From the DAILY SCEPTIC
Arctic sea ice continued its stonking recovery last month, recording its 24th highest level in the 45-year modern satellite record. As reported previously in the Daily Sceptic, the ice climbed to a 21-year high on January 8th. Good news, of course, for ice fans and polar bears, but frankly a bit of a disaster if you are forecasting future summer swimming galas at the North Pole to promote a collectivist Net Zero agenda. Live by the sword, die by the sword – if you cherry-pick the scientific record to state the climate is collapsing, it might be thought you have some explaining to do when the trend reverts to the norm. Just ask coral alarmists about two years of record growth on the Great Barrier Reef. Sadly, explanations there are none, just a deafening, stunned silence.
Arctic sea ice has long been a poster scare for climate Armageddon. But science tells us that it is cyclical and is heavily influenced by ocean currents and atmospheric heat exchanges. It would appear that these chaotic changes are beyond the ability of any computer to process, although a large, well-funded model industry begs to differ. The recovery in Arctic sea ice has been steady if slow and this has enabled the alarums to hang on in the mainstream headlines. Of course it could go into reverse, nobody really knows, least of all Sir David Attenborough who told BBC viewers in 2022 that the summer ice could all be gone by 2035. He relied, needless to say, on a computer model.
Most mainstream climate journalists just print what they are told without looking too closely at the source of the information. The U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) is a source of interpretation for trends in polar ice, but care needs to be taken when reading its often gloomy monthly summaries. According to the NSIDC, January sea ice growth was “lower than average” throughout most of the month. It headlined its report: ‘Nothing swift about January sea ice.’ Other interpretations are available. Consider the graph below tracking the ice extent for January over the satellite record.
Statisticians can argue over when the sea ice started to recover but there has not been much decline going back to around 2007. In this case January shows a similar trend to that seen in September, the month with the lowest sea ice extent. A moving average line from around the middle of the last decade would show an obvious increase. But the NSIDC reproduces this graph for every individual month and year with a downward linear trend from 1979, a noted high point for recent sea ice. The graph is widely used on social media to counter any suggestion that the ice is recovering.
Note also that the NSIDC claims the January growth extent was “below average”. Well it depends on what average you are using. The NSIDC uses a comparative average from 1981-2010, despite a more recent decade of data being available. It is not hard to see why it prefers 1981-2010 since it includes the higher levels of the 1980s and excludes the lower levels of the 2010s. Taking a 1991-2020 average would likely lead to many more ‘above average’ observations. Data before 1979 is not as accurate, but levels going back to the 1950s suggest much lower sea ice extents. Perish the thought that comparisons should be made with these data or observations made about an obvious cyclical trend seen here and in the historical record going back to the early 1800s.
The NSIDC can spin its figures as much as it likes knowing that in the era of ‘settled’ climate science it is unlikely to be widely challenged. On a more serious note, this unwillingness to question perceived authority and engage in the scientific process gave us Michael E. Mann’s infamous 1998 ‘hockey stick’ graph. This purported to show declining temperatures for 1,000 years followed by a sharp recent uptick caused by human-caused burning of hydrocarbons. The unquestioning acceptance in mainstream media, science and politics can be said to have removed the concept of natural climate variability for a generation and put many Western countries on the road to Net Zero insanity. Now the hockey stick is centre stage in a Washington D.C. libel trial brought by Mann complaining that the journalist Mark Steyn branded his work a fraud. By some accounts, the hockey stick does not seem to be having a great time in the dock.
Professor Abraham Wyner is a distinguished statistician at Mann’s own University of Pennsylvania. Asked on the court stand whether Mann’s hockey stick used manipulative techniques, he replied “yes”. He suggested it was possible that if you knew where you wanted to get to, you can lead yourself into a conclusion different from someone who walked down a different set of paths.
In earlier court documents, Mann claimed wrongly that he was a Nobel laureate, a fact noted during the trial. His hockey stick abolished the Medieval Warming Period, while subsequent leaked Climategate emails referred to “Mike Nature Trick”. This was a practice of using the most convenient proxy or temperature measurements to fit the desired narrative.
In the course of his testimony, Dr. Wyner made comments that strike at the heart of so much that is wrong with the ‘settled’ science pronouncements that seemingly cannot be disputed or even discussed.
And so what happens is, and what is happening today in statistical analysis… we’re in a crisis. A crisis of trust and replication because so many results that were thought to be true turned out not to be true and correct have now gone back and looked at or attempted to be replicated and they didn’t work. Lots of things we thought were true turned out not to be true. It’s a crisis. A problem [my colleague] has identified is due to really bad statistical sets of methods that allow you to get away with choices that would produce a very different result if you did it differently.
What the last two decades or so have shown us is that activists will use any weather outlier or natural disaster to claim the climate is collapsing, or the Earth is “boiling” in the odd universe occupied by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Statistics are bent to fit the desired narrative whether it be natural waxing and waning of ice levels or typhoon jets landing near a measuring device showing a 60-second 40.3°C temperature blip ‘record’ at RAF Coningsby. Net Zero is starting to unravel thread by thread, and it is time the spotlight was amped up to maximum to shine a light on all the dodgy science used to promote this horrendous reset of human society.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s still above the 2011-20 average for yesterday’s date. We’ll see where it peaks next month. Trend is up since 2012.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
The really maddening thing is that sea ice extent has zero impact on sea level and there is clear evidence of it being a cyclical phenomenon.
Good to see both the 2021 and 2022 minimums were above the trend line
Maxima and minima for those years were both above last decade’s average. So far, 2024 is as well, thus the 2021-30 mean to date is higher than the 2011-20 average. If that holds for the rest of this decade, one major AGW scare story will melt away, or be frozen out.
How dare you?
Yes, and based on the current trajectory 2024’s maximum extent likely will exceed that of 1974, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2023. It will be most interesting to see what the minimum is.
10th Feb, its above
2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023.
Bear in mind that the area is relatively lower (lower than the max reached a couple of weeks ago) so lower concentration and perhaps more vulnerable in the spring.
Based on the data, I’ve suspected since about 2020 or so that we are at a crossroad between a warmer cycle and a colder cycle. I also think this is a better way of tracking global climate; it’s a total sum, not an average, and the Arctic’s climate influences atmospheric circulation patterns and weather systems in the Northern Hemisphere.
