UAH – What is Foretold

Guest essay David Archibald

We all know that Santa’s workshop is somewhere in the Arctic, producing toys for the world’s children. Also north of the Arctic Circle is Professor Humlum’s office at the Unversity of Svalbaard wherein he toils each month to update a report on climate. The first chart in that report is the UAH temperature for the lower troposphere, copied following and annotated with lines showing the evident trends:

Figure 1: UAH global temperature anomaly

In the period from 1978 to 2015, the lower bound of the record is shown by the orange line. Then there was a period of a couple of years in which the temperature anomaly was in a narrow, steep uptrend channel. The temperature anomaly broke up from that channel due to the 2016 El Nino.

Since that 2016 El Nino, two parallel upper bounding lines have formed, in downtrend. The lower green one is formed by six points. The upper red line is formed from only two points – the minimum to make a line – but is notable in that it is parallel to the green line. So climate isn’t a randowm walk. There is some physical process that limits how far temperature excursions go.

The uptrend from the beginning of the satellite record in 1978 to 2015 was 0.4°C over 36 years. That equates to 0.000926°C per month. If we take that amount from each monthly temperature anomaly, cumulatively, we produce the following graph of the detrended monthly temperature anomaly distribution from 1978 to 2015:

Figure 2: UAH global lower troposphere temperature anomaly detrended monthly distribution 1978 to 2015

What is apparent is that the detrended temperature anomaly distribution is nearly symmetrical. The temperature likes to stay in the middle of the band. The only excursion from the 0.8°C wide band was for the 1998 El Nino.

Does the temperature record to date tell us anything about what will happen from here? A better chart for that is the NCDC global temperature anomaly, also from Professor Humlum’s update for November:

Figure 3: NCDC global temperature anomaly 1979 to 2022

The uptrend channel 0.8°C wide to 2015 is well defined with the orange upper and lower boundaries absolutely parallel and rising at 0.011°C per annum. Since the 2016 El Nino the trend is now down in a tighter, steeper trend channel that is 0.5°C wide and falling three times as fast at 0.036°C per annum.

From this downtrend, can we say that the Modern Warm Period is over, that global warming is definitely over, dead and buried, when the current downtrend regime takes us below the lower bound of the previous uptrend channel?

That could happen as soon as 2025 if the temperature anomaly stayed within its new downtrend channel. Sooner than that would be better for the world (since global warming is a bad thing, the corollary is also true – the faster it gets colder, the better). But it would be scientifically gratifying if the temperature trend stayed non-random in achieving what we want.

Either way, blessed release is coming.

David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

4.8 39 votes
Article Rating
169 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
crosspatch
December 21, 2022 6:13 pm

A recent paper in Nature suggests periods of warming and cooling, particularly in the northern hemisphere is cyclical:

Allan MacRae
Reply to  crosspatch
December 21, 2022 9:02 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/20/climate-sensitivity-from-1970-2021-warming-estimates/#comment-3653958
[excerpt]
 
The world got colder from ~1940 to ~1977. That inconvenient data has been “adjusted” warmer ever since. Using the uncorrupted data, what was the NEGATIVE ECS then?
 
The hottest period in the USA was the 1930’s. What was the (negative?) ECS measured from the 1930’s to now?
 
These analyses attribute ALL Temperature change to CO2 – that is just false nonsense.
 
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag atmospheric temperature changes by ~9 months in the modern data record, and by ~~800 years in the ice core record on a longer time scale.
“Cart before horse” analysis. The future cannot cause the past

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 21, 2022 9:22 pm

The same sociopaths promoted both the Climate and Covid scams.
Note the strong agreement from Dr Mike Yeadon – ex VP Pfizer.

WHO WERE THE FIRST PEOPLE TO PUBLICLY DEMAND A HALT TO THE COVID VAX PROGRAM?
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/who-were-the-first-people-to-publicly

Allan MacRae
21.12.2022
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/who-were-the-first-people-to-publicly/comment/11305639

Decades before the Covid-19 Lockdown-and-Vaccine scam, there was the Climate-and-Green-Energy (CAGW) scam. The same sociopaths promoted both scams.
The Climate Hypothesis was that increasing atmospheric CO2 caused dangerous global warming.
But I proved in 2008 and Humlum et al restated in 2013 that:
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag atmospheric temperature changes by ~9 months in the modern data record (and by ~~800 years in the ice core record on a longer time scale).
“Cart before horse” analysis. The future cannot cause the past – an absolute disproof of the CAGW scam, but it made no difference.

Climate skeptics keep muddling around with their little scientific analyses when IT’S NEVER BEEN ABOUT THE SCIENCE. CAGW was a scam, easily disproved, yet every disproof was ignored because billions of dollars were spent yearly to promote that scary false narrative to people with no scientific education and no understanding of the scientific method. It’s wolves stampeding the sheep.

While skeptic scientists stayed in their “safe space” running numbers, multitudes will die this winter because politicians have destroyed once-functional energy systems with excessive intermittent wind-and-solar power. That’s what it’s going to take to end this false narrative. It did not have to end in tragedy – all we needed to do was speak the truth, loudly:

We published these facts in 2002 and nothing has changed:
There is no real Catastrophic Human-made Global Warming Crisis.
Green Energy is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy.
I also wrote in 2002 that natural Global Cooling would start circa 2020.
In 2013 I wrote an Open Letter to the British Undersecretary of Energy and Climate, predicting that within ten years the Brits will have brewed the perfect storm – lack of dispatchable energy in a cooling world. Precisely where we are, ten years later in Britain, Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
Let the Cull of the Elderly and Poor begin. It’s too late to stop it now.
____________________

Why am I writing this note about Climate on a Covid site? Because it’s the same sociopaths promoting both scams, using the same propaganda tactics.
They typically don’t argue the science – they just vilify their opponents and spend billions on false propaganda. They incessantly repeat the same falsehoods to the uneducated masses, promoting fear to get compliance. Wolves stampeding the sheep.

It works – half the population lined up for the toxic Covid-19 vaccines. I think there will be another Cull this winter – a Cull of the Vaxxed, because the jabs have destroyed their immune systems. There IS an opportunity in this scam to save lives – rapid treatment with Ivermectin etc, but governments move at the Speed of Dark. The Cull of the Vaxxed will happen this Winter.
____________________________

Dr Mike Yeadon
21.12.2022
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/who-were-the-first-people-to-publicly/comments#comment-11320423
 
Indeed. It’s the same psychopaths. They’re descended from those who started the preparations for this many decades ago. I bet they’re hugging themselves with excitement. Revolting.

michel
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 22, 2022 12:05 am

Guess someone has to say it, this is really weird paranoid and totally irrational stuff.

There is no reason to think the Covid vaccines are toxic. Masses of people are not going to die this winter from immune systems destroyed by them. There is no evidence the vaccines have destroyed immune systems. They have some cases of side effects, like all vaccines, but there’s no evidence of large scale toxicity. As for the idea of Yeadon, that people have been preparing for ‘this’ for decades?

What is the ‘this’ he is talking about? And who are these people? This is paranoid fantasy.

What we are seeing in the West, this winter is a rise in infections, because there are new variants and because winter is the season for respiratory illnesses. But unlike the first waves, which hit a totally unvaccinated population, these later waves have been muted by the vaccination programs, so we have relatively fewer cases and still fewer critical ones.

And this has happened after the end of lockdown.

You can track the real facts for the UK, as a typical example, here:

Daily summary | Coronavirus in the UK

80%+ of the over 12 population has had the first two vaccines. You can go through the site to see the impact of the first wave on an unvaccinated population, and you can see what difference the vaccination program has made.

I am not saying that the authorities in all countries have handled the pandemic in an exemplary fashion. There have been lots of mistakes. I am saying that the basic approach of lockdown, vaccinate and then re-open, which most have pretty much followed, has worked, and is at the moment allowing the countries to get back to normal social life. And I am saying that this idea that vaccines are toxic and part of a planned cull of the old and poor is completely mad. On the contrary, they have saved the West from such an event.

One’s advice to Allan and to Yeadon is, stop ranting and start looking at the evidence. Be scientific about it. Advice to WUWT readership: don’t bother with it.

Advice to newcomers:WUWT has a very open commenting policy, which is to be welcomed, and is in sharp contrast to just about all sites allowing comments on climate and energy. But that does mean that you’ll come across some completely nutty rants like these from time to time. Don’t think they are typical of the readership or the site. They are not.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 1:33 am

Sorry Michel, the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about is you.
I suggest that you aquaint yourself with the Latest GOV.UK ONS Excess Mortality data by Vaccination Status.
Here is a sample.
age group 18-39 unvaccinated person-years 180720, Rate 15.3/100,000
Second Dose person-years 238300, Rate 18.1/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 476178, Rate 21.4/100,000

age group 40-49 unvaccinated person-years 56504, Rate 64.1/100,000
Second Dose person-years 69537, Rate 106.4/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 325485, Rate 83.7/100,000

age group 50-59 unvaccinated person-years 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
Second Dose person-years 48202, Rate 420.7/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 450969, Rate 235.1/100,000

age group 60-69 unvaccinated person-years 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
Second Dose person-years 22352, Rate 1572.3/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 408279, Rate 646.8/100,000

age group 70-79 unvaccinated person-years 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
Second Dose person-years 8790, Rate 5186.2/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 349100, Rate 1810.8/100,000

age group 80-89 unvaccinated person-years 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
Second Dose person-years 3965, Rate 13197.2/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 166832, Rate 6097.8/100,000

age group 90+ unvaccinated person-years 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
Second Dose person-years 1095, Rate 27682.8/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 36690, Rate 17498.2/100,000

Every age group shows worse outcomes for the Vaccinated.

Alan Fields
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 22, 2022 1:55 am

Do you have detail of the numbers of people non vaccinated, one dose,two doses,three doses

michel
Reply to  Alan Fields
December 22, 2022 2:40 am

The site is here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland

You can download, as I have, the Excel file. The argument seems to be, there is no difference between the non-vaccinated and the vaccinated except for their vaccination status.

Therefore if we look at the excess mortality rates, and this is the only difference, it must be concluded that its vaccination which is causing it.

There is then another argument which is very clearly stated in the quoted comment:

Indeed. It’s the same psychopaths. They’re descended from those who started the preparations for this many decades ago. I bet they’re hugging themselves with excitement. Revolting.”

Unnamed people are supposed to have been preparing for this undefined something many decades ago, and are now supposed to be delighted at what they have achieved.

Well, inquiring minds want to know. Who are these people? What have they been doing to prepare for this? What is the ‘this’ that they have been preparing for?

And finally there is another even more deranged argument made below, which is that Oxford city and Oxfordshire Council are proposing to restrict car traffic through Oxford, and these are the same people responsible for the Covid vaccine conspiracy. Yes, this is really the argument!

