across the northern hemisphere simply reflects the increasing summer insolation back to space.

    But this is an interesting observation, because it suggests that northern ice sheets build very quickly. A precessional Great Winter is only 5 kyr long, and then we start returning to warm conditions again (the entire cycle is only about 22 kyr long). So sufficient ice sheets must have formed in just 5 kyr, to prevent subsequent orbital warming and allow the ice age to continue building (an ice age will last from 90 kyr to 110 kyr, and will shrug off many orbital warm periods). To do this, the ice sheets must have extend all across Canada in just a few thousand years. And then grow thicker and thicker as the ice age and its ice sheets mature.

    This suggests that the first flicker of an ice age may happen rather quickly. The orbital cycles reach a (famous) ‘tippping point’ where winter snow and ice is not fully melted by the weaker summer insolation. And so much of the summer insolation is reflected by high albedo ice, and the land and sea does not warm so much in that annual summer. So if we had a series of (weather driven) cold winters followed by poor summers, a thin but semi-permanent layer of snow may remain across the north. In this way, the weather (perhaps the PDO and AMO cycles) dives the longer-term ice age climate. Thus an ice age is born.

    I call this theory:
    Extend and Build, rather than Build and Extend.

    As an example of the latter, Prof Ganopolski envisions great cliffs of ice extending out from the northern latitudes, bulldozing millions of tonnes of silts in front of them as they extend. However, the large silt deposits across Canada that survived eight or more ice ages indicate that this is a fantasy. Instead, Canada may have been covered in an ice sheet only a few meters thick in just a few hundred years. As this sheet grew in thickness it will naturally squeeze out at the base (ice acts like treacle), and push out the surface layers of rocks and silts with it. But the idea of a 500 ft cliff of ice moving slowly southwards is a complete fantasy, and invalidates Ganopolski’s entire ice age cycle theory.

    Nevertheless, it so happens that we now stand at the edge of an ice age precipice. The current orbital positions, in both obliquity and precession, are very similar to the start of all the previous ice ages over the last 850 kyr. So it is possible that when we hit another Little Ice Age (driven by either solar or oceanic cycles), that this minor cooling could turn from a climate crescent (a cycle) into a one-way street towards an ice age.

    The only saving grace is that future orbital (22 kyr) Great Winters are all mild, for the next 100 kyr, so we happen to exist in a very stable orbital period. This stability may well prevent a new ice age from forming. But if albedo is as strong a feedback system as I think it is (the main driver of ice age climate change) then it is entirely possible that a series of bitter winters like this one (across both America and Russia) could cross a threshold and precipitate a full blown ice age.

    R

    • Probably also reinforced by periodic stratovolcanoism within that cooling time frame to ensure it doesn’t completely melt out whereby the young ice sheet continues to grow after which albedo takes over. And the final hammer is the shape of the orbit, when it becomes more eccentric with that much less Watts per Sq M2 falling on the entire Earth for the near 100,000 year cycle. There is no way CO2 can ever overcome those 3 cycles.

      • I dont think vulcanism has any major effect, because ice ages and interglacials have a regular orbital synchronisation, while vulcanism is pretty random. Not sure you could guarantee a volcano every time the orbital conditions were right for a new ice age.

        On the other hand you can guarantee the dust, because dust is caused by low CO2, and that goes steadily down all through the ice age. You are bound to hit the conditions for dust production at some point.

        R

      • Perhaps not, but I think we do need some type of hammer that seals the deal, so to speak. On average we do have stratovolcanoes going off randomly several times per century and the time frame of the orbital mechanics are on the order of thousands of years. When the conditions are right throughout the northern hemisphere, as per your premise, then when the timing of a significant sized stratovolcanoe does occur, then that is the first year the snow doesn’t melt, and the ice age has a chance to start and finally mature. The dust probably isn’t that significant in the early stages of a glaciation, but more so in the depths of the ice age, when CO2 is at starvation levels. IMHO of course.

  26. Always interesting, Anthony. I posted this on my own blog before reading your post. The DISTINGUISHED Michael E. Mann, PhD.

    https://gliobandme.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/michael-e-mann-phd/

    I don’t know which is more vitriolic, but I am less concerned about language choices and repercussions for reasons that will be obvious if you take a moment to check it out.