My parents pointed out that ever since the mid-2000s or so, our area has had consistently milder snowy seasons than prior. I thought about this and hypothesized that this was due to a shift in the jet stream as a consequence of the reduced sea ice extent.
Arctic sea ice is closely linked to the AMO. (inversely)
The AMO seems to be starting to drop from its second peak of the cycle
Last time I checked the AMO index, I noticed a spike in July and August, corresponding with the spike at that time. The spike might just be a precursor to the colder period. Just hypothesizing; I remember reading somewhere that, prior to the cooling of the LIA, there was also a temperature spike.
Trouble is, that we only have a couple of prior cycles that have accurate enough measurements to be able to predict much at all.
Yep, UAH is pretty good; I think Spencer and Christy are doing the best they can. But it has its problems and has undergone adjustments. I mean, orbital drift: is that really something that can be properly adjusted?
Many aspects depend upon the accuracy (not precision) of measurements. I don’t know how drift is measured but apparently the data is useful to some extent. After all GPS satellites are not free of the same problems and their data is heavily relied upon.
Also, The satellite temperature data is checked/calibrated against the hundreds of balloon and rocket atmospheric measurements being constantly made.
What AMO Index? The NOAA version hasn’t been updated in a year.
Richard M,
I’ll try and find it.
Yes, that is also my thinking. I believe the AMO is a lagged response to a natural Arctic sea ice cycle.
Yes, it is. To best see it, the undetrended AMO is a better choice.
Arctic sea ice should start growing within this decade, regardless of emissions.
” Arctic sea ice should start growing within this decade, regardless of emissions. ”
Bookmarked!
By the way, thanks for using the ‘undetrended’ variant, the other one doesn’t make sense anywhere except when proving AMO’s cyclical behavior.
Sea Ice extent and area and thickness is always greatly effected by storms, winds, and wave action and of course the lack of those factors and that is why those metrics are not that great a proxy for climate in the shorter term.
However in the longer therm they have more value. During the Little Ice Age usually only the ports on the southern shore of Iceland were open and at times the island was completely shut off from the outside by the arctic ice sheets as the southern ports would be iced in for some periods of time.
Comparing the “predictions” of no more ice in the artic since years with facts we not only have not zero ice but even a lot more than before, extend is increasing not decreasing, seems all models of arctic sea ice extend are wrong or faud.
That’s what happens when trendologists get hold of the data – they can only think in straight lines, they have no capacity to view the data in terms of cycles.
I think Hockey Stick charts have erased cycles in the minds of many.
I think that was the purpose for which Hockey Stick charts were created.
I remember being told years ago, that studying cycles no longer mattered because CO2 was going to swamp all of the natural cycles.
The real issue in Mann v Steyn was that the jury was immune to evidence. They doubled down on the Church of Climate Change.
Have any details come out about the makeup of the jury?
Or any instructions to them from the judge?
In a separate post I wondered if the judge gave instructions on the min ratio between normal damages and punitive damages. I would think that if it we really had such a legal limit, then the jury would have been so instructed.
No legal knowledge – I am ready to be schooled up…
The governing SCOTUS ruling is State Farm v Campbell (2003). It holds that anything more than a single digit punitive damages multiple of compensatory damages is unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment’s second clause. The compensatory damages from Steyn to Mann were exactly $1. You do the math.
Thanks Rud.
Do you reckon this damages award will be appealed?
Steyn would be foolish not to.
Since I don’t know the ruling, and am probably not qualified to read and interpret it, then I can’t argue with you on your claim. And yes even I can do the math.
I am only wondering if the jury was so instructed, and if not, then why not. I would qualify as a juror there, but wouldn’t have known that. You seem knowledgeable, so do you know if this particular jury instruction is SOP in such cases, and if not, then why not?
It seems to me that if you are correct in this absolute legal max ratio, without exceptions, then, unless the judge did not do his job, the jury must have been so instructed.
+1 for the restored edit function.
To the best of my knowledge, the judge did not so instruct. Therein lies the legal basis for the appeal.
It’s possible that the judge realised he was in a losing proposition either way and just let it run it’s course, hoping that the appeal judges would pick it up after he washed his hands of the whole thing.
One of the legal bases.
(There are times when I really hate the English language. I had to look up the plural for “basis”.)
Mann’s lawyer strongly recommend that they punish the defendantswith these words:
That was in the rebuttal to Steyn constantly making his point that “there was no case to answer” during his closing. The jury showed Steyn they knew otherwise.
This was a case against two climate deniers who were brazen enough to attack a high priest of The Climate™ religion. Be warned.
If so then it was a partial loss for Steyn and Simberg and an own goal for the Hockey Team. The jury, an overwhelmingly Democrat, left-wing jury you’ll remember, only found Steyn and Simberg liable for the statements over the analogy to Sandusky.
They did NOT find either defendant liable for calling the hockey stick fraudulent, nor for saying that Mann was engaged in torturing and manipulating the data. The punitive damages are ridiculous and an affront to jurisprudence and I hope Steyn gets that reduced but Mann will find the rest of the jury verdict hard to live down once it’s made public, which it really should be.
Oh just ignore what I wrote – I went on someone else’s account of what was found defamatory, which was wrong, I think. Just ignore it.
I meant whether the judge made any comments to the jury about the plaintiff’s lawyers telling the jury to punish the defendants on the basis of an alleged smear on the character of ALL scientists.
(i.m.o. the judge should have reminded the jury that this case was about the character of just one individual plaintiff (M. Mann), and that they must therefore confine their deliberations to what they’ve heard in this court about the conduct of M. Mann, there being no other plaintiffs, and not even any amicus filings in support of him).
I heard Bill Nye hobbled the jury….
Breaking news: the jury was supposedly made up of holograms, not actual people.
lol
And?
Try making sense – most of the time it works
Sure.
The ‘jury of peers’ refers to individuals selected to serve on a jury drawn from a cross-section of the community that is similar to the defendant in terms of social, economic, and cultural background.
But no, I’m The One That Needs To Apply Common Sense.
Oh well then, I doubt the jury were the peers of a celebrated Canadian author and minor blogger in Mark Steyn, and a celebrated Rocket Scientist, technical adviser and minor blogger in Rand Simberg. I guess they did their best in Washington but it wouldn’t have been close.