“And the major point Allan is making is that same people who pushed the Covid lockdowns are pushing climate lockdowns. Check out Oxford England which wants to limit driving to 100 days a year. Why would you not believe their lies and misinformation about the climate and then believe them about Covid?”

Oxford traffic management has nothing to do with Covid vaccination. And anyway, they are not restricting driving to 100 days a year! You can drive as much as you want, just not through the very congested city center.

https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/2332/joint_statement_from_oxfordshire_county_council_and_oxford_city_council_on_oxford_s_traffic_filters

https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/2250/proposals_to_trial_six_new_traffic_filters_in_oxford_announced

Editor
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 11:28 am

I think the major point re Oxford City Council backed by and/or encouraged by Oxfordshire County Council is that they intend to introduce a tracking and permitting system. You would have to get permission for certain travels. The major objection is that this goes against everything that a free country stands for.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Alan Fields
December 22, 2022 5:46 am

The ONS gives the data in Person Years, because the group sizes are fluid, that is the number before the Mortality Rate per 100,000.

Last edited 1 month ago by Grumpy Git UK
michel
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 22, 2022 2:51 am

Could you tell me which ONS table you are getting those numbers from?

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 5:55 am

They are the data from the excel sheet you are talking about.
Table 2, the data is some of that for May 2022.
I chose the Second dose data as it has very similar sample sizes (Person Years) to the unvaccinated.
But also showed the 3 dose data because that used to be much better than than the unvaccinated.
Note that the UK GOV ONS are no longer providing tupdated data as those nasty anyi vaxxers were using them to show problems with the vaccines.

Here is some more data.
Let’s look at May 2021 when everybody was saying how good the vaccines were doing and they were.
40-49 Unvaxxed 258.9 Double vaxxed 179.8 = [b]44% better[/b]
50-59 Unvaxxed 763.8 Double vaxxed 412.8 = [b]85% better[/b]
60-69 Unvaxxed 2093.8 Double vaxxed 832.9 = [b]151% better[/b]
70-79 Unvaxxed 5406.3 Double vaxxed 1536.0 = [b]252% better[/b]
80-89 Unvaxxed 10749.1 Double vaxxed 5200.0 = [b]107% better[/b]
95+ Unvaxxed 23031.3 Double vaxxed 16152.4 = [b]43% better[/b]

But it is not just the current numbers that you ignore in your total ignorance, it is the [b]change[/b] which has gone from showing the Vaccines as being effective during 2021 to being disastrous in 2022.
The trend from good to bad was obvious months ago when I first reported it happening.
Here is the change from May 2021 to May 2022.
40-49 from [b]44% better[/b] to [b]66% worse[/b]
50-59 from [b]85% better[/b] to [b]45% worse[/b]
60-69 from [b]151% better[/b] to [b]82% worse[/b]
70-79 from [b]252% better[/b] to [b]117% worse[/b]
80-89 from [b]107% better[/b] to [b]103% worse[/b]
95+ from [b]43% better[/b] to [b]79% worse[/b]
All based on the same statistics

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 22, 2022 6:02 am

ps it is for all causes.
And that response was copied and pasted from a response to someone else on another forum.

Last edited 1 month ago by Grumpy Git UK
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 22, 2022 7:02 am

Grumpy,

How many months were there after the last booster vaccine was administered?
It seems that the immune system doesn’t recognize Covid anymore after some 6 months after vaccination.

Second point: those who were not vaccinated and were vulnerable to the virus already died 1-2 years ago. Thus who survived Covid are now more resistant against new strains.

Third point: where more data are available, the figures are quite different:
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination
For Switzerland, USA and Chile
An older survey for the UK:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/england-covid-19-mortality-rate-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 22, 2022 10:39 am

They are not COVID deaths, they are all cause mortality.
ie the only explanation is that the Vaccines cause the extra deaths, not COVID.
The COVID deaths are separate.

Joe Shaw
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 22, 2022 11:57 am

The figures are not actually all cause mortality, they are all cause excess mortality – the difference between actual mortality and predicted (i.e., modeled) mortality based on prior year statistics.

WUWT readers tend to be rightfully skeptical of model projections especially where they can’t be validated against empirical data. The same skepticism is warranted here IMO.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Joe Shaw
December 22, 2022 3:11 pm

Please point out on the Excel document where it says Excess mortality.
How can the COVID only deaths be “Excess”?

The values are consistent with those for many other countries in Europe. Here is Germany All cause

climategrog
Reply to  Joe Shaw
December 23, 2022 12:04 am

There is no “model projection” . The base for comparison is an average annual cycle from previous years. It is the weekly excess deaths compared to the long term average.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 22, 2022 4:30 am

ABC News pointed out much the same back in May. Vaccinated people are an increasing percentage of covid deaths and the percentage is growing. Is it because the vaccination is not as effective as it is advertised or is it because the vaccine is causing other vulnerabilities?

mikethefordprefect
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 22, 2022 5:51 am

Um! with a 100% vaccination rate there would be 100% of covid deaths in people who are vaccinated!!!!

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  mikethefordprefect
December 22, 2022 6:00 am

Really?

climategrog
Reply to  mikethefordprefect
December 22, 2022 11:55 pm

Yes but that is NOT what we have, we have <100% so we can compare the proportional rates of death.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 22, 2022 12:10 pm

Have you considered that those in high risk groups — age, comorbidities, suppressed immune systems — might be more likely to get vaccinated/boosted? If that is the case, then your raw numbers should be adjusted for that.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 1:34 am

The lockdowns did nothing but destroy people’s lives and businesses, and let government take control of your life. The negative effects on children border on catastrophic. The vaccines do not prevent infection, do not prevent transmission, and do not prevent death, meanwhile pharmaceutical companies are pulling in billions from taxpayers. And if you haven’t been paying attention to the number of unexplained and sudden deaths , I’m sorry, because it is quite alarming.

And the major point Allan is making is that same people who pushed the Covid lockdowns are pushing climate lockdowns. Check out Oxford England which wants to limit driving to 100 days a year. Why would you not believe their lies and misinformation about the climate and then believe them about Covid?

michel
Reply to  Matt Kiro
December 22, 2022 2:46 am

“The vaccines do not prevent infection, do not prevent transmission, and do not prevent death…”

Their role in transmission prevention is not clear, I don’t know whether they do or do not prevent it.

They do prevent both infection and death from infection. Not in all cases of course, there are still people getting it, getting very ill from it, and dying from it. But a lot fewer than before vaccination.

In the UK 80-90% of over 12s had the first two part vaccination. If you are trying to establish that this either had no effect or (as in some comments) actually increased chances of death, you have to show that the unvaccinated are otherwise an identical population to the vaccinated in all relevant respects.

You also really, in the last case, need to show some causal chain between what people died of and the vaccination.

Any links showing that?

Martin Brumby
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 2:39 am

Michel.

The evidence is in front of your nose. Look at it.

The Covid “Vaccine” is neither “effective” nor “safe”. And there is clear evidence Pfizer (and those who boosted it and other Gene “Therapy” treatments, knew that from the start.

Why else were alternative drugs rubbished (including setting up “trials” deliberately intended to harm people) to demonise not only Hydroxyquinine and Ivermectin but even Vitamin D?
Because “emergency use” could otherwise not be claimed.

And don’t come out with the “nutty anti-vaxxer” schtick. I’ve even had this year’s flu jab, as usual. And even had three Covid Jabs before realising what was going on. On the basis that if it was really necessary to bugger up my grandkids’ education and destroy their social life, then it was the least I could do.

Climate Realists should look more carefully at the Covid Realist sites and vice versa. Just spot the same evil swine pumping the same anti-human messages in both debates.

Anyone starting their own “rant” by declaring that there is no evidence that the “vaccines” are toxic needs to explain away the number of extreme health effects and deaths (including those with Coroner’s certificates) there have already been. Way higher than those for other drugs withdrawn on safety grounds.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Martin Brumby
December 22, 2022 6:10 am

Michel needs to do a lot more research, especially on prevention, re-infection and transmission.
He also needs to look at the old data of Hospitalisations which show the same shift in trends from 2021 to 2022..

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Martin Brumby
December 22, 2022 7:24 am

Martin, the Pfizer Covid vaccine has nothing to do with gen therapy. All what it does is “messenger” RNA getting into the body cells. That is a type of RNA that normally is prepared by the DNA in the cell kernel that is made when some protein, hormone or whatever is needed in the body. That mRNA then leaves the kernel and enters the “protein factory” within the cell and that then produces the desired protein.

The Covid vaccine just enters the mRNA from the outside and starts the same production, this time of a part of the Covid virus without even getting in the neighborhood of the cell kernel.
The virus parts then leave the cells, enter the blood stream and are recognized by the immune system and that prepares the defense against the virus.

After a few weeks no mRNA is present anymore in the body and thus no new virus parts are made anymore…

Every medicine is toxic, and vaccines pose a risk, but one need to weight the pro’s and con’s.
From the UK figures I did see some 1 in 100.000 cases of severe blood cloths up to a few weeks after vaccination.
Covid patients that get into the IC have a 1 on 10 chance to get severe blood cloths…
The choice is up to you…

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 22, 2022 10:42 am

Which part of the COVID virus is most toxic?
Answer, the spike protein.
Which part of virus do the vaccines get the body to manufacure.
Answer, the spike protein.
The add in the PEG and nano capsules.
I suggest you do some more research.

Simon
Reply to  Martin Brumby
December 22, 2022 10:09 am

“Why else were alternative drugs rubbished (including setting up “trials” deliberately intended to harm people) to demonise not only Hydroxyquinine and Ivermectin but even Vitamin D?”
Because they were complete nonsense and have been shown to be utterly useless in combatting covid. Only the looney fringe of society still cling to this witchcraft.
the mere fact you called it “gene therapy” shows you are well down the rabbit hole.

Last edited 1 month ago by Simon
karlomonte
Reply to  Simon
December 22, 2022 10:43 am

Have you figured out the chemical formula of bleach yet, batterycarboi?

Simon
Reply to  karlomonte
December 22, 2022 12:51 pm

No, but I could ask Trump. He promotes it. Oh wait, no, he will be busy sorting his tax returns (among other things).

Last edited 1 month ago by Simon
climategrog
Reply to  Simon
December 23, 2022 12:18 am

He has his tax returns sorted out far better than just about anyone I’ve ever heard of. It takes skill to pay zero personal tax without breaking the law.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Simon
December 23, 2022 5:38 am

He didn’t promote it, he asked a valid question based on information he had been given.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Simon
December 22, 2022 10:44 am

You haven’t done any actual research have you?