    Also, there’s a post about Bill Nye where as the language is way too salty for here.

    Regards,
    Brian

  27. I will probably always remember Mann as that “World-renowned climate Liar Dr. Michael Mann”. Until he admits he made a mistake with that hockey stick business, and pasting two types of data in one graph …..

  28. Chicago today tied a cold record dating back to 1895 on having 12 consecutive daytime highs of below 20 F with many nights below zero F. Water bottles and soda cans are exploding in our garage due to the expanding volume of the ice inside these sealed containers. Global computer models, Mann and Gore didn’t predict this record cold spell. That’s not following the scientific method that states when data is in conflict with the theory, it’s the theory that’s needs adjusting (not the temps that seem to be politically adjusted with a colder past and a warmer present)

  29. One amazing thing about ‘settled science’ is how it cannot provide an answer to the question , ‘what would disprove this theory’ . And one reason it cannot give an answer is because they have jumped on every extreme weather events as ‘proof’ of climate doom. So what is left when everything is ‘proof’?
    And at this stage adjust your minds to think religion , and forgot any ones you have about science.

  30. Even Al Gore and the lonesome Mann know that the only thing we should really expect is “It’s worse than we thought”.

    Is that not the most marvellous paradox that should be engraved on the tombstone of the global-warming movement?

  31. “COAL WILL NOT BRING APPALACHIA BACK TO LIFE – BUT TECH AND GOVERNMENT JOBS COULD”……..

    Ahhh, I see where this is coming from, only Government jobs can bring back Appalachia jobs back, not private industry. The left speaks the truth and it’s always a lie.

  32. This idiocy is nothing compared to what is ahead after another year of Trump and the GOP dismantling the climate bureaucracies and devastating the climate crusade.
    Every month the misery gets worse for the Progressive Supremacists.
    They can’t stand not getting their way and are losing their minds watching the power of their movement get decimated.

  33. It doesn’t get much better than this with snow drifts and bitter cold in markeyville and AL Gore the political climate scientist explaining at as global warming.

  34. In a few years, Michael Mann and Al Gore will be things of the past. Children won’t know the joy of waking up to find social media covered with yet another transparently false attribution of last week’s weather to climate change.

    It’s predicted in the models, you know.

    BTW nice opinion peace in the National Post today, making fun of the idiocy.

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-too-frigid-for-global-warming-this-is-why-they-rebranded-it-climate-change

  35. If record cold is predictably the result of Global Warming, where are the predictions of record cold temperatures in the IPCC or NASA early reports? I am too old and lazy to go back and look but I don’t remember them. It is nonsense to claim, after the fact, that record cold temperatures are an expected result of Climate Change if those expectations were not announced in advance.

  36. I have my own theory about all of this, and it has to do with oscillations.

    If something that wobbles back and forth begins to wobble with wider swings, at some point the swings become so wide that it is completely unstable. To reach stability, it will crash, flip over, do whatever is necessary to stabilize itself.

    I’d compare the weather (past and current) to that, and add that since the Sun likes to be in a stable, steady state and has shut down, the weather we’re having is doing the same thing in lag time as a response to the Sun’s activities. At some point, the weather systems will crash, and yes, we’ll be in another glacial maximum. That old ‘snowball Earth’ theory is an exaggeration, but maybe the planet likes to be cold.

    That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

    I’m going to go fix pancakes and sausages now. You all have a good day.

  37. Mann’s using Climate reanalyzer maps, here is what he writes:

    Moreover, while we’ve seen some cold weather in the eastern half of the North America (see the pattern for New Year’s Day below), the western half of North America has been unusually warm. Indeed, most of the Northern Hemisphere, and the globe overall, have been unusually warm. That’s why we call it global warming, folks.