I understand. So, essentially, it falls short of meeting the stringent criteria set by right-wing bloggers, as opposed to, you know, the rest of us ordinary folks with our diverse range of opinions.
Do you know who the defendant was?
No you do not understand but that’s apparently ok as neither did any of the jury.
You’re right. I don’t understand how oxygen fails to reach your brain.
Thats defamatory, that is. I think you now owe me a million dollars!
Your brain lacked oxygen at birth !
There you go again, disagreeing with a leftist, means you are stupid.
Funny how you defend differing opinions, while celebrating a court case, who’s only goal was to shut down differing opinions.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, European farmers forced the EU to row back on climate related policies.
That’s farmers, not ‘scientists’ like Michael Mann.
I wouldn’t gloat too much about this court case if I were you. Too much about the climate scam is falling apart.
If anything, it seems to be holding strong.
The propaganda is certainly well supported.
Not really, read my post on the jury verdict above then listen to the last of the McAleer and McElhinney podcasts where they dissect the FULL jury verdict.
No, got it wrong, please ignore.
The rich who own the media are hoping to make trillions from so-called “Climate Change” spending.
“cross-section of the community”
ROFLMAO
Any “cross-section” of the DC community will always be ultra-far-left loony AGW cultists.
You haven’t got a clue what “common-sense” is. !!
You rely totally on non-sense.
If that were true, they wouldn’t need time for a verdict. No debate needed; they could just play a round of rock-paper-scissors and settle it on the spot.
I was under the impression that’s exactly what they did, they certainly never looked at the evidence.
Of course you’d think that Richard.
Given the length of time the jury was sequestered, all they had time to do was to vote on the foreman, then vote on each count.
The only thing that jury had in common with either the plaintiff or defendant, was that they were all human.
What is the American translation of “hobbled”?
Got at?
In English it means something along the lines of putting a device or rope around the legs of (a horse, for example) so as to hamper but not prevent movement.
in a sense crippling…
His bow tie must be much longer than his skinny neck suggests.
Attempted Jury Tampering.
It’s an American phrase as well, though it has rarely been used as horses are not commonly used as a means of transportation.
From my reading of cowboy novels as a child, the horse would be hobbled when the cowboy bedded down at night. The horse could wander enough to find better grazing, but not so far as to be hard to find in the morning.
Scientifically illiterate DC Democrats.
You could have just said ‘Democrats’. So many wasted keystrokes 😝
The Republicans passed the inflation reduction bill funding “Climate Change” government spending.
Yes it\s bordering on malfeasance the way governments all around the democratic world these days are stuffing the operating expenditures bills stockings with all the other dodgy spending measures that would never be passed on their own merits.
Nope alphabet, some RINOs did what RINOs do, but it was Demonrats who passed the Green New Deal. Doing what Demonrats do, the Demonrats lied about its purpose and gave it a name diametrically opposed to its actual effect. And it was the Demonrats’ demented puppet, Resident Brandon who signed it into law. So, no, I don’t think so.
Since you’ve wasted my time already, maybe you’ll indulge me and relieve my curiosity. What in hell does ‘scvblwxq’ stand for?*
* my best guess by the way is Southern California Very Boring Liberal Weather Queen
DId the majority of Republicans vote in favor?
100% lie
That would make them peers of Mann.
They were all believers in CO2 induced climate change according to a video on the SteynOnline blog..
This cause is now an immense part of their reason for existence. It is the reason for bigger government and more government control. Who in DC would argue against that prospect?
Exactly. I was on a civil jury for a week and it took us an entire day to organize the processes and the evidence into elements for us to reasonably consider. We had to take it in chunks because there was a lot of technical engineering information we had to consider. There’s NO WAY a jury dutifully considers in less than a day the amount of evidence presented in the four weeks of Mann vs Steyn. Not humanly possible.
It’s unfortunate that Steyn brought up Jerry Sandusky, at least the way that he did. The jury seems to have found this to be egregious on his part.
As far as name calling is concerned, it would have been better to avoid it, but had he called Mann a pudgy ball headed fart, at least the jury would have seen this as true.
But that’s the only part they found ‘defamatory’ – they found they were not liable for calling the hockey stick fraudulent or saying that Mann manipulated and tortured the data. Every cloud has a silver lining. If Steyn can appeal and get the punitive damages down then I’d say Mann lost, big time.
Ignore this one as well. Wish there was a delete function.
Unless you were in DC you would have been dealing with mostly plebs not the Government Class of DC who instinctively know what is right and wrong. Climate denying is wrong and has to be stamped out. They have served their Class very well.
Tom, are you still crafting your symphony of complaints about the trial that has long concluded?
American justice is something else
Well don’t you guys hold that climate “science” has been long concluded, and evermore unchallengeable?
No.
It took twelve years to come to trial, and the result was raw enough bitching about it should last at least as long as the OJ verdict or Dan White.
OJ is still looking
He did lose a couple of years when he was jailed for robbing that guy in Vegas.
Kangaroo court… with too many Kangaroos loose in the jury’s top paddocks.
Someone should have hobbled them.
Kangaroos make good dog food !
“”…the ice climbed to a 21 year high…””
2007
“”…latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.””
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
shurely shome mishtake?
Arctic sea ice is but one of several articles of faith in the global warming catechism—all now in serious jeopardy.
Models run hot so Schmidt criticizes the way Spencer and Christy portray that damning fact.
Summer Arctic sea ice is measuring several Wadhams (each 1 million km^2) in honor of the UK sea ice expert who predicted its disappearance by 2014.
Glacier National Park still has glaciers, so the USNPS disappeared its signage saying otherwise during the Park’s closure winter of 2020.
Germany’s Energiewende is imploding its economy.
Ford lost $4.7 billion in 2023 on its EVs and is now officially dialing back.
Half of Buick dealers dropped their franchise last year rather than prepare for GM’s promised all EV Buick future.
A fun time to be a climate skeptic.
And Steyn’s appeal of his million dollar punitive damages verdict will be more fun. The governing SCOTUS ruling is State Farm v Campbell (2003), which holds that anything more than a single digit multiple of compensatory damages is unconstitutional as an excessive fine under the 8th amendment second clause. So Steyn owes Mann $1 in compensatory damages and at most $9 in punitive damages.