Simon
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 22, 2022 1:01 pm

Yawn. No I am not a virologist. Are you? Let me guess…. no. But I can read. And I know those BS cures were exactly that. The latest studies say they were utterly and completely bogus. Diversions for the simple. No way you would get me putting horse dewormer in my body on the say so of a bunch of crazy people, especially when their motives were 100% political.
Here read for yourself
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00060-6/fulltext
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362
https://www.webmd.com/covid/news/20220331/ivermectin-doesnt-help-treat-covid-19-large-study-finds
Your turn. Find a “recent” complete study that says either of those batshit crazy (to use) drugs work

Last edited 1 month ago by Simon
Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Simon
December 23, 2022 5:33 am

So, you didn’t actually read any of the 374 clinical studies on HCQ, or any of the 93 studies on Ivermectin then?
You rely on the summary of the Studies that you reference. which meet your pre-determined view of the drugs.
You obviously didn’t read the Ivermectin study did you?
If you had you would realise that their summary does NOT match the actual data, something very common in studies that obviously want to knock the medicine under trial.
If you had read the study data you would have known the following.
Their summary “There was no significant difference in the incidence of disease complications and highest oxygen requirement”
Actulal data
Mech Vent Control = 10 Ivermectin = 4…… 60% better.
ICU Control = 8 Ivermectin = 6……. 24% better.

Do you now agree with their summary?

They talked about other study’s Mortality while ignoring their own study reults, with very good reason.
Mortality Control = 10 Ivermectin = 3…… 70% better.

Now you tell everybody on this forum which group you would rather have been in, the Control one where 10 people needed Ventilation and 10 died with COVID or the Ivermectin one where only 4 people needed ventilation and only 3 died with COVID.

I won’t hold my breath for an answer.

Climate Heretic
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 23, 2022 12:27 pm

You saved me from ripping apart Simon’s statement.

Ivermectin and HCQ are essential safe drugs and have been around for years, according to WHO (authority on the subject) In addition drugs are used ‘off label’ so too are Ivermectin and HCQ.

In addition he attacks people with put downs.

He appeals to authority using Lancet and WebMD.

Whereas Frontline Doctors are against Covid Vaccines, Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCullough warn us about the issues with the covid vaccine. So we must listen to these and follow their advice?

Which doctors or authorities do I have confidence in? I will give you a hint and it’s not the Lancet or WebMd.

Seasons Greeting to one and all.

Regards
Climate Heretic

Last edited 1 month ago by Climate Heretic
bigoilbob
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 23, 2022 6:32 am

comment image?format=jpg&name=small

This was part of our Halloween camping decorating. Big hit with some. Stony silence from others. But we still ran out of candy…

greggylad
Reply to  Simon
December 22, 2022 2:56 pm

Real world data on the use of Ivermectin shows it is extremely effective as a prophylactic and as a treatment for Covid 19. Provincial comparisons in India and Peru, use vs non-use conclusively demonstrate this. The “problem ” is , its only 3 cents a pill.

Simon
Reply to  greggylad
December 22, 2022 4:54 pm

You mean real world data through the lens of a bunch of crazy people. “Real world data” is code for I see what I want to see.
And ah yes…. India and Peru. Two credible medical giants.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Simon
December 23, 2022 5:42 am

You would rather believe the CDC, the NIH and the FDA, all in the pay of big pharma.
You definitley see what you want to see and find anything to ignore anything that you don’t.
I have come across many people just like you, none of whom have actually done any real analysis, just taking the same old sound bytes.

climategrog
Reply to  Simon
December 23, 2022 12:17 am

Prof Raoult in Marseilles reduced deaths by 50% in his retirement home tests of HCQ. That was determined to be “not statistically significant” because they were prevented from getting the intended sample size by Macron blocking all further use based on the FRAUDULENT Lancet article.

50% reduction being “not significant” was then reported in the press as “proven not to work”. Just like the climate scam, the science is rigged and journalists lie to promote the establishment line. Those with little intelligence or critical thinking still believe without question.

If it’s your parents who are saved by something which “only” reduces death by 50%, I guess you would be happy.

Simon
Reply to  climategrog
December 23, 2022 10:15 am

A doctor in a nursing home way back in 2020, up against recent controlled double blind studies. Are you serious?

All you have it to believe big brother is lying to you. It is you fall back time and time again. It is how Trump cons is disciples. When all the facts are against him he just says “they are lying to you” and everything can be excused. Very sad.

Last edited 1 month ago by Simon
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Martin Brumby
December 22, 2022 12:19 pm

“And even had three Covid Jabs before realising what was going on.”
Then I guess you and I are speaking from ‘the other side,’ proving the existence of ghosts.

climategrog
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 23, 2022 12:10 am

Probably the most stupid comment of the entire discussion.
I guess the pseudo vax causes brain damage too then.

HotScot
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 3:02 am

80%+ of the over 12 population has had the first two vaccines.

Whilst the UK government knows for certain that children do not suffer from covid, why would anyone include them in a vaccination program. And by children, I mean those up to about 30 years old?

Oh, I forgot, it’s to save granny.

Except, I’m a Grandpa and my wife a Granny, both happily untouched by the experimental mRNA drug which was rushed through an experimental, truncated clinical trial (how does that work?) and gratefully covid free, despite ignoring masks, social distancing, lockdowns etc. and carrying on as normal.

Meanwhile, jabbed friends are on their second and third round of covid, one of them hospitalised with a severe case of pneumonia.

My examples may be anecdotal however that’s no less reliable than an experimental drug surviving an experimental clinical trial.

michel
Reply to  HotScot
December 22, 2022 4:58 am

Did you get the Astra Zeneca? Or are you both totally unvaccinated?

karlomonte
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 11:21 am

There is no reason to think the Covid vaccines are toxic.

This is standard CDC/WHO propaganda.

3-hour roundtable, highly recommended:

https://rumble.com/v1ze4d0-covid-19-vaccines-what-they-are-how-they-work-and-possible-causes-of-injuri.html?mref=nmtun&mrefc=2

[…]

Dr David Cartland calls for the immediate suspension of the Covid injections, adding his name to a growing number of medical professionals from the UK calling for an end to the Covid19 injection roll-out due to the lack of safety and efficacy.

[…]

On 14 December in the UK’s House of Commons, Andrew Bridgen MP spoke out about Covid-19 vaccine harms. In his speech, he stated that a reliable whistleblower has disclosed that a prominent research institution is withholding clear data demonstrating that the mRNA vaccines increase inflammation of the heart arteries. 

Bridgen stated that this institution is concealing this data for fear of losing funding from the pharmaceutical industry.

He also said: “The leader of that cardiology research department has a prominent leadership role with the British Heart Foundation and I’m very disappointed to say that he has sent out non-disclosure agreements to his research team to ensure that important data never sees the light of day.”

[…]

People Died From mRNA-Vaccine-Damaged Hearts, New Peer-Reviewed German Study Provides Direct Evidence

“When the immune system is functioning properly, our bodies use macrophages to attack infectious agents and other foreign matter.

But in the case of the people who died suddenly within a month of being vaccinated, the body’s own macrophages permeated their heart muscle, chewing up the muscle and causing spots that disrupted the heart rhythm.

The irregular heartbeats led to a negative feedback loop, making the heart race faster and faster as it tries to right itself. When that happens, the heart is effectively pumping no blood, and the victim dies within seconds or minutes unless there is a defibrillator nearby”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/health/people-died-from-mrna-vaccine-damaged-hearts-new-peer-reviewed-german-study-provides-direct-evidence_4919662.html

[…]

Dr. Ryan Cole: The Entire Lipid Nanoparticle Platform Needs to End

“They’re going to try to do lipid nanoparticles plus influenza genes and plus RSV genes for all these other shots going forward,” informed Dr. Cole.

“This platform is sufficiently proven to be dangerous, that not only do the COVID shots need to be stopped, but the platform and these agencies that have taken upon themselves carte blanche — to keep pushing this forward as though they’ve done ten years of safety studies — they have not.”

Allan MacRae
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 8:50 pm

Michel – you could not be more wrong. I doubt your integrity. At this late time, no honest, rational person could be so wrong for so long. Troll?
Total worldwide Covid-19 “vaccine” deaths exceed 20 million, and could double this winter. – Ref. Peter Halligan and me

Do you even know who Dr Mike Yeadon is?
Read CorrectPredictions.ca
Then come back here and apologize for your woeful ignorance.

Climate Heretic
Reply to  michel
December 23, 2022 11:39 am

Michel you said and I quote

“There is no reason to think the Covid vaccines are toxic.”

Absolute rubbish.

As Grumpy Git UK explains excess deaths in UK. How in the hell do you explain the jump that occurs in the graph from excess deaths / mortality from Germany? I would really like to friggin know[1]

Covid 19 vaccine is toxic. Period. Climate and Covid are a means and way to control humans.

Seasons greeting to one and all

Regards
Climate Heretic
[1] https://notrickszone.com/2022/12/12/breaking-data-of-72-million-insured-shows-massive-sudden-unexpected-deaths-exploded-in-germany-since-2021/

Allan MacRae
Reply to  michel
December 23, 2022 6:58 pm

Michel, you contradict Dr Mike Yeadon and me.
 
You have NO predictive track record and you are not a vaccine expert like Dr Mike – ex Pfizer VP..
 
Don’t like your odds of being correct. I give you 0% probability.

Last edited 1 month ago by Allan MacRae
Martin Brumby
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 22, 2022 2:14 am

I fear you are correct Allan.

Once the Global Cooling is so obvious that most people realise and reject the nonsense that cooling is caused by warming, they will be claiming that the carpet bombing of our economy and our lives has been a great success and that we must now double down to ensure we save the Planet.

Our Beloved Leaders will never admit they made a mistake. They will always brush aside some unfortunate “collateral damage”.

Going way back to the crook Maurice Strong, many of these Sociopaths have admitted it was always about destroying the economy of the West.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 22, 2022 9:37 pm

WATCH THIS VIDEO – LOOK AT ALL THESE FINE YOUNG FACES, STRUCK DOWN IN THE PRIME OF THEIR LIVES BY THE COVID-19 INJECTIONS :

One more correct prediction. I wanted to be wrong.

I published over one year ago – 24Sep2021 on wattsup:

“Watch professional sports in one year – many of the athletes who took the Covid-19 injection will have left the game – because they are no longer competitive. Professional athletes are highly-tuned humans, operating at the peak of fitness – they are the “canaries in the coal mine” and the vascular clogging caused by the injections will cause them sufficient harm to make them uncompetitive. A D-dimer test will tell the story.”
 