    Much more troubling is how Mann substitutes the synoptic reality showing colder air masses affecting north America, the Arctic, Siberia, Mongolia and the eastern half of China (pressure data and temperature data confirming this reality) with an anomaly map calculated from a 1979-2000 reference in order to claim this “weather bomb” is the result of global warming. Not only the temperature anomalies can change depending on the chosen base line, but on a synoptic level, that is explaining the process at work, this map is useless and misleading. I let the reader figure the motive…

  38. Because of my upbringing, being blessed in having a father from the pre model generation, I was taught to study the past for hints about the future, Always look and listen to what the weather is saying. So I learned alot of things from those older than me about analogs. I always loved history, US, World and of course weather history and the knowledge of what has happened and because of that, what the weather can do, This put me in this debate, simply because I am a big mouth that when I see something I say something. But I really learned to rely on analogs based on the physical realitles of the current pattern and THEN go to modeling. So its past, present and then future that is my methodology and the attribution that these people are trying to push contradicts that since it ignores past events I use to set this up, that were equal to or greater than this in magnitude ( the target period we had Dec 21-Jan 10 which was analogged to 00-01, 83-84 from early Dec) Consequently, while I love and appreciate modeling the bitter sting of busted forecasts has me wary and skeptical all the time of any future event, especially the ones I am thinking are coming. My point: I live eat and breathe the past weather (climate related) and the events that have happened, that these people are telling me have never happened or a sign of something different, directly contradicts what I know . I think every Climatologist should be made to forecast long range ( the period 5 day to 6 months) for a year and see what happens in that period, understanding how wrong things can go in a short period of time. You see, if you do what I do, you know what its like to get the tar beat out of you by the atmosphere and to have to get back up. But the weather is there for you to face every day, so you use every tool you can. I happen to be blessed with a fascination for the past weather that my dad taught me about, so I use it. I can not compete with alot of people with some of their ability, but one is given strengths and weaknesses and so learns how to use them. Now what if your whole life is just one issue? That its not the every day fight and the new forecast, but instead a stance that everything you have invested your name in, if proven wrong, negates all that work. My chance to prove myself renews itself every day, with every pattern.Yesterdays forecast is gone, and I must face a new fight each day. If tomorrow I am convinnced co2 is warming the planet, it makes no difference to me as to having to deal with the warmer globe and the effects and how to adjust ideas about the past and how the models handle it. Its there, and its a factor. Does it change my life? No. Because I already know that no matter what the reason I have to know the implications. I am not out to save the planet or change people. But what if the shoe is on the other foot, for these people? That somehow this gets taken away, Their lifes work is destroyed. This also means that any questioning of their ideas becomes a personal attack, because to them it is personal. Its not an idea to be discussed, its a dogma that has to be forced upon everyone because if everyone does not march to it and its questioned, its a threat. In the end if I am right, So what? I know its warmer, I know the climate changes, I know we have to deal with changes constantly. Climate and weather is natures search for a balance she can never have. That is their problem! They think they can change it so it behaves in some grand uptopian form that can control, but everyone has to be on board..That to me is arrogant. So its a very simple plan, Use Orwellian ideas to erase the past, and then Alinsky tactics on those that disagree with you, ( Isolate, demonize and destroy.) I have my reasons for my ideas ( I am a sun, oceans, stochastic events, and design of the entire system far outweighing co2 as the climate control knob). But Its only when you can get rid of the baggage that blinds you can you actually discuss any situation. But when I see the attribution of this event, or others to something like this, when I can show and do before hand set ups I use to look for these things, then I speak up.

    If you read this whole thing, you have my condolences haha,

    [Request permission to insert a few carriage returns on logical places to make your reply a bit more readable. .mod]

    • joe says
      I know its warmer, I know the climate changes, I know we have to deal with changes constantly

      henry says

      I would imagine that as the snow heaps up on your front door, you would conclude that it is getting cooler?

      How on earth did you figure out that IT IS GETTING WARMER?
      did you check what happens in your own back yard?\

      You might get a surprise, like I did.

      Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
      I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:

      The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
      I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:

      Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable

      • henryp, You wrote: “Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth,…” If AGW logic starts with the premise that CO2 “traps heat on the earth,” then it fails from the get-go simply because heat cannot be trapped. There is no substance known to man, including CO2, that will prevent the transfer of thermal energy from a region of higher temperature to a region of lower temperature. Such heat transfer cannot be stopped by surrounding the higher temperature object with any material known to man. If you disagree, please identify the material. I know the refrigeration industry would be happy to make use of such a subject.