Mark Steyn can mail that send that $9 in the form of British pennies. 🙂
Why? He’s not British. He can send it in Canadian 5 cent coins.
too bad green stamps are no longer available
You can get them on Ebay.
$1 million in compensatory damages seems capricious nevertheless. Has there been any indication that Steyn will appeal?
Only intimations that the punitive damages will face scrutiny in the Supreme Court by Steyn’s manager. It looks likely, but we’ll have to see.
What’s funny about the USNPS signage at Glacier National Park is that the USNPS literature for Glacier Bay states that Glacier Bay was dry land circa 1600, was completely covered by a glaciers in the late 1700’s, and that was followed by a retreat since then.
Makes you wonder if there is an inside story behind the decision to put the signs up in the first place. Perhaps the chief official of the park making an ideological statement, and the longterm park officials taking the signs down when the idiot moved on?
Orstead and Siemens (wind turbine manufacturers) laying off staff and in financial trouble.
European farmers forced the EU to reverse ‘climate’ policies on increased fuel taxes, decreased nitrogen fertiliser use, and decreased meat production.
Volvo has just sold it’s EV only business Polestar to it’s Chinese parent company Geely because of mounting losses.
UK EV panel van manufacturer recently gone bust before making a single van.
Britishvolt EV battery manufacturer recently liquidated before it had built one battery.
Last round of UK auctions for wind farms attracted no bidders unless subsidies were increased (they were).
GM and Honda cancelled collaboration to build EV’s.
EV sales falling in the UK.
Used EV prices in the UK are collapsing.
UK labour party just dumped it’s commitment to £28Bn of green subsidies (anticipated to be our next government this year).
The boiler punishment levy for manufacturers has just been dropped in the UK – Manufacturers were given quotas of heat pumps to sell and if they missed them they were to be fined £3,000 for each gas boiler they sold exceeding their quota. A gas boiler cost’s around £1,000.
Winning!
Actually, winning on three fronts.
Probably more important than everything we have mentioned, the public is getting exhausted with it all and are recognising they are getting fleeced.
They also feel something else is going on behind it all.
I heard today that visitors to the EU will now be fingerprinted and have their biometric data recorded. People in the UK are exceptionally sensitive to this sort of individual surveillance. It will only fuel the perception that Europe is turning into an authoritarian continent.
Any chance you could get the jury verdict and have a look at it, Rud? It wasn’t a clean sweep of defamatory comments and what the jury found not defamatory may be significant.
Or not – that’ll teach me to rely on someone elses view of what was said. I’ll shut up now.
Steyn should appeal having to pay $9 to Mann.
“stonking”
First time I’ve ever seen that word. Maybe it’s more common in the UK?
I had to look it up. Apparently a British slang word.
It’s American, maybe West coast, e.g., he was a 95 pound weakling when he went to Alaska, but he came back a stonking husky lover.
It’s American slang only by adoption, it’s actually derived from British military slang circa WW1 and WW2 for an artillery barrage – US gunners referred to the shells dropped by a full battery as a ‘sheaf’, British gunners referred to it as a stonk. Stonking came to mean an overwhelming bombardment, or something huge or overwhelming.
A stonking post there Richard. 🙂
Yes, it was. 🙂
I blame Dolly Parton.
Probably best to blame Hale and Pace (ok, very obscure even for Brits – Americans will almost certainly have to go search for it).
Despite the terrible toll taken by machine guns during during the trench warfare of WW I, Artillery fire, in it’s various forms, caused far more casualties on both sides than bullets did. The same was true for WW II in Europe.
Artillery, the King of battles, also known at one time as “The Kings ultimate argument”.
There is a reason why what was known as “battle fatigue” during WW II was called “Shell Shock” during WW I.
I live in the Northwest, and I never heard of it. I had to look it up too.
I spent most of my adult life living in the SF Bay area and never heard or read the word. My parents raised me in Northern Illinois. I never heard the word there either.
From World Wide Words – Investigating the English language acoss the globe:
Stonking
The source I found said it was slang amongst glider pilots.
Is the word related to skunks?
Or maybe Dr. Seuss and the Grinch?
“Stink, stank, stonk”?
(Or maybe it was “stunk” instead of stonk? Either way, it was strong!)
No need to talk about highest levels in the daily record: their variation is simply too high.
Better is to look at the top of a sort of the January values since 2000:
2003 1 14.39 (Mkm²)
2002 1 14.27
2000 1 14.22
2001 1 14.20
2004 1 14.03
2024 1 13.92
2009 1 13.91
2008 1 13.89
2022 1 13.88
2010 1 13.74
2012 1 13.73
2013 1 13.70
2024 is above 2009, topped only by 2000-2004.
A 5 year running mean in a graph representing the January sea ice extent values since 1979 shows the recent January increase:
This doesn’t change anything to the fact that in my Northern Germoney, it’s much too warm for February, however.
Binny,
Is your assertion of ‘much too warm for February’ in relation to the textbook definition of climatology, or is it just nostalgia for a bone-chillingly, record-breakingly cold winter?
Alarmists are blissfully ignorant in their meteorological illiteracy.
And by the way: we should not look only at the Arctic when talking about sea ice, but build the sum of Arctic and Antarctic instead.
I’m personally happy about Arctic sea ice rebuild because I suspect that increased sea ice melting in the Arctic might be the cause for the increasing number of low pressure areas we experience since years.
*
Source for the graphs:
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
Again, starting in 1979, which was the coldest period since the 1940s.
We started measuring temperatures (1850 or whenever) at the COLDEST period in 10,000 years. of course we have seen some warming
We started measuring sea ice extent ** when it was at its highest since the LIA.
Of course there has been a drop in sea ice extent (and Arctic sea creatures are loving it)
(**except we didn’t , satellite data exists that shows the mid 1970s with a lot less sea ice than 1979, but that has been “memory holed”.)
Is there any evidence supporting your claim of ‘highest since 1979’?
Where did I say that, mindless little trollette !
That should be:
“highest in 1979”
Coldest temperatures in all places the Arctic were around 1979.
Even the IPCC shows that 1979 was very much a high point
If sea ice increase is possibly a symptom of the AMO phases, then the increase in low pressure areas is likely to be the same – how many form over/around the North Atlantic then move over Europe?