80 YOUNG CANADIAN DOCTORS “DIED SUDDENLY” IN PAST 2 YEARS WHILE FULLY COVID-19 VACCINATED
Dr. William Makis MD
Oct 15th, 2022
[excerpt]
NEWS: 80 young Canadian doctors “died suddenly” in past 2 years while fully COVID-19 vaccinated (Part 1)!
Photos: 2022-10-15-CMA-Letter-FINAL.pdf (dropbox.com)

The above “clot-shot” deaths comprise relatively small numbers – millions more have died because the shots cause a huge reduction in natural immunity.- leaving you open to bacteria, viruses and rapid cancers, called turbo-cancers. Work to rebuild your natural immunity.

I have lot two wonderful friends to these toxic injections

It’s past time for Nuremberg 2.0 – try the rats responsible for this criminal carnage.
 

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 24, 2022 3:21 am

BABY ALEX UPDATE WHO PASSED AFTER RECEIVING VACCINATED BLOOD AGAINST HIS PARENTS’ WISHES

Forty-five-day-old Baby Alex died of a clot so long it extended from his left knee to his heart.

That was twenty-four days after staff at Providence Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital in Spokane, Washington, had administered a transfusion using blood from vaccinated donors—explicitly against parents’ wishes.

– Dr Paul Alexander, 24Dec2022

“And remember: you must never, under any circumstances, despair. To hope and to act, these are our duties in misfortune. To do nothing and to despair is to neglect our duty.”

—Boris Pasternak, Doctor Zhivago

What is my reason for existence, if not to protect children from harm?

I suggest that no honest, rational person could be this wrong, this utterly obtuse, for this long.

They must know what they are doing. Nuremberg 2.0! Hang them all!

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 24, 2022 6:57 am

Dr Paul Alexander re-posted the following:

Important thoughts about those courageous few who chose to fight the Covid-19 scam.

Abraxas Hudson is one of those who is silent yet does so much behind the scenes for community and humanity. A hat tip is in order.
Abraxas’s words:

“We all knew that once we made the decision to step into the fire, our lives may never be the same again. Crossing the threshold meant pledging allegiance to truth and principle, versus stable comfort, often alone, knowingly risking everything dear. Many of us have paid a high price and others see that. It deters them, as they value comfort over principle, even more so when they see the price we have paid defending freedom.

To stand against the narrative requires the spiritual strength one would need to stand in front of a tank. Many of us faced the tank alone. Thankfully, we now have each other. Bare chested, tank facing patriotism is rare, but necessary, to retain the liberty we love… We know this. We see how rare that patriotism is when we look around. We answered the call, most of us feeling as though we had no choice. The call came from deep within our souls and we wonder – did others feel the call, if so, did they ignore it?”

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 22, 2022 10:11 pm

Excerpt of an email sent today to the Alberta Government:
 
The vaccinated at higher risk of covid-19 infection.
–        Two USA studies
 
During the third and fourth quarters of 2021, deaths among people of working age (18-64) occurred at a rate that was 40% higher than before the pandemic.
The majority of those deaths were not attributed to COVID-19 – they were caused by the toxic Covid-19 injections.
The 40% figure was staggering — considering that even a 10% increase in excess deaths would have been a 1-in-200-year event.
–        Analyst Edward Dowd

The number of excess deaths caused by the toxic covid-19 injections is increasing beyond 20 million.
–        Analyst Peter Halligan
 
Existing drugs like Ivermectin have proved safe and effective at treating Covid-19 – much more so than the toxic Covid-19 “vaccines”. We need to identify whoever made ivermectin illegal for the treatment of Covid-19, and who directed all the associated criminal conduct, try them and imprison them.
Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida is already started a Grand Jury inquiry of the Covid-19 scam. British MP Andrew Bridgen has exposed the facts of the Covid-19 conspiracy in a recent speech to the UK Parliament and called for a withdrawal of all Covid-19 “vaccines”.
 
The false propaganda of the Covid-19 scam is rapidly being exposed and the truth is becoming known to the general public. Those who choose to perpetuate this obvious scam will become increasingly isolated and discredited. It is alleged that Justin Trudeau has profited greatly from this scam through his financial interest in a BC pharmaceutical firm.
 
As I wrote to you recently (below), a competent government should act as follows to mitigate the grievous harm done by previous Covid-19 policies:

NEXT STEPS – URGENT ACTIONS: 
Every day of delay costs more lives of Albertans of all ages, including our children.
The immediate priorities now for the Alberta government should be to REDUCE THE HARM from the Covid-19 fraud:
–        Stop ALL Covid-19 injections immediately; DO NO MORE HARM!
–        Make available the best medical treatment to reduce harm to the vaxxed;
–        Make Ivermectin etc legally available for treatment of Covid and the injection-injured;
–        Reinstate and compensate those who were dismissed from their employment because they were unvaxxed;
–        Reinstate medical workers and others who were persecuted because they spoke out against Covid-19 fraud;
–        Investigate and prosecute those responsible for this heinous medical fraud.

Regards, Allan MacRae, Calgary

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 23, 2022 5:48 am

Don’t forget the German Insurance data.
https://patriots.win/p/16ZXQjPmC2/red-deer-1082-sudden-death-incre/c/

1082% increase in all cause mortality.

Or a round up of all cause mortality in the US, UK< EU and Australia here
https://www.biznews.com/health/2022/11/23/pfizer-vaccine-deaths

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
December 23, 2022 6:37 pm

Thank you Grumpy for the information.. I’m a bit grumpy about this too. I’ve known for ~three years that this Cull of Humanity would unfold, I predicted it, tried to stop it, only saved a handful of people, and had to watch the unfolding carnage – this will be the greatest deliberate Cull of Humanity in the history of the world. In a few years it could exceed the murder of hundreds of millions by Stalin, Hitler and Mao. 
 
I identified
the Covid-10 lockdown fraud here on wattsup almost three years ago on
21Mar2020, six months before the ~identical Great Barrington Declaration by
world experts. I knew it was fraud in Feb2020 but only published in March when my
good friend Dr Dave told me that our Alberta hospitals were all EMPTY! Some
pandemic! No patients! There was NO “CURVE” TO FLATTEN!
 
Remember how the health authorities BS story kept mutating, even faster than the virus?
Remember “two weeks to flatten the curve”? Turned out to be TWO YEARS – must have been a typo.
Remember the “virtuous masks”? The virus is so small that hundreds of them can pass side-by-side through any pore in the masks!
Remember “fashion masks” that people sewed and sold – made of cloth that was even more porous than the paper masks. Fashion AND Virtue-signalling!
Remember “Safe and Effective Vaccines”? Oops!!! – Not So Much!
Remember “These vaxxes will absolutely stop you from getting Covid and passing it on to granny. Don’t kill granny!”
Remember “Anyone who resists the vaxxes is selfish and evil and should be shunned, stoned or spit upon, etc.!” – Justin Turdo”
Remember “Breakthrough Infections”- the vaxxed were getting Covid? Oops!!! – Not So Effective.
Remember “So the vaxxes don’t stop infections, but they make the infections less severe.” More BS! The vaxxes weaken your immune system and make all infections worse!
Remember the Variants? These were CAUSED by the vaxxes – basic biology (Darwin) says you NEVER vaccinate into an epidemic with a leaky vaccine – the virus will just mutate and end-run your vaccine with a new variant, time after time – and it did!
And then came the clot-shots, with multitudes of young athletes, etc dropping dead every day, and the sheep just nodded and looked the other way and took another toxic shot. Darwin Awards!
And then the more grievous harm, the suppression of natural immunity by the toxic shots, and millions of people getting sick and dying from lowered resistance to bacteria, flus and cancers, now called “turbo-cancers because they are so fast and deadly.
And now we are entering the next Winter flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, and the Carnage will unfold – the Cull of the Vaxxed will take friends and family, and people will still line up for the toxic “vaccines”.
And I will mourn them, and wonder if I could have done more, or how I could have been more effective.
 
Epilogue:
The
rat-b@stards who pushed the toxic Covid-19 injections have killed tens of
millions worldwide and vaxx-injured billions more (ref. Peter Halligan) – the
full carnage will be even more obvious this winter.
Anyone who
denies this reality is being deliberately obtuse – there is no longer any
debate among honest, intelligent observers.

Every statement by our health authorities about the lockdowns, the masking and
the “vaccines” was false and caused millions of deaths.
Unfinished Business:

Identify the leaders of this scam, try them,
convict them and execute them.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 24, 2022 6:20 am

Allan, I couldn’t agree more.
I couldn’t get anyone to listen, look or learn.
Very sad indeed.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 22, 2022 6:42 am

Allan:
“Atmospheric CO2 changes lag atmospheric temperature changes by ~9 months in the modern data record, and by ~~800 years in the ice core record on a longer time scale.”

Except that current 120 ppmv by far precedes any effect of temperature on CO2 levels.
According to Henry’s law, the app. 1 K warming since the LIA is good for 12-16 ppmv extra in the atmosphere, not 120 ppmv.

If that will have much effect on temperature, that is a different question, but the current increase of CO2 is certainly not caused by temperature…

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 22, 2022 9:17 am

In theory, but how much does the warm AMO phase actually reduce CO2 uptake in the North Atlantic?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
December 22, 2022 11:14 am

Not that simple to calculate, but if we may assume that the difference in global ocean surface temperature for the two modes is about 0.4 K (besides any trend in temperature). That equals a difference of about 8 ppmv around the base.

The current dynamic equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere for the current average ocean surface temperature would be around 295 ppmv, while the atmosphere is at 415 ppmv.
It is the difference between these values that drives about 1.25 ppmv/year into the ocean surface and deep oceans (and another 1.25 ppmv/year into vegetation, together 2.5 ppmv, while humans add 4.5 ppmv/year).

When the AMO cycles between 291 and 299 ppmv at equilibrium, that makes a change of +/- 3.3% in uptake or +/- 0.04 ppmv/year. Not even measurable.

Changes in ocean temperature do not give a fast response on CO2 uptake. The fastest and highest response is from vegetation that near immediately responds on both temperature (and drying out) during an El Niño as more scattered light (more photosynthesis) after the Pinatubo eruption…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 22, 2022 12:28 pm

Ferdinand,
I think that what you are overlooking is the increased Boreal and Arctic transpiration with warmer Winters. It is wintertime that is the seasonal CO2 increase. Also, it looks like windiness can possibly play a role that is more important than Henry’s Law.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 23, 2022 5:38 am

Hi Ferdinand – the current increase in CO2 is caused by human AND natural causes.The ONLY signal in the data is temperature change that leads CO2 changed with an excellent correlation.That is just one of over 20 facts that disproves the CAGW hypothesis.
Best wishes for the Holidays.

bdgwx
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 23, 2022 8:20 am

The current CO2 increase is entirely the result of humans. The law of conservation of mass says so. Humans pumped ~320 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere. Only 140 ppm of that stayed in the atmosphere. Nature took 180 ppm of that and put it in the hydrosphere and biosphere.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  bdgwx
December 23, 2022 6:56 pm

And the future causes the past.