        It is undoubtedly true that adding matter to a system can affect the spatial distribution of temperature of that system; so increases in atmospheric CO2 levels may increase the earth surface temperature. But other examples exist where adding CO2 gas decreases temperature. Consider a simply vacuum thermos bottle. Place a heating unit and coffee inside the chamber of a thermos bottle and place the bottle in a room at a fixed temperature. The heating unit will cause the temperature of the coffee to rise, but the temperature of the coffee will eventually stabilize at a value such that the rate the heating element adds heat to the coffee is equal to the rate the coffee loses heat to its surrounding. Now fill the vacuum space of the thermos bottle with CO2 gas and repeat the procedure. With the exception of “spacers” that must be present to separate the thermos bottle chamber from the outer walls of the thermos bottle, CO2 gas surrounds the chamber. If CO2 gas “traps heat,” then the temperature of the coffee in the case of the CO2 should be higher than the temperature of the coffee in the vacuum case. Furthermore, using the logic that CO2 “traps heat,” adding more CO2 should result in ever increasing coffee temperatures. I don’t believe it. Furthermore, it appears that companies who manufacture thermos bottles also don’t believe it. Otherwise, instead of stocking vacuum thermos bottles, store would stock “CO2 thermos bottles.” Good luck finding such a thermos bottle.

      • Jokes aside. There is a gh effect. After showering and long after the water stopped running, heat is trapped by the water vapor. As you step out the booth you notice the cold?
        This is where Arrhenius made the big mistake. He looked only at the closed box experiment and did not consider at all that there is also radiation deflected away from earth by the CO2.
        Another way to experience the gh effect is to observe the minimum T in winter on a cloudless night. Notice how minimum T rises as clouds move in the next night.

      • Henryp, although when discussing the effects that atmospheric gases that absorb/radiate electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band (i.e., greenhouse gases) have on the earth’s surface temperature I don’t like the term “greenhouse (gh) effect” because greenhouses keep their interiors warm more by restricting thermal convection than by restricting IR radiation, my main gripe isn’t the term “gh effect” it is the use of the word “trap” to characterize a thermal property of those gases. According to

        https://www.google.com/search?q=trap&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS545US701&oq=trap&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j0l4.3399j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

        when used as a verb, the word trap means:
        verb: trap; 3rd person present: traps; past tense: trapped; past participle: trapped; gerund or present participle: trapping.
        1. catch (an animal) in a trap. Synonyms: confine, cut off, corner, shut in, pen in, hem in, imprison, hold captive “a rat trapped in a barn”
        a) prevent (someone) from escaping from a place.” “twenty workers were trapped by flames” Synonyms: snare, entrap, ensnare, lay a trap for
        b) have (something, typically a part of the body) held tightly by something so that it cannot move or be freed. “he had trapped his finger in a spring-loaded hinge”
        c) induce (someone), by means of trickery or deception, to do something they would not otherwise want to do. “I hoped to trap him into an admission” Synonyms: trick, dupe, deceive, lure, inveigle, beguile, fool, hoodwink
        d) BASEBALL, AMERICAN FOOTBALL catch (the ball) after it has briefly touched the ground.
        e) SOCCER bring (the ball) under control with the feet or other part of the body on receiving it.

        Obviously definitions c, d, and e above do not apply to “heat” in any way. The wordings in 1, a, and b (“confine”, “shut in”, “pen in”, “hem in”, “imprison”, “hold captive”, “prevent from escaping”, and “cannot be moved”) clearly imply the inability to escape/leave. Your example of the temperature difference inside and outside a shower stall after the water has been turned off is an example of temporarily stored thermal energy, not trapped thermal energy. The heat isn’t trapped, it just requires some time to dissipate. If you stay in the shower stall long enough, you’ll be just as cold as stepping out of the shower. It takes time for the thermal energy stored in the shower stall to dissipate; but it will dissipate—it isn’t and can’t be “trapped.” If you put a large block of metal in the shower stall and heat the block of metal, the temperature inside the shower stall will stay elevated relative to the temperature outside the shower stall for an even longer time. If the time required to reach “room temperature” is what you mean by the greenhouse effect, then I guess it’s true that greenhouse gases (i.e., gases that absorb and radiate energy in sub-bands of the IR band) do induce a “gh effect.” But in that sense non-greenhouse gases inside, plumbing fixtures and the walls of the shower stall itself also induce a “gh effect.”