I stopped years ago to count them. On some days, even more than one.
They are so strong that the continental high pressure located over Russia no longer is able to reach us during the winter, what led over the last 2 decades to warm, rainy winters instead of the cold, snowy winters we experienced before.
(I’m talking here about Northern Germoney !)
I suspect the AMO is a symptom of the changes in Arctic sea ice. In fact, I think we should start referring to this ~60 year cycle as the Arctic Sea Ice Multidecadal oscillation (ASIMO).
The two phases are driven by the amount of sea ice in the Arctic. The warm phase, which we’ve enjoyed since the mid 1990s, occurs when sea ice levels drop and the warmer air due to ocean heat escaping warms the Arctic. The cool phase occurs when the sea ice reforms allowing colder air to build across the Arctic.
In both cases the Arctic air escapes into other areas of the Northern Hemisphere including the North Atlantic. This drives the AMO
Antarctic sea ice hit its high in 2014 in the dedicated satellite record since 1979, having grown while Arctic ice feel, which means neither was caused by more plant food in the air.
Since then Antarctic ice has fallen, thanks to Super El Nino of 2015-16 and the 2022 Tongan submarine eruption. Also, it naturally reverted to the norm after such spectacular growth up to 2014’s stupendous blow out peak, coming shortly after the Arctic’s record low in 2012.
Strongly advise against parting with your snow shovel. We’ll definitely need it in Minnesota.
After Snowmageddon here in Oregon a few years back, I abandoned the snow shovel for the snow blower, which has served me in good stead.
The Iceman cometh!
In February 2021, I stayed indoors for weeks due to the extreme glaciation-like cold we experienced.
Where is gliobal warming when needed regionally and locally?
Funny, a few years ago when Antarctic ice was low and Arctic ice was high. All you alarmists wanted to talk about was Antarctic ice.
Then when Arctic ice began to shrink and Antarctic ice was reaching record levels, all you alarmists wanted to talk about was the Arctic.
Now that trends are shifting again, so are you alarmists.
I never had anything in mind with such a ridiculous, selective attitude.
I present since years on Roy Spencer’s blog both sides of the Global sea ice.
The FACT is that 1979 was an anomalously HIGH, almost extreme level compared to the rest of the Holocene (apart from the LIA.)
Current levels are still within the top 5% or so of the last 10,000 years.
Here is a superposition of NSIDC data with MetOffice’s HadISST1 ICE.
(1) Arctic
(2) Antarctic
Even though HadISST1 can’t cope with satellite-borne measurements, it is very probable that 1979 was NOT the highest sea ice extent year.
Source
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
Trouble with HadIce is that it is concocted to suit the AGW meme….
… , and bears little resemblance to any historical accounts during the 1922-1950 period.
It doesn’t match DOD measurement, does not match Icelandic sea ice measurements
Nor does it match any real temperature series from around the Arctic region.
Doesn’t match the AMO.
The Russians, who actually used the region a lot more than “sit in an office” AGW apostles do have a more reasonable account of Arctic sea ice. That does match the things mentioned above.
I definitely LOVE these childish downvotes! More of them please!
For once it’s not me, but don’t expect that to last though!
Mr Page a manifestement un problème avec l’ironie.
He certainly does.
You always make far less sense than Bindidon, so a downvote for you, ghastly!
Mr Page
Should you feel the need to behave like an 8 year old child, feel free to do!
I am over 70, hence prefer to behave like an adult.
I think it can be misleading to start the y-axis at 13 million sq kms.
Here is the same data with the y-axis starting at zero.
The change in sea ice extent seems less of a problem.
O0ps, I just noticed, I used the Antarctic data. I willpost the graph using the Arctic data soon.
Oops again. That is the correct graph.
This is the Antarctic Sea Ice extent for January 1979 to 2024.
” The change in sea ice extent seems less of a problem. ”
Yeah. Thx for the very interesting reply.
Use a zeroed axis, Binliner !. The only reason not to… is DECEIT
Perhaps you should tell your Russian friends that?
Like here, for example?
Feel free to teach the Connolly bros and Willie Soon how they should present their data…
“This doesn’t change anything to the fact that in my Northern Germoney, it’s much too warm for February, however.”
Don’t fret, your second blast of hard winter weather is on the way and will extend well into March. Don’t imagine you’ll be commenting on how cold it will be, relative to averages, though. Alarmists only allow themselves to see one side of the picture. That is why the internet is loaded with images of them protesting global warming wearing full cold weather gear. Gear that was manufactured using petroleum products.
Yes, I’m still expecting some arctic air to come to town before the winter is over. Currently, it is sparing the United States and Europe and we are getting mild air off the Pacific ocean in the USA, and mild air from the Atlantic ocean in Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/02/11/1300Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-51.77,39.82,264.
rah
Where do you live? You apparently don’t have a clue of how the weather is where I do live.
Despite the polar vortex breaking soon for the umpteenth time, the lowest temperature in our local forecast for the next 16 days is -2°C.
And our last winter deserving this name was… 2010. Since then, our snow shovel has been registered with the employment office.
Does that below speak to you, rah?
Me, an alarmist, huh? Maybe you’re an anti-alarmist?
Great urban warming graph, bozo !!
and GHCN ! You have GOT TO BE JOKING !!
bnice2K
You again show with your simple-minded polemic that by ignoring the difference between GHCN V2/3/4 and GHCN daily, you lack any technical skills needed for meaningfully contributing to the discussion.
Recently I made for the US Corn Belt region (roughly: 40N-105W — 48N-85W, 12 states) a comparison between GHCN daily station data and
(1) UAH 6.0 LT’s 2.5 degree grid monthly data (36 grid cells)(2) the original hourly data of the pristine USCRN stations.(1) GHCN daily vs. UAH, 1979-2023:
(2) GHCN daily vs. USCRN, 2002-2023:
*
Don’t try to kid us with a brazen ‘The Corn Belt is UHI-free’.
There are, in the Corn Belt region
3 cities with more than 1 M inhabs (Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee)6 with more than 500 K (+ Omaha, Grand Rapids, Des Moines)44 with more than 100 K557 with more than 10 K2222 with more than 1 K*
Yes, I know: UHI is everywhere, especially for pseudo-skeptics. But sometimes it remains so strangely difficult to discover.