Cannot agree with you.

bdgwx
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 27, 2022 5:27 pm

Allan MacRae said: “And the future causes the past.”

That is absurd. It violates causality.

Allan MacRae said: “Cannot agree with you.”

You don’t agree with the law of conservation of mass?

Allan MacRae
Reply to  crosspatch
December 21, 2022 11:20 pm

This will not be easy to watch. I told you so 20 years ago.
This winter will be hell, especially in Europe – Britain, Germany, etc. Very cold and a shortage of reliable energy – the perfect storm.

PREDICTION OF THE CARNAGE THIS WINTER IN EUROPE
The Cull of the Elderly and Poor
We published the important conclusions to this debate in 2002 and nothing has changed:
The alleged Climate Crisis is a fifty-year-old scam, and “green energy” is not green and does not produce much useful energy.
The Climate scammers have wasted trillions of dollars and millions of lives on fraud.

FOR THE RECORD, WE PUBLISHED IN 2002:
1.    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2.    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
– by Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian), Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U), Allan MacRae (Professional Engineer, retired (Queen’s U, U of Alberta)

I PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2002 in the Calgary Herald:
3.    “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

I UPDATED MY GLOBAL COOLING PREDICTION IN 2013:
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
[Some say global cooling started in Feb2016, but I prefer Feb2020.]

AN OPEN LETTER TO BARONESS VERMA
British Undersecretary for Energy and Climate Change, 31Oct2013
By Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.
[excerpt]
“So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.

See CorrectPredictions.ca and my papers listed therein for proof.
Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., Calgary
https://energy-experts-international.com/

SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
https://correctpredictions.ca/
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”
“Our scientific predictions on both Climate and Covid are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to date.”

michel
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 22, 2022 12:21 am

At least some of this is correct, unlike the previous rant about Covid. The British excess mortality rate in winter is high, and it is a scandal. It well predates the global warming scare, and is due to poorly insulated or uninsulated housing and the poor heating that goes with this.

If the UK does see a series of longer colder winters, this will make the situation worse.

Will this happen? I don’t think Alan or anyone else knows. There have been series of very cold British winters in the last 70 years, and in the historical record before that. For whatever reason the British do not design and build for the climate they live in. There is a collective blindness to the fact that British weather is very long tailed. There are summer heat waves, and there are winter freezing spells. They are relatively infrequent but when they happen they cause disruption and hardship. The cold much more than the heat, of course.

But is it getting colder in Britain? And if so will it continue to get colder? Its not predictable. Britain is an island bordered by a great ocean and a great continental landmass, with the Arctic to the north and the Sahara to the south east. And its in the path of the fluctuating jet stream. This leads inevitably to great fluctuations in the weather, but so far the extremes are relatively seldom, and there is reversion to the mean.

The British also overreact in ridiculous ways to their extremes. The summer heat waves this year were nothing very remarkable, either absolutely or in historical terms, but they prompted a near hysteria. Similarly the recent cold spell, which resulted in the Met Office saying to tell someone where you are going, when you go for a walk in a temperature around freezing! As if such things were unprecedented.

At the moment there are dire predictions about January and February, in the wake of the recent cold spell. Is there any reason to believe them? Not really. They are at the level of the UK Met Office predictions of a ‘barbecue summer’, which was immediately followed by a cold and very wet one. Similar three or four month projections have been correct only at a chance level. The cost of energy will produce real hardship this winter, but whether it will be a colder or warmer winter than the mean is something we just do not know. If anything the evidence is that winters have warmed over recent decades. But that doesn’t mean you cannot suddenly see a hard one, or several of them.

HotScot
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 3:10 am

 It well predates the global warming scare, and is due to poorly insulated or uninsulated housing and the poor heating that goes with this.

Right…..so like climate change the phenomenon of winter excess deaths in the UK can be confined to a single cause, uninsulated houses.

The cost of energy will produce real hardship this winter

But that has nothing to do with people dying in UK winters, it’s just uninsulated houses.

michel
Reply to  HotScot
December 22, 2022 4:50 am

No, its not just uninsulated houses. But that is a big factor, it makes it harder to heat houses, and it also makes it cost more, so it interacts with the rise in fuel costs. People being old and poor are also most at risk, so that too is a factor.

But, but… We have to admit that excess UK winter deaths have been a scandal in the UK for decades, before recent rises in fuel costs.

I do think improving insulation is probably the highest return measure Britain could take in addressing excess winter deaths.

The next most important thing would be to go back to sensible energy policies. Paul Homewood has estimated the subsidies to renewable energy at about 400 sterling per household. That would buy a lot of warmth for better insulated homes.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  michel
December 22, 2022 4:37 am

Oh the irony. You class anti-vaxxers and anti-CAGW people as promoting conspiracy theories while casting a conspiracy of your own – that Briton’s are too stupid to build suitably to their climate.

michel
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 22, 2022 4:55 am

Its not exactly being too stupid. Its a failure to plan properly for low frequency but quite expensive weather events. Rather as they don’t plan for leaves on the railway lines, they just choose to take the hit when it happens. And its not modern build houses, which are probably OK now that standards and regulations have changed. Its the large housing stock that was built in a different era, and has not been updated.

We are seeing something on the same lines with the attempt to convert these older poorly insulated houses to heat pumps, without first making them fit for that. Its not thinking things through, not planning properly.

mikethefordprefect
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 22, 2022 5:57 am

The nuclear france electricity is way underperforming. The UK and germany, Spain currently provide a peak of around 10GW of energy to overcome these nuclear deficiencies

Tom Halla
December 21, 2022 6:20 pm

Not quite long enough to show a sinusoid.

bdgwx
December 21, 2022 6:24 pm

David Archibald said: “From this downtrend, can we say that the Modern Warm Period is over”

I’ve heard that before.

In 2006 you predicted a 1.5 C decline in global temperature through 2020.

In 2007 you predicted a 1-2 C decline in global temperature through solar cycle 24.

In 2009 you predicted a 2.2 C decline in mid-latitude temperature through solar cycle 24.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
John Tillman
Reply to  bdgwx
December 21, 2022 6:50 pm

Earth has been cooling since Feb. 2016.

Arctic sea ice has trended upward since 2012 and flat line 2007.

Seems David wasn’t far off, and infinetly better than alarmists who predicted constantly warming Earth and the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and snow everywhere, long before now.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
December 21, 2022 7:44 pm

John Tillman said: “Seems David wasn’t far off”

He was so close, in fact, that…

The UAH global trend from 2006 to 2020 is +0.30 C/decade. That is 0.45 C of warming through 2020. DA was only off by 1.95 C.

The UAH global trend from 2007 through SC24 is +0.32 C/decade. That is 0.42 C of warming through SC24. DA was only off by 1.42-2.42 C.

The UAH mid-latitude trend from 2009 through SC24 is +0.31 C/decade. That is 0.40 C of warming through SC24. DA was only off by 2.6 C.

Richard M
Reply to  bdgwx
December 22, 2022 7:39 am

Trends are useless over very short terms. In 2006 the PDO went negative and there was definitely a cooling effect. However, in 2014 the PDO went positive again which drove increased ocean warming. Your trends are simply charting the PDO change.

Why do you push such anti-science nonsense?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard M
December 22, 2022 8:24 am

This is called data matching. It does not identify any causality, it only picks trends which can be combined to fit the data. You could do the same thing by picking a set of stock prices that, when combined, match the data (perhaps with a scaling factor). Would those stock price trends be dependable for predicting the future? Perhaps, perhaps not.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard M
December 22, 2022 8:34 am

First, they’re not my trends. They are from UAH.

Second, the UAH TLT anomalies are for a deep layer of the atmosphere weighted heavily around 700mb.

Third, if you think trends are useless over short terms (which I’m not going to challenge) then you should direct your criticisms toward David Archibald and John Tillman.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  John Tillman
December 22, 2022 7:34 am

Come on John,

I would like that the predictions of David were right, as that would be the end of the whole CAGW scam. But there is no cooling at all, except if you start at the top of a super El Niño, which is only fooling yourself…

What is true is that the warming is much smaller than the “projections” from near all current climate models and we may end at less than 2 K warming for 2xCO2 in the year 2100, without restricting any CO2 release…
Only beneficial for plants and animals, including humans…

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 23, 2022 5:38 am

What is true is that the warming is much smaller than the “projections” from near all current climate models…

That’s one of those statements that gets repeated so often here it rarely gets challenged, even though it’s demonstrably false.

Observations remain well within the multi-model range.

bdgwx
Reply to  TheFinalNail
December 23, 2022 8:32 am

There is also the strange dichotomy of the definitions of “right” and “wrong”. Hansen’s 1988 prediction (which required also predicting human behavior) was off by 0.2 C in 30 years and yet is described as “wrong’ while David Archibald is off by 2.0 C in 15 years and is described as “right”.

E. Schaffer
Reply to  bdgwx
December 21, 2022 7:20 pm

Some day he might be right..

John Tillman
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 21, 2022 7:23 pm

He already has been. Years ago.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
December 22, 2022 7:00 am

I’m curious. If being off by 1.95 C globally for a 15 year prediction is “right” then what is the threshold for “wrong”?

MarkW
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 21, 2022 7:45 pm

I have the same opinion of the scare scenarios that global alarmists are always coming up with.
2 differences
They’ve been wrong for a lot longer.
They’re still wrong.

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
December 21, 2022 10:08 pm

David Archibald said: “From this downtrend, can we say that the Modern Warm Period is over”
I’ve heard that before.”

What, you’ve heard the question before? Woopty doo for you!

PCman999
Reply to  Mike
December 21, 2022 11:02 pm

Shows he wasn’t paying attention.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  bdgwx
December 22, 2022 2:04 am

bdgwx is correct. David Archibald is famous for his spectacularly failed predictions. Linear extrapolation of a short trend shows he is not learning from his mistakes.

Bellman
December 21, 2022 6:31 pm

Nice bit of trendology. But you should point out that at the current rate we will be almost 3°C colder by the end of the century.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Bellman
December 21, 2022 7:20 pm

Thankfully that is no more likely than +3.

The proper answer is 🤷🏼‍♂️

terry
December 21, 2022 6:42 pm

It would be better if it was colder – really. Dave why don’t you come here to western Canada for the remainder of the winter and see if you survive how you feel about the cold

Hivemind
Reply to  terry
December 21, 2022 7:36 pm

Give the guy a break. He was being sarcastic and forgot the /sarc tag.

RickWill
Reply to  terry
December 21, 2022 8:24 pm

What you see around you in Canada is proof of “global warming”. Most “global warming” is occurring north of 40N during winter when the temperature is below freezing. Anyone can verify this in few minutes of analysis. Just eyeball the attached chart. Where are the places that are on fire? Look how hot Hudson Bay and Greenland have become – that is serious warming right there.