        So let’s define the “gh effect” to be any phenomenon that increases the time required for the temperature of an object to reach the ambient background temperature of its surroundings. In that sense filling the vacuum space of a thermos bottle holding material at an elevated temperature with the greenhouse gas CO2 has the exact opposite effect. That is, the heated material inside the thermos bottle will reach room temperature much faster than a similar situation with a vacuum thermos bottle. Thus, it seems to me that for this situation I can claim CO2 is an “un-greenhouse gas” and CO2 causes an “ugh effect.”

      • So let’s define the “gh effect” to be any phenomenon that increases the time required for the temperature of an object to reach the ambient background temperature of its surroundings

        Reed
        I have no problem with that definition.
        I am just not sure if you understand the mechanics of the process involved? I agree it is a delay, but it would still cause some heat to linger longer…
        Namely we also have gasses that exhibit a decisive anti gh effect.
        e.g.\ozone, that only constitutes a small percentage of the atmosphere [and is mostly manufactured from O2 and the most energetic particles coming from the sun, thereby protecting us], actually deflects about 25% of all [energy ]that is being deflected by the atmosphere.
        going by an early report by Trenberth

      • Henryp. First, I’m getting pleasure from our discussion, and I hope you are too.

        You wrote: “I am just not sure if you understand the mechanics of the process involved? I agree it is a delay, but it would still cause some heat to linger longer…” First, I don’t see the difference between a “delay” and the concept of “lingering longer.” Isn’t “lingering longer” a delay? Second, as to whether I understand the “mechanics of the process involved,” the jury is still out. I would, however, like to believe I do understand the mechanics of the process; but then self-delusion is rampant in humans and I’m as likely to be guilty of self-delusion as the next man. For what it’s worth, I do have a PhD in physics; so I have a basic understanding of the principles of heat transfer. As I understand the “mechanics of the process involved (i.e., the greenhouse effect)” at least as espoused by many people it goes like this.

        Solar energy (electromagnetic radiation) impinges on the earth. A portion of the solar energy is reflected back to space by various components in the earth’s atmosphere. Effectively originating from a radiator at a temperature near 5,700 Kelvin (the sun’s approximate surface temperature), most of the incoming solar radiation that is not reflected back to space exists at frequencies that to a large degree pass unattenuated through atmospheric greenhouse gases to be absorbed by the earth’s surface. The absorption of solar energy by the earth’s surface causes the temperature of the earth’s surface to rise above absolute zero; and as a result the earth’s surface radiates energy. Because the earth’s surface energy-rate-equilibrium (ERE) temperature is near 293 K, a large portion of the earth surface radiation exists in the absorption bands of atmospheric greenhouse gases. [A system is in ERE if the rate energy leaves the system is equal to the rate energy enters the system.] Atmospheric greenhouse gases (a) absorb a portion of the earth surface outgoing radiation, (b) warm up, and (c) re-radiate some of their absorbed energy. The re-radiated energy goes in all directions, which means a portion of the atmospheric re-radiated energy returns to and is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The net result of this process is to increase the amount of electromagnetic radiation being absorbed by the earth’s surface from solar-only to solar plus greenhouse gas back radiation. It then follows that the increased rate of absorbed radiation will cause an increase in earth surface temperature—and voila, a greenhouse effect.

        In all seriousness, how’s that for understanding “the mechanics of the process involved?” I agree with much of the above argument. One thing I don’t agree with is the conclusion that backradiation from greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere must produce an increase in the earth surface temperature. It might produce and increase; but it doesn’t have to. Other effects may more than compensate for the backradiation. For example, much of the earth’s surface is water. Evaporation (conversion of water to water vapor) requires huge amounts of thermal energy. To a large degree this thermal energy comes from the water itself. The net effect is to cool, not heat, the water that remains. This is the principle of evaporative air conditioning and is known to work. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the presence of water vapor in the earth’s atmosphere might, via evaporation, have a surface cooling effect not a surface heating effect.