Your forecasts are from models. Mine is from Bastardi. The models didn’t catch the polar blast coming next week for the US until two days ago. And 9 times out of 10 when the US gets an Arctic blast, so will Europe.
European model just starting to see it creeping down.
The last time someone posted about a Bastardi forecast on Roy Spencer’s blog, I bookmarked it; 2 weeks later, Bastardi’s prediction turned out to have been 100% wrong.
As always, skeptics discredit anything based on models – unless it fits their narrative.
Perfect!
By the way, Mr. Rah: There is currently very cold weather in northern Finland.
Lieksa Lampela: -34 °C…
50 km south of Berlin in Germoney, our coldest forecast at night for the next 16 days is now… 1 °C.
“Despite the polar vortex breaking soon for the umpteenth time”
Maybe this is a feature, not an abnormality.
To back up your position, there is no bitter cold air mass waiting to pounce on anyone in the Northern Hemisphere. The Arctic is trying to re-charge from the last breach, but the stratospheric HT water vapor cap will prevent that, and consequently any of those extreme late season outbursts this year.
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut (dmi.dk)
Merci beaucoup / Vielen Dank / Thanks a lot
Too warm for who? Why do alarmists have this obsession with things not being cold enough?
You should be thankful it’s not colder considering your country’s dire energy situation.
Binny is so fixated on the idea of cold, snowy winters, oblivious to the fact that the specific cold he longs for is more the exception than the rule.
Not a very clever statement, Alpha; you wouldn’t have written a syllab of it if Russia’s Nomenklatura hadn’t started a war against Ukraine.
And our allegedly dire energy situation could be far worse:
This graphic does not include even one kWh of non-public electricity production from private households and industry, both of which were allowed to feed in unneeded electricity for a fee until recently.
“could be far worse:”
Looks like 60% of your production is coming from the middle ages. If you want an “all electric” future you’d better start thinking about it seriously, using intermittent sources of power like windmills is making everything much more complicated than it needs to be.
Your pretty pie chart hides the reality, and lucky you still have coal, gas and some neighbours who produce electricity the right way 24/7, whatever the weather.
Talking of which, those giant windmills are growing increasingly unpopular aren’t they?.
The deforestation of parts of the central German Reinhardwald forest has begun to make way for more wind turbines.
The forest, which contains trees that are up to 200 years old, is being cleared for highway-wide construction roads to facilitate the erection of 18 wind turbines around Sababurg Sleeping Beauty Castle.
I don’t see how it could get much worse, it’s horrendous what you are willing to sacrifice.
You do realise that Germany could drop off the map tomorrow and CO² would still keep rising.
Middle age? Ha.
Why, do you think, did we in Germoney have to shut down the nuclear-based electricity production?
Germoney (230+ inhabs/km² on average) isn’t the US let alone China, Kazakhstan, or Australia.
All long range nuclear waste storage places had to be abandoned due to risk of groundwater contamination.
Even now, we don’t know where to store the immense amount of nuclear waste (the 95% of the fuel rods which came back from La Hague after ‘reprocessing’), let alone the waste which will arise from dismantling the reactors (kernels, primary cooling systems).
*
Electricity Export minus import in Germoney (TWh)
2016: 58
2017: 60
2018: 54
2019: 35
2020: 18
2021: 18
2022: 27
2023: -12
Are you really naive enough to think that 2023’s import had to do with our renewables? Ha.
You’d better look at our 2023’s import from Denmark, Sweden and Norway… 100% from renewables, so cheap that they pushed local production off the stock market.
*
Your hint on Reinhard[s]wald very probably is originated from Gosselin’s TricksZone or similarly interested ‘source’s.
People like you don’t have even a tiny bit of an idea about how much was deforested in Germoney during the last 7 decades, due to
and, yeah,
*
Refrain from your superficial blah blah, Alpha. You are looking at Germany from the wrong side of the telescope. It’s simply ridiculous.
” You’d better look at our 2023’s import from Denmark, Sweden and Norway… 100% from renewables, so cheap that they pushed local production off the stock market. ”
Ooops?! Correction needed: only Denmark exported 100% ren; Sweden’s and Finland’s nuke sectors contributed to the export.
Still starting the record at the coldest time of the last 150 years.
Wrong. Look at Connoly’s and Soon’s paper.
This below is a good representation of Arctic sea ice since 1900.
But… it was based on what every skeptic would 100% discredit if it had been made by Warmistas, namely a reconstruction of Arctic sea ice based on Arctic surface temperatures, using linear regression:
I see no reason at all to discredit it, even if it is not based on observations.
*
Conversely, I see also no reason at all to discredit the Summer time observation averages provided by HadISST1 ICE:
And to claim that HadISST1 Ice data is driven by some AGW meme is completely stoopid, as the HadISST1 sea surface data shows a trend lower than UAH’s ocean data.
Again the moronic non-zeroed axis .
What a petty attempt at propaganda.
And no, the first graph is FAKED representation of Arctic sea ice by the AGW scammers.
It bears no resemblance to any written history, any DOD chart, any real Arctic temperature series.
It is ARRANT NONSENSE
bnice2K
I specifically omitted the source of the first diagram because I was 100% sure you would fall into the trap.
Apart from you and a few other pseudo-skeptics, no one uses a zeroed axis anywhere.
*
Those people you disingenuously discredit together with their work – with your arrogant ‘FAKED representation of Arctic sea ice by the AGW scammers‘ – are no less than
Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records
Ronan Connolly, Michael Connolly & Willie Soon (22 May 2017)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2017.1324974
Unlike you, they are knowledgeable skeptic science people.
Even if I can’t agree to all what they wrote during the last 10 years, this article was excellent work – light years away from anything you yourself would ever be able to write.
*
By the way, you can see in the article an interesting sequence of images:
Apparently, a cherry-picking WUWT guest poster intentionally took Fig. (c) out of its context. I’m 100% sure you’ll recognize it.