The January temperature for all land north of 40N is heating faster than anywhere else at any other time. Rising at 3.9C per century.

The snow makes the land warmer than it would be if there was less snow because it lowers the radiating temperature when the water vapour solidifies thereby reducing OLR heat loss. Snowfall has a long term upward trend resulting in a long term upward trend in temperature.

Snow clearing budgets are increasing dramatically as a result of a double hit; more snow and higher fuel costs.

Screen Shot 2022-12-22 at 7.59.49 am.png
antigtiff
Reply to  RickWill
December 22, 2022 6:36 am

What about the albedo of snow cover?

RickWill
Reply to  antigtiff
December 22, 2022 3:38 pm

The snow is not yet hanging about long enough for its high albedo to have a significant impact on the energy balance. Once it begins accumulating the whole process accelerates because it is hard to get above 0C and more atmospheric water ends up as snow. Also the advection accelerates.

So far that positive feedback is only being observed on Greenland and Iceland. Permafrost on the larger land masses is still retreating.

Places like Edmonton in Canada should be the earliest indicator. I have seen that their snow clearing piles are hanging around till December. They need to be increasing year-on-year before it is obvious.

Keeping an eye on the date of snow disappearing in specific locations will give a certain sign once it trends later every year.

hubritic
December 21, 2022 6:52 pm

I am someone here to learn. Spelling out things likes UAH would help us learners. Thanks

Curious George
Reply to  hubritic
December 21, 2022 7:06 pm

Foremost, don’t take this post seriously. UAH is the University of Alabama, Huntsville. They measure a tropospheric temperature. For the interpretation of straight lines going up or down, substitute a temperature series of your choice, just like the author did with NCDC. What exactly NCDC stands for is unimportant.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Curious George
December 21, 2022 7:22 pm

I find the woodfortrees data visualizer to be a very useful tool for plotting straight lines over long trend periods. Especially given that I believe the up/down squiggles seen over short trend periods mean little or nothing by themselves.

We will know that a long term cooling trend is present when the thirty-year running average of global mean temperature turns down and then stays down for another thirty to fifty years.

John Tillman
Reply to  Beta Blocker
December 21, 2022 7:27 pm

The 10-year trend is already down, as would be expected given the natural 30 (or 60-year) cycle.

bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
December 21, 2022 8:02 pm

The 10yr trend is up at +0.19 C/decade.

John Tillman
Reply to  bdgwx
December 21, 2022 8:29 pm

Trend is strongly down since Feb. 2016 in UAH observations, and up in Arctic sea ice since 2012, plus flat since 2007.

Earth is cooling, as is only to be expected.

bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
December 22, 2022 7:29 am

JT said: “Trend is strongly down since Feb. 2016 in UAH observations”

The trend since the beginning of 2016 is -0.21 C/decade.

The trend since the end of 2016 is -0.02 C/decade.

The uncertainty on those trends is ±0.8 C/decade using the Foster & Ramstorf 2011 method.

JT said: “and up in Arctic sea ice since 2012, plus flat since 2007.”

Per NSIDC..

The trend in NH sea ice extent from 2012/01 to 2022/11 is -0.96e6 km2/decade.

The trend in NH sea ice area from 2012/01 to 2022/11 is -0.91e6 km2/decade.

The trend in NH sea ice extent from 2007/01 to 2022/11 is -0.63e6 km2/decade.

The trend in NH sea ice area from 2007/01 to 2022/11 is -0.51e6 km2/decade.

You might find it interesting that global sea ice area is currently at its lowest point for Dec. 21st since at least 1979.

comment image

JT said: “Earth is cooling, as is only to be expected.”

Using 2016 as a starting point because that is what you selected for UAH and 2021 as the ending point because that is the data available we know that oceanic heat content has a trend of +92e21 joules/decade.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
December 22, 2022 8:21 am

And once again we see a climate study using “standard deviation of the sample means” as the accuracy of the mean while ignoring the actual uncertainty of the underlying data.

Based on one of the graphs from the Foster & Ramsdorf paper (Fig 4) most of the data has a range of +/- 0.4C. Well within the accuracy estimate for most measuring devices of +/- 0.5C.

Therefore it is almost impossible to determine what the trend line actually is. It could be positive, negative, or stagnant and there is no way to actually know.

The standard deviation of the sample means only tells you how close you are to the population mean and *not* how accurate the mean is. No amount of averaging can lessen the uncertainty of the data and that uncertainty carries over to the population mean, especially if you are jamming measurements of different things at different times into one data set.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  bdgwx
December 22, 2022 8:32 am

And what was the sea ice extent like from 1920 -1940 ? Well the open season at the coalport in Spitsbergen (Svalbard) went from 3 months of the year before 1920 to over 7 months of the year by the late 1930s.

So there was obviously a large loss of sea ice over that 20 year period too. What caused it ?

bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Andrews
December 22, 2022 9:30 am

Dave Andrews said: “And what was the sea ice extent like from 1920 -1940 ?”

Walsh et al. 2016 and Walsh et al. 2019

comment image

Dave Andrews said: “What caused it ?”

I don’t know.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  bdgwx
December 23, 2022 12:22 pm

Do you believe that reconstruction and the conclusions of the 2019 paper?

Mr.
Reply to  bdgwx
December 21, 2022 9:03 pm

“Up” and “down” are racist colonialist constructs, meant to oppress the excluded masses from elite numeric equity discriminative agreements.

sherro01
Reply to  bdgwx
December 21, 2022 10:09 pm

bdgwx,
Then please explain the mechanism that allows this:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/uahdec2022.jpg
Trend is negative for the last decade. Going down, steadily.
Is CO2 the global long-term, pervasive, well mixed, increasing heat trap – except when it hangs out over Australia for a decade in a disgustingly discriminatory way? Geoff S

bdgwx
Reply to  sherro01
December 22, 2022 6:32 am

We don’t need to explain why the UAH TLT anomalies have variability to know that the trend over the last 10 years is +0.19 C/decade.

But, to answer your question, the variability is not inconsistent with the relatively steady increase in CO2 because CO2 is not the only thing modulating the energy flows in and out of the TLT layer above Australia. To help people visual this I developed a model that shows how using just CO2, ENSO, AMO, and volcanic aerosol optical depths we can explain and predict the next month’s global UAH TLT anomaly value with an RMSE skill of 0.12 C. The model predicts a 2022/12 anomaly of 0.19 C. Without the CO2 component it would be -0.21 C.

comment image

RickWill
Reply to  Beta Blocker
December 21, 2022 8:32 pm

We will know that a long term cooling trend is present when….

I agree and it is a long way off. It will not be this century.

There will need to be a much greater increase in snowfall before the permafrost begins its march southward again.

So far only Greenland and Iceland are gaining permanent ice extent. And they are islands surrounded by water so no limit on water vapour to produce snow.

Greenland is also the fastest warming place on Earth. January temp up almost 10C in 70 years. Now close to -20C average.

Bob Meyer
Reply to  hubritic
December 21, 2022 7:07 pm

University of Alabama, Huntsville. The temperature research is done by Roy Spencer and John Christy. The data can be found on Spencer’s blog,

Hivemind
Reply to  Bob Meyer
December 21, 2022 7:39 pm

UAH is one of two groups that analyze the satellite data and produce reports on temperature trends. Their analysis is unique, as far as I know, in that it doesn’t corrupt the real data with modeled temperatures in order to create a scary warming trend.

bdgwx
Reply to  Hivemind
December 21, 2022 8:06 pm

I know of 5 groups. UAH, RSS, STAR, UW, and AIRS. There may be more. We usually only hear about UAH and RSS though.

UAH uses a lot of modelling and employs a lot of adjustments.

Year / Version / Effect / Description / Citation

Adjustment 1: 1992 : A : unknown effect : simple bias correction : Spencer & Christy 1992

Adjustment 2: 1994 : B : -0.03 C/decade : linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 1995

Adjustment 3: 1997 : C : +0.03 C/decade : removal of residual annual cycle related to hot target variations : Christy et al. 1998

Adjustment 4: 1998 : D : +0.10 C/decade : orbital decay : Christy et al. 2000

Adjustment 5: 1998 : D : -0.07 C/decade : removal of dependence on time variations of hot target temperature : Christy et al. 2000

Adjustment 6: 2003 : 5.0 : +0.008 C/decade : non-linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 2003

Adjustment 7: 2004 : 5.1 : -0.004 C/decade : data criteria acceptance : Karl et al. 2006 

Adjustment 8: 2005 : 5.2 : +0.035 C/decade : diurnal drift : Spencer et al. 2006

Adjustment 9: 2017 : 6.0 : -0.03 C/decade : new method : Spencer et al. 2017 [open]

That is 0.307 C/decade worth of adjustments with a net of +0.039 C/decade which does not include the adjustments made in the original version.

RickWill
Reply to  Hivemind
December 21, 2022 8:38 pm

Satellites do not measure temperature. It is a complex process with myriad of corrections to arrive at an inferred temperature from the EMR they detect.

sherro01
Reply to  RickWill
December 21, 2022 10:19 pm

But Rick,
They do measure something, in this case the intensity of microwave emissions from abundant atmospheric oxygen. This is well known from lab work to change with temperature and from balloon and rocket probes, to measure air temperature rather well after those math calculations.
You can argue that the volume of a box cannot be measured with a ruler. But then, length width and height can be measured with a ruler and combined mathematically to give volume. Same class of argument. Geoff S

mikethefordprefect
Reply to  sherro01
December 22, 2022 6:11 am

The measurements are modelled (have to be) there is no way temperatures at the various heights are individually measured – what is recorded is an overall radiation pattern from all heights which are then modelled to provide temperatures at various heights, I believe Dr Roy Spencer has the latest methodology described at his site.

bdgwx
Reply to  mikethefordprefect
December 22, 2022 6:54 am

The top level model is in the form LT = [1.538*MT] + [-0.548*MP] + [0.010*LS] where MT, MP, and LS are themselves sub-models that use models on top of models on top of more models.

I think one thing people don’t realize is that many measurands especially temperature require a model. Even a simple thermocouple or RTD thermometer requires a complex model to map electrical characteristics into meaningful temperature values. And forming spot temperature measurements into spatial averages requires yet another layer of modeling.

I have a post here in the comments section that is awaiting approval that links to each methods paper from UAH and the effect the changes/adjustments made to the UAH model had on the TLT trend. Hopefully that will get approved later today.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  mikethefordprefect
December 22, 2022 7:42 am

Yes, but Spencer and Christy compare the calculated satellite data with balloon measurements at fixed places to correct the satellite data if necessary.
The other guys at RSU use a model…

bdgwx
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 22, 2022 8:26 am

UAH uses models too. The difference between UAH and RSS is that they use different models for incorporating raw radiance data, applying adjustments, gridding, etc.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 22, 2022 11:30 am

Exactly. They are not unchecked against a “standard”. One would have to also invalidate the balloon measurements to say UAH is out of whack.