        And if backradiation guarantees increased temperature of the material receiving the backradation, why is the temperature of the thermos bottle chamber and the material in that chamber for a vacuum thermos bottle higher than the temperature of the chamber/material in a similar CO2 thermos bottle? Shouldn’t the backradiation from the CO2 gas increase the temperature of the thermos bottle chamber and its contents?

  39. I read every bit of it Joe and appreciate that you took the time to write it. Paragraphs would have been nice though. I watch every one of your free videos when possible and read what your have written when every it comes available online. As far as this layman is concerned, your more of a climate scientist than most of those who claim to be scientists hyping weather events as signs of a coming climate apocalypse. Thank you so much for what you do and please keep informing and educating us.

    Best wished to you and your family.

  40. Now I’m confused. Should the people in the US north east who are experiencing a severe cold snap be cursing or blessing AGW?

    Argument for cursing AGW: Mikey Mann and Al Gore claim the current extreme cold in the north east US is “… exactly what we should expect from the climate crises”, which to me implies the “climate crises” (also known as AGW) is the cause of the cold and misery.

    Argument for blessing AGW: Yeah, it’s cold in the north east US; but without AGW just imagine how much colder it would be.

    Maybe the answer is to do both. Get down on your knees in supplication to AGW, but instead of giving thanks to AGW, curse AGW.

  41. It is ironic that both the historical record and the geological record strongly indicate that warm eras produce fewer and milder storms while times like the Little Ice Age produce more violent and severe storms.

  42. Nice to see that March 2000 prediction of snowless winters again, climate prognosticators have a bad habit of taking the previous 2 or 3 years weather and projecting it far into the future, often with gratifyingly poor results. The following year 2001was for instance a vintage year for snow here in Scotland.
    The finest exponents of this method are the UK Met Office. Following heatwaves in 2003 and 2006, they predicted more of the same, there then followed a series of washout summers until I think June 2012 when they said, actually, AGW would produce a moist Atlantic regime, wet cool summers etc. To be followed 20days later by a heatwave, and a summer that was among the top ten hottest.

  43. Reed

    I think you got it more or less right except for the part where the back- / re-radiation goes in all directions. It goes back 62.5% in the direction where the light came from. The effect is comparable to when you put your brights on in misty conditions: your own light is returned to you in your face [by the mist].

    The best way to experience re-radiation is to stand in a moist dark forest just before dawn on a cloudless night. I mean: not misty or cloudy, just a bit higher humidity in the air than around your house. Note that water vapour gas also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum. So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapour around you can see the re-radiated light coming from every direction. Left, right, bottom up, top down. You can see this for yourself until of course the sun’s light becomes too bright in the darkness for you to observe the re-radiated light from the water vapour.
    A second way to experience how re-radiation works is to measure the humidity in the air and the temperature on a certain exposed plate, again on a cloudless day, at a certain time of day for a certain amount of time. Note that as the humidity goes up, and all else is being kept equal, the temperature effected by the sun on the plate is lower. This is because, like carbon dioxide, water vapour has absorption in the infra red part of the spectrum.
    We can conclude from these simple experiments that what happens is this: in the wavelengths areas where absorption takes place, the molecule starts acting like a little mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. Because the molecule is like a perfect sphere, 62,5% of a certain amount of light (radiation) is send back in the direction where it came from. This is the warming or cooling effect of a gas hit by radiation.
    Unfortunately, in their time, Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see the whole picture of the spectrum of a gas which is why they got stuck on seeing only the warming properties of a gas.
    If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects.

    In all of this we are still looking at pure gases. The discussion on clouds and the deflection of incoming radiation by clouds is still a completely different subject.
    So what one should be doing is looking at the whole spectrum of the gas molecule 0-20 um. Unless you come to me with a balance sheet of how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a gas, we don’t actually know what the situation is. So, all that we can say now is that we don’t know what the net effect is of an increase in CO2 is in the atmosphere…..
    Seeing that CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle (plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow), and because there is clear evidence that there has been an increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades, I think the total net effect of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could even be zero or close to zero. But unless we cone up with a test method and measurements, we will never know for sure.

    For proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by back-radiating sunshine, see here:
    http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf

    They measured the re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth-moon -earth. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um.
    This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
    http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
    There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
    We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um. (at 4.6 is where we can measure with FTIR concentrations of CO2 in other gasses)

    So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: exactly how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours).