More of your nonsense, bnice2K…
Here is an ‘at least 100% useful’ 🙂 representation of UAH 6.0 LT’s absolute data, dedicated to the bnice2K genius
and here an ‘at least 100% useless’ 🙂 representation of UAH 6.0 LT’s absolute data, with the the moronic non-zeroed axis, dedicated to all these morons
*
Out of the ‘useless’ variant, we can for example easily compare absolute data and the anomalies generated out of them by representing both time series with regard to their respective mean
“least of all Sir David Attenborough who told BBC viewers in 2022 that the summer ice could all be gone by 2035”
He pushed far enough into the future far beyond his lifetime so he won’t have to be criticized when the prediction fails. Unlike others who made similar claims decades ago- and now proven wrong.
“Net Zero is starting to unravel thread by thread, and it is time the spotlight was amped up to maximum to shine a light on all the dodgy science used to promote this horrendous reset of human society.”
No sign of it unraveling here in Wokeachusetts. Sure, maybe some wind “farms” haven’t been built- but the mentality of the state government, the MSM and academia hasn’t improved at all- and only gets worse.
When it does happen, it’ll be sudden. The Governor, Senators and Representatives are likely to run off to Brazil or Argentina, the servers (with any incriminating evidence) will be destroyed and the apparatchik’s will insist they were only following orders. For the next few years everybody you meet will avoid your gaze and maintain they always voted Republican; but you’ll know that at the back of their closets, in the darkness under the winter coats, will be the Just Stop Oil banners, the Anti-pipeline leaflets and the Antifa masks. And you will always know, and so will they.
We are reaching ‘peak’ climate hysteria in the UK and Europe. The peasants are revolting.
I believe most of America has a way to go before you reach a hysteria ‘tipping point’ as we appear to be doing.
In fact it’s funny. Our lives are being dominated by minority groups – LGBTQ+, BLM, Just Stop Oil, the eternally offended etc. and here we are, the ‘minority’ group of ‘climate deniers’.
It’s only a matter of time now until we infiltrate every school, university, government and NGO to spread our radical, subversive message that there’s not really much going on.
How utterly terrifying……
” The peasants are revolting. ”
Correct! But… only if you speak here about the smallest farming businesses. Really big ones don’t suffer at all because they have the political power needed to to cope with rising fuel costs due to the subsidy stop both in the EU and in the local states.
Most little farmers are particularly outraged because they are financially unable to do that.
A French politician summed it up well when he said that agriculture is the sector in society with the widest economic gap between large and small businesses.
No farmers, NO FOOD.
Of course that is what the far-left globalist totalitarians want.
Are you one of those???
Except that the majority of people on the reasonable side don’t need a holy cause to give meaning to their life. They just want to get on with the day by day living and with the year by year improving. Becoming a fifth column isn’t in their nature. That’s why the hive minded minority is able to make so much progress.
Paging Al Gore . . . paging Mr. Gore . . . paging Mr. Al Gore . . . please pick up the white house phone for a reality check . . . paging Al Gore . . .
Use a very striking tune with that announcement as it’s well known Al Gore has no rhythm.
I’ll get me coat.
Arctic ice recovering in the middle of winter? Unbelievable 🙂
Yeah. For the average ‘skeptic’, recovering a tiny bit more matters way more than simply recovering.
Unfortunately, the recovery from the extreme high levels of 1979 seems to have stalled at a level still way above the Holocene norm..
But still, Arctic sea life is starting to return now that they can gain access for a small amount longer than during the LIA and 1979 extreme levels.
Sea creature not evident since the end of the MWP/beginning of the LIA are returning.
Last 25 years shows that Arctic sea ice has basically levelled off.
There has not been much change in the average yearly sea ice (calculated on a daily basis) 12 Wadhams to still above 10 Wadhams.
Maximum has changed even less. Only about 1 Wadham change.
Minimum has dropped a bit more, but enough to allow sea creatures to return, and to allow some sea travel around the outer edges for a few months.. (so long as they don’t get caught in a re-freeze.)
A minor nitpick- when talking about sea ice extent, especially in the middle of the NH winter, the term “Arctic” isn’t really the best phrase to use, because from December-April, much of the sea ice extends into the subarctic latitudes (Labrador Sea, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Sea of Okhostsk, etc.
The full monthly trend in the NSIDC satellite-derived Arctic sea ice extent up to December 2023 was -0.56 million km2 per decade. Following this ‘stonking recovery’, that figure now stands at -0.55 million km2 per decade.
It’s the highest in nearly two decades. Granted, the increase since ~2005 hasn’t been phenomenal, but given that it should have been on an elevator to the bottom, this is, no pun intended, the polar opposite of what it “should” be doing.
You’re referring to January only figures, though. Over the past 10-years there has been a slight increase in Arctic sea ice extent in the first half of the year; Jan-Jun. The opposite is true for each month from Jul-Dec, and annually the 10-year trend remains negative.
That’s hardly a ‘stonking recovery’.
Indeed, on a monthly basis (all months, not just January), the ‘recovery’ since 2005 currently stands at -0.43 million km2 per decade decline.
I see you have a problem with over-simplicity.
You mean plotting the data from the same source as the one used in the article and calculating the trend from it?
Remember: they claimed in a forum that being educated makes you less competent. In their alternate universe, knowledge is apparently the enemy of competence.
In general, but not all, the average WUWT poster is likely to be the least skeptical person you will ever encounter.
So long as whatever the latest nonsense is; so long as it fits with their perception of things, be they political, economic, religious, etc; they will believe it, and they will never check it for themselves, no matter how many links you provide to the data.
This thread is a classic case in point. Somebody picks up on a slight short-term increase in January Arctic sea ice extent and, lo-and-behold, it becomes a “stonking recovery” in Arctic sea ice extent in general; and never mind that when you count all months, and not just Januarys, the trend remains downward.
Just ignore that fact. This is WUWT! It’s a support group for non-skeptical people who think they are skeptical.
Fun, isn’t it?
Quite.
poor waif… thinks holding hands with fungal, the most ignorant little twerp troll there is, will help him.
Very sad indeed. !
But.. birds of a feather..
Like empty minds attract !
Indeed, positively sickening.
They should get a room.
Still no evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, hey fungal.
So sad. So incompetent.
Neither of your brain’s neurons is the least bit skeptical,
As if by magic, to underscore the point I made about the average WUWT poster, he appears.
As if by magic, fungal has absolutely ZERO worthwhile comment.
And absolute ZERO scientific evidence.
Bizarre that a person, even with such a small mind, can be so incompetent. It can only be magic.