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 23, 2022 8:36 am

UAH originally claimed that their data matched well with the balloon data, after substantial corrections and modifications they claim it is still a good agreement!

Phil.
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 23, 2022 4:41 pm

Here’s a comparison of UAH and RSS with balloon measurements: yearly.jpg

SAMURAI
December 21, 2022 7:50 pm

According to UAH6, there hasn’t been a global warming trend in 8+ years.

The reason for this is both the PDO and AMO are reentering their respective 30-year ocean cooling cycles as occurred from 1880~1913, and 1945~1980.

The PDO has already reentered its 30-year cool cycle and the AMO Index is at zero now, and will likely reenter its 30-year cool cycle around 2025 after the next El Niño event ends around 2025.

Most of the beneficial warming we’ve enjoyed since 1980 (0.14c/decade) has been from the PDO and AMO 30-year warm cycles (not CO2 forcing) as occurred from 1913~1945 (0.12C/decade-almost identical to present), and this will be proven when PDO and AMO cool cycles restart and global temperatures fall for 30+ years, despite record yearly CO2 emissions…

This idiotic CAGW scam is on the verge of finally being disconfirmed…

John Shewchuk
Reply to  SAMURAI
December 21, 2022 8:09 pm

Excellent comments. I’ve been giving climate talks for nearly 2 years and have been saying the same things about the PDO and AMO. It will be interesting to see how long the current La Nina lasts, especially since the PDO is going cold. There’s one more cycle which I believe is contributing to the current cooling trend — the 100-year Feynman (sunspot) Cycle, which has been in a cooling trend for over 40 years.

Phil.
Reply to  John Shewchuk
December 22, 2022 7:54 am

Svalgaard is predicting that this solar cycle will have an increased maximum over the last so perhaps the sunspot cycle is entering a warming trend?

wolfmms.png

John Shewchuk
Reply to  Phil.
December 22, 2022 8:35 am

Yes, Cycle #25 (the Schwabe Cycle) is in it’s warming phase, but that is not what I was talking about. I’m talking about the approximate 100-year Feynman Cycle, which is in its cooling phase. Whether Cycle #25 becomes warmer than #24 is unknown. Regarding Svalgaard’s forecast … show me some of his past verified forecasts and I’ll consider them in the future.

feynman.jpg
John Oliver
December 21, 2022 7:50 pm

I think the only thing that is really going to settle the whole AGW issue is a better understanding ( or a clearer explanation) of the exact nature of the CO 2 molecule itself. It just seems to me like at this stage we should be able to build some physical models of the atmosphere representing the different proportions at various levels of the atmosphere. I’m strictly concerned with the exact nature (reflection , absorption etc.) of the molecule itself . There still seems to be some debate on this. How can we not know this when we are advanced enough to split atoms?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  John Oliver
December 21, 2022 8:43 pm

You are a little naive. AGW has little to do with science and more to do with politics. If you or I came up with definitive proof that it was nonsense, we would be dismissed or ignored.

Mr.
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
December 21, 2022 9:05 pm

As has been happening for ~ 15 years now.

John Oliver
Reply to  Mr.
December 22, 2022 6:23 am

This is really my point: if we are not going to hone our arguments, and put them out there in to the main stream to try to make a difference; then well- why bother with anything in life.

John Oliver
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
December 22, 2022 5:51 am

I don’t really understand the negativity. How can we claim to be scientific if we don’t produce clear explanations of the “science “ the subject of atmospheric sensentivity is critical. I happen to believe the atmosphere is less sensitive to CO 2 . But if we are to convince others we need to provide better explanations of the physics. Whats wrong with that???

nutmeg
Reply to  John Oliver
December 22, 2022 3:57 pm

The disconnect is in your assumptions. The physics are well-known, as is the proportion at each level of the atmosphere. There is no debate on either of those points. There is also little debate about the effect on temperatures near the surface on the planet when going from zero ppm CO2 up to pre-industrial levels (there is some evidence that atmospheric pressure is more important than composition, but that’s not the crux of most debate over CO2).
The debate is about the effect of additional CO2, and there is ample scientific evidence and explanation that the effects are minimal, and mainly beneficial. The negativity stem from your claim that the basic science has not been accomplished.

RickWill
Reply to  John Oliver
December 22, 2022 4:13 pm

the subject of atmospheric sensentivity is critical. 

No its not. It is carp. Why get into arguing over nonsense. It is clear that MOST “GLOBAL WARMING” IS OCCURRING ON LAND NORTH OF $)N IN WINTER WHEN THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE IS BELOW 0C.

Any data you care to look at will confirm that.

What is observed as global warming is acceleration of the winter water cycle in the northern hemisphere. It has been happening for 1000 years now but only just starting to become significant.

Snowfall extent is trending up. There is more permanent ice cover on both Greenland and Iceland.

Once you realise you have been duped into thinking CO2 has ANY influence you start to observe the real changes.

Most people living north of 40N will be observing the results of all that “global warming” on the ground today. The white, cold stuff that reduced surface heat loss from land when it was solidifying at -33C up in the atmosphere.

Editor
December 21, 2022 7:51 pm

can we say that the Modern Warm Period is over, that global warming is definitely over, dead and buried, when the current downtrend regime takes us below the lower bound of the previous uptrend channel?

Nope. The climate doesn’t understand trend lines, not even ones on arbitrarily-selected short periods. The climate will do what the climate will do, and it will choose when it does it. One thing that we can be sure of is that the climate has a sense of humour, and when it does do something it will show that every prediction ever made was wrong.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 22, 2022 11:36 am

Yep. Trends are only as good as the time period they were collected for. Unless you know the underlying variables and have a good functional relationship that defines their interactions, making predictions is nothing more than guessing. Example, predict with accuracy what your next two dice throw will come up to. I’ll bet it is a guess!

donklipstein
December 21, 2022 8:09 pm

The 1998 and the 2016 El Nino spikes are the two greatest El Nino spikes since the one of 1878, according to all versions of HadCRUT that include all of these. The recent lowness of global temperature is from our world getting into the third dip of a triple-dip La Nina, which on average occurs only once every few decades. What’s up with focusing onto an 8 year period starting with a 2-3 times per century class spike and ending with a once every few decades class cooling event?

John Tillman
Reply to  donklipstein
December 22, 2022 6:25 pm

Because it shows that Earth is cooling with the declining solar cycles, as it always does.

Reply to  John Tillman
December 22, 2022 10:57 pm

John, bad news. Solar cycles have been declining since 1980, and the earth has been warming.

comment image

Go figure …

w.

RickWill
December 21, 2022 8:12 pm

North America is in a massive winter warming pattern right now. All that snow caused the land to warm up when it was formed at -33C. That lowered the radiating temperature compared to the surface temperature. Reducing OLR from as high as 280W/m^2 down to 185W/m^2.

Most global warming is occurring on land north of 40N in winter under freezing conditions. The NASA 2021 anomaly verifies that.

The 2000m thick ice block that is Greenland is burning up according to the attached NASA image. January temp up almost 10C in the past 70 years – scary stuff. From around -30C to -20C in just 70 years.

The thing is that this ice block is getting higher and the surface can never get much above 0C. So the dramatic warming of Greenland has a hard upper limit.

Likewise ocean surface has a hard upper limit of 30C. A lot more of the northern oceans will hit that hard limit in September but then that will intensify the winter warming with a lot more snow. The modern interglacial is terminating.

New snow records will be a feature of weather reporting for the next 8,000 years.

The average global temperature will not establish a declining trend until the permafrost begins its long march southward again.

Screen Shot 2022-12-22 at 7.59.49 am.png
Henry Pool
December 21, 2022 9:59 pm
Mike
December 21, 2022 9:59 pm

From this downtrend, can we say that the Modern Warm Period is over, that global warming is definitely over, dead and buried,.. ?

There’s a warm period?

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
PCman999
Reply to  Mike
December 21, 2022 11:17 pm

Well, it’s warm compared to the nadir of the Little Ice Age. A bit colder now however than the Middle Ages or the Roman Warm period, apparently a lot colder than the Minoan Warm period or the peak about 6000BC.

Long term trend doesn’t look good – I secretly hope there is some warming effect to CO2 and methane because we’re going to need it just to stay at par.

Editor
December 21, 2022 11:23 pm

David, there are a few oddities here.

First, you haven’t responded to bdgwx’s comment, viz:

David Archibald said: “From this downtrend, can we say that the Modern Warm Period is over”

I’ve heard that before.

In 2006 you predicted a 1.5 C decline in global temperature through 2020.

In 2007 you predicted a 1-2 C decline in global temperature through solar cycle 24.

In 2009 you predicted a 2.2 C decline in mid-latitude temperature through solar cycle 24.

I looked up your first prediction. It was as follows:

Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.

Oops …

Now, I’m used to climate alarmists ignoring their failed doomcasts. But seeing you do it when it’s specifically pointed out to you is depressing.

Next, you seem to think it’s important that the linearly detrended UAH dataset is basically a normal distribution. So I’d have to ask you, what is your null hypothesis? What kind of distribution would you expect?

Finally, extrapolating from short-term six-year trends as you are doing in Figure 3 is a fool’s errand. If you’d done the same thing during the much longer 1936 – 1967 31-year period in the NCDC data below, you’d have us headed towards a new ice age by 2020.

comment image

Sorry, but I’m not seeing any value in any of your methods or claims.

Sadly,

w.

michel
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 22, 2022 12:44 am

Yes, this is spot on. Well put.

Phil.
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 23, 2022 8:03 am

First of all David wanted a return to the Dalton Minimum so he projected a similar sunspot pattern “Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25″.
Well that didn’t happen cycle 24 hit about 110 ~70 Wolf) and cycle 25 will probably exceed that so his entire premise was false.

Redge
December 21, 2022 11:34 pm

Modern Warm Period

Warming periods are named many years after the fact.

I wonder how long it will be before the “Modern Warm Period” is renamed the “Misanthropic Warm Period”?

ThinkingScientist
December 21, 2022 11:55 pm

David says:

“What is apparent is that the detrended temperature anomaly distribution is nearly symmetrical. The temperature likes to stay in the middle of the band.”

Of course it is. Simply by construction. If you fit a linear trend by OLS regression and subtract it the mean of the residuals will be zero and they will be symmetrical in a least squares sense.

It’s a consequence of the method. Duh!

michel
December 22, 2022 12:40 am

From this downtrend, can we say that the Modern Warm Period is over, that global warming is definitely over, dead and buried, when the current downtrend regime takes us below the lower bound of the previous uptrend channel?