    • Henryp,
      When you say “It [back- / re-radiation] goes back 62.5% in the direction where the light came from,” I think you’re confusing thermal radiation (i.e., electromagnetic energy emitted from a body because the body is at a non-zero Kelvin temperature) with reflection by a body (at any temperature) of electromagnetic energy incident on the body. The light you see from the mist in front of your automobile is reflected light, not emitted light. It can’t be thermally emitted light because the frequency of thermally emitted light is a function of the temperature of the emitting material; and since your headlights have negligible effect on the temperature of the mist, if the light from the mist was thermally emitted light, the mist would appear equally bright in all directions. The direction of reflected light is a function of the shape of the reflecting surface(s) and the orientation of that (those) surface(s) relative to the direction of the light incident on the surface(s). Although reflected light can exhibit a wide range of directional properties, light reflected off a planar surface is often characterized as being either specular (in a single direction) or Lambertian (in all half-plane directions with the intensity in any direction proportional to the cosine of the angle between the normal to the planar surface and the direction of the reflected light). As such, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the percentage of mist-reflected light in the direction of the light source (a car’s headlights) is greater than the percentage of mist-reflected light in any other direction.

      Thermally emitted radiation from a differential planar surface can exhibit non-uniform directional behavior because the normal to the emitting plane defines a unique and identifiable direction. That is, as viewed from a point not on the plane, the size of the solid angle of the differential emitting planar surface changes as the cosine of the viewing angle off the normal to the plane. No such “defining direction” exists for light emitted from a differential volume of isotropic material. As such by symmetry, the intensity of light emitted from a differential volume of isotropic material cannot exhibit a preferential direction and must be the same in all directions.

      Next, when determining the heating/cooling effect object “A” has on object “B”, one must consider all forms of heat loss/gain (radiation, conduction, convection, evaporation) and not just radiation. It’s true than when considering the earth/earth-atmosphere as object “A”, the overwhelming means of heat transfer (both to and from) is radiation, and convection/conduction can usually be ignored. But when considering the surface of the earth as object “A”, convection/conduction/evaporation cannot be ignored. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the combination of convection/evaporation has a larger impact on the earth’s surface temperature than does radiation.

      In summary, I’m don’t know the impact greenhouse gases have on earth surface temperature. If I had to guess, I would guess (a) water vapor via the processes of evaporation/convection has a cooling effect, and (b) CO2, which doesn’t transition between a liquid and a gas, has a warming effect. That, however, is just a guess.

      Now for a footnote. This interchange of thoughts has been beneficial to me. I’d like to continue the discourse, but via an exchange of emails, not via comments on Anthony’s glob. Emails allow for attachments which are amenable to equations/pictures. Comments on Anthony’s blog are not as amenable. If you’d like to carry on this interchange of thoughts via email, I’d be happy to give you my email address. However, I don’t want to give the world my email address. In the past I’ve used Joanne Nova to transfer my email address to individual. Joanne runs a blog similar to this blog. If you would like to continue our discussion via email, so note in your next response on this blog and I’ll see if Joanne would be kind enough to again act as an intermediary.

      • Hi Reed
        I only used the mist as an analogy. I realize that mist is water (l) which is not the same as water (g)\ so there are different reactions.
        Nevertheless as you can see from the report I quoted, the gases in the atmosphere react to radiation to form earth’s albedo, and Turnbull made a good effort to get a picture of what is happening. Radiation always moves in straight lines and either the molecule is permeable, or, at certain wavelengths, it is not. If it is not, it is deflected / reflected / back radiated or whatever name you prefer. In the latter case, and assuming the molecule is close to a perfect sphere, 62.5 % is sent back in the direction where the light came from.

        Seeing that no one actually has a balance sheet of how much warming or how much cooling takes place by the CO2 and H2O, I set out to find out for myself what the situation is.
        My conclusion is that there is indeed no man made global warming. In fact, IMO it is not even warming anymore:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/06/goremongering-and-mannhandling-the-reality-of-winter-weather-bombs/#comment-2711327

        That makes further discussion on the AGW theology (i.e. entrapment of IR radiation) a bit pointless, at least for me.

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s