Breathed in too many unicorn farts.. drank too much KKA??
Says the guy who believes that in order to be skeptical, one has to believe that perfectly ordinary storms have never happened before.
Funny how being skeptical requires one to believe that a handful of broken climate models trump years of actual data.
Er no – that was entirely down to you. I was pointing out that academic credentials are not scientific credentials. Get over yourself, ghastly.
ghastly is a Biden apologist. You’re not going to gain any traction with it.
Jim Masterson is a typical, stupid ignoramus. Utterly inept at any semblance of intellectual engagement, he clings desperately to a strategy of petty name-calling, revealing his profound deficiency in both wit and substance.
At least I don’t hide behind a stupid pseudonym. I’m waiting for that intellectual engagement. So “ghastly” is petty name calling. Your silly pseudonym is clearly idiotic. I await your major interaction.
You lost me at “stupid ignoramus.”
No, because you just commented. If that were true, you’d have simply left.
What? IGNORATIA NON EXCUSATE LEGAM.
Keep proving my point; nothing but blah blah blah!
LOL
“. . . you just commented.”
Complete, stupid, nonsense!
Bro is pretty mad lol.
ghastly has zero content, just slimy ectoplasm which he smears all over his own face.
By now most forums would have put him in moderation because he is trolling incessantly, when was the last time he tried a true debate on details based on the article.
And to think, he repeatedly refers to WUWT as an echo chamber that doesn’t respect free speech.
I rest my case!
So, no major interaction then.
Utterly inept at any semblance of intellectual engagement,
How would you know, except by looking in a mirror !
You have obviously never experienced any semblance of intellect in the whole 12 years of your pitiful existence.
You don’t see the irony in calling Jim a stupid ignoramus, and then criticizing “petty name-calling” in the next sentence?
So the guy whos every post consists of insulting those who don’t worship as you do, is whining about insults.
You actually expect an alarmist to argue honestly?
10th Feb, Arctic sea ice extent is above
2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023.
Facts… little chimp.
So higher than every 10th Feb pre 2005?
So what, Its still WELL ABOVE nearly all the last 10,000 years.
We were all told by the “climate seancists” that it was all going to disappear.. how did that work out for them.
That’s the thing, no matter how small (or not) the recent uptick is, they’ll keep going back to the entire period of record, and say, “but the whole POR is still negative for sea ice”. This ignores the fact that we’ve had decades of essentially flat changes in temperature or sea ice extent, which according to their beloved models, should never happen. Anthropogenic global warming was supposed to swamp all natural variability by now. It appears that they were wrong, and nature has other plans…
Oh, I Iove “seancists”, lol!
You don’t understand. The proper time frame for every comparison is the one the best supports the theory that more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to kill us all.
Using any other time frame is cherry picking.
Also, insulting a climate alarmist is a violation of free speech.
However banning anyone who disagrees with a climate alarmist is free speech in action.
Ah the moronic trend monkey strikes again !!!
Start at a very high peak.. that’s the way, little monkey !!
It’s just getting started.
So what?
The Arctic will not be ice-free (less than 1 million sq. km) for the next 70,000 years, when the next interglacial is due.
Summer Arctic insolation is controlled by obliquity, which has been decreasing and is approaching the 23º value when interglacials can’t survive, and by precession, which determines that 21st June northern summer insolation is currently in a 20,000-year low. Under these conditions, Arctic sea ice can wiggle up and down, but will not decrease beyond a certain point no matter what happens.
Arctic sea ice is affected by 20 and 60-year oscillations related to the Atlantic bidecadal oscillation and AMO, and by a 100-year solar periodicity (the Feynman cycle) responsible for the current SC24-25 extended solar minimum, and the low solar activity 100 years ago that caused the previous big melt in the Arctic.
As solar activity is expected to increase in the next solar cycle, and the AMO is expected to tank any year now, both factors will cause a significant increase in Arctic sea ice between now and 2045.
I should expect alarmists will be happy with the increase in sea ice, that is, if they are congruent with their beliefs. Somehow I am surprised they don’t rejoice when Arctic sea ice increases.
The ‘hottest year on record’ had way more ice than the years prior. More sea ice extent means more sunlight reflected into outer space, which is why the Arctic cools or warms faster, depending on the current cycle. If there’s more sea ice formation, it means more salt being expelled into the surrounding areas. This would weaken areas like the Gulf Stream, leading to changes in the distribution of heat. North America and Western Europe would probably experience even more cooling. I recall reading that during the Little Ice Age, those two regions cooled much more than the rest of the world.
From the Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet (PROMICE) and the Greenland Climate Network (Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland – GEUS)
https://dataverse.geus.dk/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z
anyone can obtain the most recent data and present it in Surface Mass Balance form
The drop in 1931 is quite impressing.
He was talking about Arctic SEA ICE changes, what you did here doesn’t address it.
Wrong.
I referred to his Greenland melt graph which is no more than an anomaly wrt the SMB.
1980 is right at the end of the big global freeze, crisis. The coldest time on the planet since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Several years ago, our local newspaper used to carry the latest alarms coming out of the University of Colorado. Mark Serreze was the guy in charge of some ice monitoring data, so I called the university to ask why the ice hadn’t disappeared. I got an answer, to my surprise, from someone totally unrelated to the ice project, and a reference to an article about how they were going to “hind cast” to refine the models. I suppose, in theory, this review of the results could someday explain the error. Apparently, they haven’t made much progress. Some jobs are tougher than others, and I lost my curiosity about the matter.
Another obvious manipulation is showing the January sea ice graph with the Y axis starting at 13 instead of zero.
Very reminiscent of Willis graphs on Greenland ice decline
“In earlier court documents, Mann claimed wrongly that he was a Nobel laureate”.
Not correct, Mann wasn’t wrong, he viciously and repetedly willingly lied to the court using a photoshopped nobel fake certificate, according to Nobel Institute letter ordering him to stop his claims. Lying to a court and photoshopping certificates is different from “being wrong” and I find it amazing that a (dc) court lets him get away with it.
No downvoting level below -25!
How disappointing.
Allez, les petits gamins et petites gamines! Faites un effort.
Here’s your mass downvote opportunity if that’s what you still want. This thread is dead.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/13/temperature-feedback-follies/#comment-3866644