No, we can’t. The trendline method being used isn’t a valid indicator of anything. Where you draw the lines is subjective, and true believers in CAGW would draw them quite differently.

Will there be global cooling? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. Probably the best guess is that temperatures will continue to fluctuate on long time scales within fairly broad limits, one of which we may be reaching. So it could get colder. Its unlikely to get much warmer. And if it does get colder, its likely then to warm again before it gets too cold.

No, its not very helpful. The only practical guidance it gives is to insulate British houses, and get ready for the leaves which will fall unexpectedly on the rail lines, as they do every autumn. They will probably be, as usual, the wrong kind of leaves. Oh, and snow will unexpectedly fall in winter every few years, creating panic and astonishment. And every few years there will be an unprecedented long, hot dry spell. Followed by a cool, wet and rainy summer or autumn, which will lead to the usual batch of unprecedented floods, and interrupt the promised barbecues.

Some call every time its not calm and temperate a climate breakdown. Others just think this is what you get from living on an island in the Gulf Stream, under the Jet Stream, just off a great continental land mass, with the Arctic above, the Sahara below and the Atlantic to the west. This is just how it is.

Javier Vinós
December 22, 2022 2:51 am

Climate is quasicyclical. There is no point in linear extrapolations by IPCC or David Archibald.

As with any physical property, it is not the temperature that we have to focus on, but its rate of change, if we want to study its evolution.

The following graph is the 15-year centered monthly rate of change in temperature. It includes 2021 data but being centered, the last point is placed 7.5 years before.

comment image

It shows we are in a downtrend in warming rate, but as long as it remains above zero there will not be any 15-year cooling as there was in the 1945-75 period. If the current pause extends over 15 years the line will go down to zero.

The 20th century was a period of low meridional transport of energy, so the heat accumulated producing significant warming. In addition to the increase in CO2, the modern solar maximum reduced energy transport between 1935 and 2004. Transport was also reduced during the two uptrends of the AMO, resulting in a very long period (95 years) of reduced transport. The 21st century should not have such a long period of reduced transport so it should show less warming, not more.

comment image

For the first time since the early 20th century, low solar activity and a decreasing AMO phase are taking place simultaneously. The prediction is that there will not be any warming until at least the mid-1930s, and a slight cooling will take place.

The first figure is in my last book. The second will be in the book I am writing with Andy May. It will explain in a more understandable way how meridional transport and the Sun control climate change a lot more than the increase in GHGs.

Hatter Eggburn
December 22, 2022 2:54 am

There’s an interesting kink or disconnect between the upward trend till 2016 and the downward trend since. The lines don’t meet. That’s because around 2016 global temperatures were artificially elevated by a big change to background reference temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, as pointed out at the time by Bill Illis. This caused what was a very modest El Niño in 2016 to become inflated into a huge event that it never was. This false temperature adjustment means that official temperature now is about what the real temperature was back in 2016. The unnatural nature of the 2016 peak becomes ever more clear.

Shytot
December 22, 2022 3:37 am

I’m sure this latest downtrend is the direct result of us switching to renewables and EVs – that is the only true interpretation /sarc

John XB
December 22, 2022 3:46 am

‘Either way, blessed release is coming.’ Well – fingers crossed, but that may be a fond wish, based on the assumption that hard, irrefutable evidence will change anything.

Recent experiences with the ‘policy’ regarding CoVid shows us that the hard, irrefutable evidence does not get presented to the public via the mainstream media, it is ignored by politicians and dismissed as ‘misinformation/conspiracy theories’ by so-called experts and other vested interests.

Too much political capital has been invested in Climagheddon, too much money is at stake, too many reputations, so near is the ultimate goal of global, Socialist government, that Leviathan will bulldoze on by virtue of the considerable momentum it has accumulated, unstoppable without the intervention of some overpowering, external force – peppering it with facts will make no difference.

Last edited 1 month ago by John XB
mikethefordprefect
December 22, 2022 6:03 am

What weird plots you provide. drawing straight lines between a couple of peaks does not seem scientific. surely the lines should follow the averages and the extremes ignored?

Javier Vinós
Reply to  mikethefordprefect
December 22, 2022 8:40 am

It is a very common technique in the technical analysis of the stock market. It is not applicable to science.

Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 22, 2022 12:23 pm

It doesn’t work for the stock market either …

w.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mikethefordprefect
December 22, 2022 9:48 am

Maximum’s and minimums can be driven by different causes and can therefore have different trends. When you take an average you *lose* data, you can no longer identify minimums and maximums.

If I told you the average temperature yesterday was 25F can you tell me what the max and min temp was? It is the minimum and maximum that defines climate, not the average. If the average temp in Phoenix and Miami were both 60F would you say that they both have the same climate?

Richard M
December 22, 2022 7:43 am

We should gain more knowledge this summer if ENSO actually returns to neutral. If the PDO remains negative then the cooling seen in the charts should stay and we will await the AMO phase change probably still a couple of years away.

Ozonebust
December 22, 2022 11:11 am

“So climate isn’t a randowm walk. There is some physical process that limits how far temperature excursions go.”

Please correct me if required.

The anomaly method measures monthly variations against an historical average. It is recording the atmospheric transport of heat via water vapor.
Therefore,
If the atmospheric transport direction of heat varies from transporting through a warm region and then instead transports through a colder region the anomaly will be greater for the same level / volume of heat. The distortion percentage is greater.

What detail is available in the region’s that these anomalies are actually occurring, and what actually changed in that region. No one is doing any post anomaly analysis.

I have checked, and the primary change is wind direction. That was the primary cause of the very high January and February 2016 temperature anomalies, both in the far north of Russia. The wind direction changed from a predominant NW to SW. That’s all that changed in those two regions 400 km apart in January and February. No more, no less. So yes, you are correct there is a physical process that controls temperature that controls the anomalies.

Earth did not warm, the atmospheric transport corridor of heat changed in that region, so the temperature increased for a short period and created the anomaly. Simple stuff really.

The key problem with all atmospheric temperature reconciliation reports such as yours, is that no one is doing a post anomaly measurement audit. That is, what happened in that region. What changed.

Kind regards, and all the best for the festive season.
Martin

bdgwx
Reply to  Ozonebust
December 22, 2022 1:43 pm

Ozonebust said: “The anomaly method measures monthly variations against an historical average.”

Correct. The baseline period is 1991-2020.

Ozonebust said: “It is recording the atmospheric transport of heat via water vapor.”

No. It is recording the temperature of a deep layer of the troposphere weighted around 700 mb. It is done by measuring the microwave emissions of O2 molecules.

Ozonebust said: “If the atmospheric transport direction of heat varies from transporting through a warm region and then instead transports through a colder region the anomaly will be greater for the same level / volume of heat. The distortion percentage is greater.”

I’m not sure what you are trying to say or ask here. Can you provide more commentary in this regard.

Ozonebust said: “What detail is available in the region’s that these anomalies are actually occurring, and what actually changed in that region. No one is doing any post anomaly analysis.”

UAH provides both the baseline and monthly anomaly grids here. Several people download and analyze these grid each month. They are public domain. UAH provides their own analysis here.

Ozonebust said: “I have checked, and the primary change is wind direction.”

Wind is a significant contributor the transport of heat through atmosphere. There are also appears to be a link between ENSO and AMO and the transport of heat to/from the ocean.

Ozonebust said: “Earth did not warm, the atmospheric transport corridor of heat changed in that region, so the temperature increased for a short period and created the anomaly.”

The Earth (as in the climate system as a whole) definitely warmed since 1979 [Schuckmann et al. 2020]. Only about 1% of the excess heat goes into the atmosphere though. The variation in the atmospheric temperature is largely due to its low thermal inertia. Small perturbations in the heat exchange with the cryosphere, land, ocean, and space result big perturbations in the temperature due to the atmosphere’s low heat capacity. However, the atmosphere couples strongly with the ocean over long periods of time so while there are big variations on short time scales the trend continues upward over long time scales as it tends to follow the warming of the ocean.

Ozonebust said: “The key problem with all atmospheric temperature reconciliation reports such as yours, is that no one is doing a post anomaly measurement audit. That is, what happened in that region. What changed.”

As I mentioned above people are analyzing the regional grids. You are free to do so as well. It’s public information.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ozonebust
December 22, 2022 2:42 pm

Anomalies don’t fix the basic problem that variance in the anomalies are greater in winter than in summer (because the absolute temps have a greater varianc). Jamming them all together in a data set and then calculating an “baseline” average temp from the data set loses the different variances and makes the average questionable. Why do you suppose no one in climate science talks about the standard deviation of the absolute temperatures, e.g. NH/SH, winter/summer, coastal/inner, etc?

Editor
December 22, 2022 11:26 am

I joined this discussion to talk about, you know, the damn head post. It’s kind of the way things are supposed to work.

Now everyone wants to get into some juvenile argument about COVID? What, there aren’t enough threads on COVID all over the web that you jerks want to hijack this climate science thread to have a COVID dick-measuring contest?

Go away. Don’t go away mad. Just go away.

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 22, 2022 12:14 pm

From the blog policy page:

  • A Tips & Notes section exists for bringing items of interest to attention. Use that instead of leaving off-topic notices on threads. See the top menu bar.

COVID is OFF-TOPIC on a thread about the UAH temperature record.

w.

michel
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 23, 2022 1:19 am

I’m not going anywhere.

All that was needed was a quiet request to remain on topic. The tone and the silly insults of the first comment reflect badly on you.

bigoilbob
Reply to  michel
December 23, 2022 6:16 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/21/uah-what-is-foretold/#comment-3654679

Everyone goes sideways FTTT. Clyde Spencer and a few others often wool gather pseudo morality tales from highly curated memories of their youths.

But not for dozens of increasingly weedy posts.

Reply to  michel
December 23, 2022 9:38 am

michel

I’m not going anywhere.

All that was needed was a quiet request to remain on topic.

Michel, perhaps that is true for you. Unfortunately, the drivel, mindless arguments, and the dick-measuring contest about COVID continues unabated. So you are 100% wrong about the rest of the assembled masses. For them, my request obviously should have been louder.

The tone and the silly insults of the first comment reflect badly on you.

It’s easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize the man who takes action. But I don’t see you doing one damn thing to try to stop people from hijacking this thread. Me, I’m with Teddy Roosevelt, the man in the arena, viz:

“It is not the critic who counts;

not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood;

who strives valiantly;

who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming;

but who does actually strive to do the deeds;

who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions;

who spends himself in a worthy cause;

who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

You’re welcome to be the critic. Not my style. I’ll fail while daring greatly.

Best regards,

w.

CO2isLife
December 24, 2022 2:29 am

Observation. Temperatures don’t trend, they oscillate and then parallel shift. CO2 won’t cause that kind of observation, ocean currents will.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights