Extent Of Multi-Year Arctic Sea Ice Is The Highest In A Decade

NOAA claims that multi-year Arctic sea ice (MYI) is “vanishing.”

The Arctic’s oldest ice is vanishing | NOAA Climate.gov

In fact, the area covered by MYI has doubled over the past decade, and is now at a ten year high. MYI is shown in white in the OSISAF ice type image below.

‎osisaf.met.no/p/osisaf_hlprod_qlook.php

The extent of MYI has been rapidly increasing since 2008, and has more than doubled.

I wrote this script to generate the graph. You can run it on most Linux systems as is. I ran it on my Mac and had to install ImageMagick first.

#!/bin/tcsh
set DATE=0307
rm -f MYI_${DATE}.csv
foreach year (2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017)
    rm -f ice_type_nh_${year}${DATE}1200.jpg
    echo ice_type_nh_${year}${DATE}1200.jpg
    curl -O http://osisaf.met.no/quicklooks/prod/ice/${year}/03/ice_type_nh_${year}${DATE}1200.jpg
    convert ice_type_nh_${year}${DATE}1200.jpg ice_type_nh_${year}${DATE}1200.txt
    echo $year","`grep '#F' ice_type_nh_${year}${DATE}1200.txt | wc | awk -F" " '{print $1}'` >> MYI_${DATE}.csv
end

Here is an animation:


The reason for the growth is that winter wind patterns have changed, and MYI is being retained. From 1988 to 2007, winter winds were pushing MYI out of the Arctic – and now the winds are doing the exact opposite.

The NOAA claim was one of the last desperate climate lies from the Obama White House. It is time to drain the swamp.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

471 Responses to Extent Of Multi-Year Arctic Sea Ice Is The Highest In A Decade

  1. David A says:

    “Extent Of Multi-Year Arctic Sea Ice Is The Highest In A Decade”
    ——-

    Which is why I question the claims of very low sea ice mass.

    • tonyheller says:

      Ten years ago there was a lot of thick ice about to flow out the Fram Strait and melt. Volume can be very misleading.

  2. David A says:

    Thank you.
    How is sea ice mass determined?

  3. richard verney says:

    And the experience of Finnish Ice breakers seems to confirm your point on MYI

    See: https://sputniknews.com/science/201703071051343100-baltic-sea-icebreakers/.

    Oddly enough, global warming and milder winters have led to more severe ice conditions in the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. Today, icebreakers are already struggling to get through towering compacted ice and the problem may become exacerbated in the future, unless more powerful icebreaking vessels step in.

    • Gail Combs says:

      A Russian news paper is claiming MILDER winters? What are they drinking? Frozen vodka?

      It is not like Russian scientists, free of CAGW Lysankoism, have not been warning the Russian people of the cold period – the Little Ice Age – to come. (Ever think that this plus mineral resources is the REAL reason for the EU and Russia’s fight over the ‘Breadbasket of Europe’ aka the Ukraine?)

      October 22, 2016 – “The Earth is heading towards another ice age as solar magnetic activity is set to drop by up to 60 per cent in the next 15 years,” warns new study.

      Experts say that solar activity has not been this low since the Maunder Minimum, a period of low sunspot activity between 1645 and 1715 when the entire Thames froze over. That period is also considered the deepest part of the last “Little Ice Age.” Valentina Zharkova from Northumbria University, who applied this theory to the Sun, says she can predict the affects of solar cycles with 97 per cent accuracy.

      Based on her findings, Ms Zharkova says the next solar cycle is set to peak in 2022, and the cycle after that, Cycle 26, will herald a new ice age.”
      http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/723481/Earth-ICE-AGE-big-freeze-solar-activity

      November 17, 2016 – A New Little Ice Age has begun, says Russian scientist
      “Not at some future date, mind you, but right now. The new Little Ice Age has already started.

      In his new book, Evidence-Based Climate Science: ‘Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming, astrophysicist Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov warns that a new Little Ice Age has begun.

      A highly qualified and highly regarded scientist, Dr Abdussamatov is Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia.”

      Abstract

      Since 1990, the Sun has been in the declining phase of the quasi-bicentennial variation in total solar irradiance (TSI). The decrease in the portion of TSI absorbed by the Earth since 1990 has remained uncompensated by the Earth’s long-wave radiation into space at the previous high level because of the thermal inertia of the world’s oceans.

      As a result, the Earth has – and will continue to have – a negative average annual energy balance and a long-term adverse thermal condition.

      The quasi-centennial epoch of the new Little Ice Age started at the end 2015 after the maximum phase of solar cycle 24. The start of a solar grand minimum is anticipated in solar cycle 27 ± 1 in 2043 ± 11 and the beginning of phase of deep cooling in the new Little Ice Age in 2060 ± 11.

      The gradual weakening of the Gulf Stream leads to stronger cooling in the zone of its action in western Europe and the eastern parts of the United States and Canada. Quasi-bicentennial cyclic variations of TSI together with successive very important influences of the causal feedback effects are the main fundamental causes of corresponding alternations in climate variation from warming to the Little Ice Age.

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000173

      • Rick says:

        LMAO! Beware, an ice age looms! You actually think this “study” is credible and supported by other studies?

        Absurdly stupid.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Your comment doesn’t begin to address the claims of the study. Meanwhile we ARE already in an Ice age epoch.

          You are here to convince people that you are a drooling, knuckledragging Troll.

          I was convinced a long time ago.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor widdle wicky.. it certainly has more credibility than anything you have said during any of your ADHD fuelled tantrums.

    • Gail Combs says:

      AND it is not like Russian weather is refuting those Russian scientists. Russia has had snow and freezing weather in every month for the last year. That is enough to destroy many summer crops.

      THIS not Arctic sea ice is what we should be looking at BTW, because it is freezing weather in summer that wipes out our food supply.

      March 7, 2016 – Buryatia Russia – Cars stuck in snowdrifts more than 4 ft deep

      March 14, 2016 – Russia – Unexpectedly strong winter returns. Freezing poses a risk in the southern European territory to early blossoming apricots and plums. Frost could also endanger emerging winter wheat seedlings.

      March 20, 2016 – Russia – Blizzard leaves 39 settlements without power. Descriptions on social media tell of torn off roofs, falling poles, fences, winds howling, tree bends to the ground.

      April 7, 2016 – Russia – Unexpected blizzard in Bratsk

      April 8, 2016 – Snowfall and blizzards in Siberia, the Urals and the Far East continue.

      April 17, 2016 – Blizzard and (very) heavy snowfall in Sakhalin, Russia. Heavy snowfall closes major interstates in Wyoming and Colorado too.

      May 2, 2016 – Surprise snowstorm in Russia In Krasnoyarsk, snowstorm sweeps and raging storm. In some areas of the city the temperature was below -1 degrees below zero.

      May 28, 2016 – Russia – Snowfall paralyzes truck movement. On the border areas of Mogochinsky and Chernyshevsky fell more than 20 cm (8 inches) of snow.

      June 15, 2016 – Alaska, Finland, China, Russia, New York State have JUNE SNOW. Crop Losses Follow. In Tiksi and Novodvinsk Russia unexpectedly snowed.

      August 27, 2016 – Summer snow in Russia. In the central region of Magadan snow fell. Mean while Perth Australia was on track for coldest winter this century. June and July temperatures have been the coldest in years and three confirmed reports of snow on the Stirling Ranges this winter so far, the highest number since 1998. “On average, snow falls once a year in WA,” said MLM spokesman.

      October 12, 2016 – Russia – Heavy snowfall in Magadan Region for three days running. The snowfall paralyzes traffic between Magadan and Yakutia. The federal highway “Kolyma” is closed for the passage of freight transport in the Magadan region due to heavy snowfall.

      October 17, 2016 – Russia – Snow paralyzes Ulan-Ude. Meanwhile on the other side of the earth there was record snowfall in Montana and snow all the way from Yosemite to British Columbia

      October 23, 2016 – Snowing in Inner Mongolia. Snow hit northeastern areas of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region in north China on Friday. Snow hit the town of Tulihe in Hulun Buir City on early morning of Friday as the temperature dropped sharply.

      November 2, 2016 – Russia – Record snow covers houses up to the roofs. Animals slaughtered due to record snowfall – Five times the monthly normal precipitation in Yakutia, Russia. Horses are unable to feed themselves because of deep snow forcing locals to slaughter younger horses.

      November 5, 2016 – Miles of giant snowballs appear on Russian beach in Siberia. An 11-mile (18km) stretch of coast covered with the icy spheres from the size of a tennis ball to almost 1 meter (3ft) across.

      November 9, 2016 – The cyclone [Blizard] now pounding Sakhalin [Russia] complicates the work of restoring power to settlements of the region, according to the press service of PJSC “Sakhalinenergo” on Thursday.

      November 13, 2016 – Ukraine and Russia hit by extreme cold and heavy snow. Forecasts had called for heavy snow from Romania to Ukraine. As a result, the temperature in Novosibirsk dropped to -31C. Snowdrifts in the Ternopil region of Ukraine have reached half a meter causing a huge number of trucks to remain locked in the snowdrifts. And in the mean time snowfall cause power outages in central China. Source: Xinhua 2016-11-13
      WUHAN, Nov. 13 (Xinhua) — Tens of thousands of households in central China’s Hubei Province is experiencing power outages after heavy snow severely damaged the local grid. Snowstorm hit Enshi last Tuesday and Wednesday, bringing down nearly 9,000 electric poles, and destroyed transformers and other supporting facilities.

      November 21, 2016 – Russia – Never so cold in many decades. Record cold – Temperatures in most parts of Siberia and the Urals with average daily temperatures as much as 16-20 degrees below normal. In Ural towns and villages the temperature dropped to -27 to -32 degrees. Temperatures in Siberia are even below -32 to -38 degrees. In the Tomsk region, central and southern regions of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, down to -42, and in the Khanty Mansiysk district down to -44 degrees.

      November 22, 2016 – Snowstorms and strong blizzards batter Russia and Kazachstan

      November 25, 2016 – Russia – Blizzard traps dozens overnight. blizzard suddenly fell upon the Sakhalin and paralyzed movement of vehicles in Dolinsky district, and forced dozens of drivers to spend the night in the Seashore. Because of the heavy snowfall, even emergency lights were not visible. AND in Tokyo Japan – First snow observed on the ground in November in 142 years

      December 23, 2016 – Russia – Record snowfall in Krasnaya Polyana

      January 17, 2017 – Russia, record snowfall in some areas. At the meteorological station “Central Mine” snow depth has reached 188 cm (6′-2″). In the village Chokurdakh, the snow measures 166 cm (5′-5″). The absolute snowfall leader in Russia is the alpine weather station Sochi, with more than 220 cm (just over 7 ft). An unusually large amount of snow for January is observed across Central and Eastern Europe. All the Baltic States, Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany, are covered in snow. The Balkans have not seen this much snow in several years.

      January 8, 2017 – Coldest Orthodox Christmas in Russia in 120 years. The mecury plunged to minus 30C overnight in Moscow, and minus 24C in St Petersburg.

      January 5, 2017 – Far colder than normal in Russia. -40ºC (-40ºF) frosts to come in Central Russia. Within 3-5 days, the average daily temperature is expected to be 10-15 degrees below normal. The danger is that the low temperature will be accompanied by strong wind.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yep, Northern Russia copped all the negative temperature anomaly that was the flip-side of the positive anomaly over the Franz Josef region.

        But of course, to the Arctic worriers, a tiny deficit in Arctic sea ice formation is FAR worse than the hardship, suffering and death suffered by the Russians in that area.

        AGW really is a DISGUSTING, ANTI-HUMAN, ANTI-LIFE, religion, isn’t it !

  4. Arch Stanton says:

    I know full well you’ll never actually post this after it’s been “moderated”. But in the name of integrity, here’s a whole lotta info on sea ice, not just your carefully chosen cherry pick.

    https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas

    • Gail Combs says:

      We don’t fall for click bait so you will have to explain yourself.

      And no Tony does not ‘Cherry pick’ NOAA and the ClimAstrologists do.

    • Gator says:

      There is currently more ice in the Arctic than the a darts of the last 9000 years. No need for alarm, or further study.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “But in the name of integrity,”

      roflmao.. you are a gullible little non-entity that would have a clue what integrity is.

      Did you even know that Arctic sea ice levels are FAR higher now than most of the last 10,000 years ???

      The only time its been higher was during that most freezing time of the LIA, the late 1970’s were up with those levels..

      If that is what you want to go back to.. move to northern Russia, fool. !!

    • Rick says:

      Correct Andy. I’ll stick with reality

      http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/04/piomas-april-2017.html

      It’s pathetically comical to watch them try to deny the stark reality of what’s happening to the Arctic, I saw these clowns beat their chests in 2014 claiming that the Arctic was “rebounding” and the AMO was flipping. Whooops!…wrong as usual.

      It’s constant cherry-picking …and they actually believe this somehow is evidence refuting AGW.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        You got it backwards, Rick. Nobody has to “believe” or show “evidence refuting AGW”.

        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s up to you to show it. Null hypothesis and all that jazz.

        Oh, and you are late by more than a month. Keep to the current thread. ;-)

        • Rick says:

          There is no evidence refuting AGW. None. Zero. Zilch. CO2 has been the primary climate driver since at least 1950 and the evidence substantiating that is overwhelming. It is not an “extraordinary claim”. It was predicted over 150 years ago.

          This denial regarding the reality of the Arctic being in a death spiral is asinine.

          • gator69 says:

            What an utter load of bullocks.

            Rick, please do me two tiny favors.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • RAH says:

            LoL

            What fundamental change in physics and/or chemistry occurred in the atmosphere “since at least 1950” to make CO2 the “primary climate driver” when CO2 had never been the “primary driver” of our climate before in all the time this planet has had an atmosphere?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Also, Rick, to help us understand your thinking, please quantify what range of temperatures and glaciation you consider within the boundaries of natural variability (assuming you believe there is such a thing).

          • Latitude says:

            I think Rick just said they have been trying to prove global warming for 150 years…..

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Rick,

            your ignorance of the topic is very high,since we only have 38 years of Satellite data to use. Surface stations are irrelevant since they don’t measure the Tropical atmosphere where the postulated “hot spot” show have been found,it never did show up,which is a corner stone of the AGW conjecture.

            Strike one!

            Since 1979,satellite data show a small per decade warming trend of just .13C, about ZERO trend since 1998. The IPCC says it was supposed to warm around .30C per decade,which it never happened in ANY decade since 1980.

            Strike two!

            The IPCC says it was supposed to have more tornadoes,hurricanes than usual since 1990,it didn’t,now less since 2005 to record lows.

            Strike three!

            Your statements are stupid and hyperbolic:

            “There is no evidence refuting AGW. None. Zero. Zilch.”

            Just casually pointed out three OBVIOUS counters, to your silly claim.

            “CO2 has been the primary climate driver since at least 1950 and the evidence substantiating that is overwhelming.”

            You presented ZERO evidence to support it, CO2 is a trace gas with a very small absorption range, in a large IR window,where the main outgoing TERRESTRIAL IR flow is mostly outside of the CO2 main absorption band.

            “It is not an “extraordinary claim”. It was predicted over 150 years ago.”

            Not really,but since you made a profoundly ignorant claim,it is up to you to prove it. I doubt you will even try……

            “This denial regarding the reality of the Arctic being in a death spiral is asinine.”

            Ha ha ha,

            once again this warmist moron fails to realize that there have been at least a decade of no summer ice failed predictions. That you don’t know that there have already been long periods of time of little to no summer ice,in early part of the Holocene.

            You are so dumb that I wonder if you are either a bot or a brainless warmist.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Rick, you are welcome to put forward a paper proving empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            We are waiting…. produce a paper to support the very basis of your brain-washed religion.

          • Rick says:

            It’s the group assault! Oh my, how do I respond to the all out denial?

            With derisive laughter.

            You denial disciples are so deep down the rabbit hole that you have no idea which way is up.

            gator. No one denies natural variability has caused past climate change. We have a good understanding of M cycles TSI, volcanism, ocean currents, et al…good enough to very confidently conclude that none of these individually, or in any combination can explain current warming.

            It’s CO2. End of story.

            RAH, lol…the fundamental change is that we have pumped GTs of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1950….oh, but that doesn’t have any effect on the “chemistry” of the atmosphere…LO F’N L!.

            Co We

            Please source a peer-reviewed study concluding that natural variability explains current warming. Then show how well it is substantiated by mainstream science….or just stop the nonsense and save yourself further embarrassment.

            Sunsett,

            Your special ignorance is glaring. Your “evidence” refuting AGW is so moronic and vapid that you don’t even qualify to step up to the plate. You struck out long ago…..LMAO!

            Andy. you are just flat out ignorant when it comes to climate science.

            This is the extent of your “defense” of your insipid denial??? Wow, you guys are really “sciencing” the shit out of me! LO F’N L!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Your comprehension level on everything to do with FACTS is abysmal, to say the least !

            You are a rabid CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.

            You DENY that natural changes FAR outweigh any feeble attempts by man.

            That is because of your NON-science brain-washed ignorance.

            You are welcome to put forward a paper proving empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere……

            …. but all you have is ZERO evidence, and..

            ….. MINDLESS EMPTY RANTING. !!

            That is the AGW cultist way we are all so, so used to seeing..

          • AndyG55 says:

            I winder if Widdle Wicky understand JUST HOW PATHETIC it is that he cannot produce one single paper to support the very basis of his mis-guided anti-science RELIGION.

            So sad, so brain-washed …and SOOO PATHETIC !!

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Andy, the most pathetic thing is that Rick considers it an “assault” when people ask him questions he’s unable to answer. He would fit in well among the precious snowflakes on college campuses who have to retreat to a safe space when they get triggered. To think of it, he must be one of them.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “You are so dumb that I wonder if you are either a bot or a brainless warmist.”

            A bot would give a more rational and intelligent reply.

            Widdle Wicky is most definitely a “brainless warmist”.

            There is NOTHING in this world that is more STUPID and GULLIBLE and ANTI-SCIENCE.

          • Rick says:

            Awww, how apropro! The little Island of Misfit Toys AGW deniers have their panties all in a bunch.

            The denial is comically pathetic.

            Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot May 14, 2015

            https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

            Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)

            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=8572A89879FEDED610E5FAE3B54A8892.c1

            Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions

            https://phys.org/news/2014-12-global-links-carbon-emissions.html#nRlv

            Now let’s here you all Krazy Klimate Klownz claim how all these studies are BS and have been discredited.

            You picked the wrong guy to try to push your abject denial bullshit on. F’N Hilarious!!!

          • gator69 says:

            What’s f’ing hilarious Ms Rick, is watching you run away every time I ask you to back your BS with asctual science.

            So…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Quit running away missy!

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        And Happy Earth Day, man!

      • AndyG55 says:

        Poor Rick. Why do you INSIST in displaying your arrogant ignorance so everyone can see it.

        Did you know that the Arctic sea ice level has been LOWER than current for around 95% of the Holocene.

        Its only been higher during the Little Ice Age, which he have never really finished climbing out of.

        I bet you choose somewhere WARM to live ;-)

        Inner city, latte, ghetto.. Am I right. !

        • Rick says:

          Awww, how apropro! The little Island of Misfit Toys AGW deniers have their panties all in a bunch.

          The denial is comically pathetic.

          Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

          Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot May 14, 2015

          https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

          Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)

          http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=8572A89879FEDED610E5FAE3B54A8892.c1

          Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions

          https://phys.org/news/2014-12-global-links-carbon-emissions.html#nRlv

          Now let’s here all you Krazy Klimate Klownz claim how all these studies are BS and have been discredited.

          You picked the wrong guy to try to push your abject denial bullshit on. F’N Hilarious!!!

          • gator69 says:

            Come on Ms Rick, share your vast knowledge with us!

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Quit being a science denier.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “You picked the wrong guy to try to push ”

            What , a failed arts student, with ZERO scientific knowledge, who spends his time on mindless zero-science rants.

            roflmao

            Chuck another tantrum..

            That will show us just how scary you are. :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            The ONLY cretin here trying to push his moronic anti-science AGW CRAP.

            IS YOU, ricky.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I bet you choose somewhere WARM to live ;-)

          Inner city, latte, ghetto.. Am I right. !”

          It is noted that Ricky-cretin refuses to answer simple questions.

          Please send your next post from Siberia, or PROVE that you are nothing but a whinging HYPOCRITE.

      • AndyG55 says:

        A little video from REAL scientists, just for Rick..

        https://vimeo.com/14366077

        Enjoy, and maybe even LEARN, Rick !

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Rick,

        The AGW conjecture has little to do with the Arctic region. It is an ATMOSPHERE based conjecture,that has failed in all the short term guesses made since 1990.

        Since the middle of the previous decade,warmist morons keep saying this is the year there will be no summer ice, then backtracks when it doesn’t come close.

        Early in the Interglacial period, there were long stretches of time of little to no Summer ice, done with CO2 around the 250-260 ppm level.

        • Rick says:

          Awww, how apropro! The little Island of Misfit Toys AGW deniers have their panties all in a bunch.

          The denial is comically pathetic.

          Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

          Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot May 14, 2015

          https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

          Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)

          http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=8572A89879FEDED610E5FAE3B54A8892.c1

          Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions

          https://phys.org/news/2014-12-global-links-carbon-emissions.html#nRlv

          Now let’s here you all Krazy Klimate Klownz claim how all these studies are BS and have been discredited.

          You picked the wrong guy to try to push your abject denial bullshit on. F’N Hilarious!!!

          • David A says:

            Curious how EVERY contrary observation is adjusted to conformity…

            Even still the overall warming of the tropsphere, taken with a highs grain of confirmation bias, is LESS THEN 1/2 OF THE MODEL MEAN.

          • gator69 says:

            You picked the wrong gal to try to push your abject denial bullshit on. F’N Hilarious!!!

            What a putz. A putz with delusions of superiority, and a gross misunderstanding of the English language et al.

            Ms Rick either doesn’t know that all of the alarmist claims are based upon failed alarmist models, or she is really dumber than we all thought.

          • Rick says:

            Wow, you Dunning Krugerettes are really showing me! lol…

          • Rick says:

            gator: address the science discussed in my links, you mewling little quim.

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, please back up your wild claims with science. Your tantrum is not very convincing.

            Let’s try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Rick says:

            gator: first address the science discussed in my links, you mewling little quim.

            Of course it’s been much warmer and colder in the planet’s history, ditz. The causes of past climate change have nothing to do with current warming. In fact, just one of the reasons scientists are so overwhelmingly confident that current warming is primary caused by manmade CO2 emissions is that there is a good understanding as to why climate changed in the past.

            I find it glaringly inane that you so readily believe Paleoclimatological studies, yet reject what the same scientists are telling you regarding current warming.

            How, in your radical state of cognitive dissonance, do you reconcile that salient fact?

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, I am discussing the “science” in your links, but you are not.

            Let’s try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is absolutely nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Science please!

          • Rick says:

            I’ve cited plenty of science. Let’s go back to the links I posted and discuss those, k , pussy?

            Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot May 14, 2015

            https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

            Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)

            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=8572A89879FEDED610E5FAE3B54A8892.c1

            Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions

            https://phys.org/news/2014-12-global-links-carbon-emissions.html#nRlv

            Your turn…….

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            I see Ms. Rick voted “present”. No answer to my simple question forthcoming. As expected.

          • gator69 says:

            I’ve cited plenty of science. Let’s go back to the links I posted and discuss those, k , pussy?

            Ms Rick, all you have done is post links. I have read your links and I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a discussion of the science found at your links. But all you do is post the same links over and over and then strut around as if you have accomplished something, never answering my questions.

            Ms Rick, is it possible that you not understand the science well enough to ansewer two simple questions?

            Let’s try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Your last link…

            “have derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate…..” roflmao.

            You sure do have a bizarre idea of empirical proof.

            Failed Arts student ???

          • AndyG55 says:

            And all poor Feldman did was show that El Ninos warm the atmosphere.

            Well who didn’t know that. !!

            Did he check his “statistics” to just 2008.. nope.. I wonder why not. ;-)

            And why do you fall for such badly done science ?

            Is it because you wouldn’t recognise real science if it slapped you on back of the head?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature ”

            roflmao..

            homogenise until it tells you what you want it to tell you.

            That is NOT science.

            That is FARCE.

            or maybe even FRAUD.

          • Rick says:

            Lmao at you klownz. Let me know when your studies refuting any link I sourced get published….

            The pathetic denial of the long term decline of Arctic ice is hilarious!

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, I’m still waiting for you to cease your childish tantrum, and start discussing the science in your links.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Rick says:

            Andy,

            Why do you keep asking the same sophomoric questions? No one with any science acumen (this eliminates you) will argue that natural variables affect climate. The reality is that AGW, since about 1950, has overridden natural forcings to become the primary climate driver.

            It’s pathetic that you can’t grasp this.

            You see, Andy, M Cycles drive glacials and interglacials. Changes in TSI and ocean currents, and some volcanism, caused the MWP and LIA. NONE of these are causing current warming. It’s CO2, plain and simple…like your intellect on the topic.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “The reality is that AGW, since about 1950, has overridden natural forcings to become the primary climate driver.”

            Totally and absolute unsupportable BS

            Your brain-washed stock in trade.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            No one with any science acumen … will argue that natural variables affect climate.

            That’s a scientific gem, Ms Rick.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Why do you keep asking the same sophomoric questions? ”

            Because I’m trying to educate someone way below that level.. YOU.

            I don’t think I can get down to “THAT DUMB”, though.

          • AndyG55 says:

            No one with any science acumen … will argue that natural variables DO NOT HAVE THE MAJOR, OVER-RIDING effect on climate.

            Ricky has ZERO scientific acumen.

          • Latitude says:

            Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot May 14, 2015…nope

            There’s no net surface warming…

            New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/

          • Rick says:

            lol…the denial you klimate klownz spew is beyond pathetic.

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, I am still waiting…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Rick says:

            and you’ll keep waiting, andy. Just as you continue to do for a modicum of insight as to the primary cause of warming since about 1950..

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yep, we know we will keep waiting, and waiting , and waiting….

            . and waiting…

            .. for you to provide something , ANYTHING resembling scientific proof of your baseless AGW religion.

            A paper proving empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere ?

            Come on twerp, put up… or STOP YAPPING

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “… modicum of insight as to the primary cause of warming since about 1950 …

            Warming you say, Ms. Rick? Having hot flashes again?

            >b>Science

            The Cooling World
            Newsweek
            April 28, 1975

            There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

            The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

            To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

            A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

            Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

            —PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

  5. AZ1971 says:

    The rapid decrease is, and always has been, due to the shifting winds which push thicker MYI out the Fram Strait rather than being retained in the Arctic basin.

    Warmer temperatures, my ass.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The only warming in the Arctic this century has been the transient of the El Nino, which caused a large temperature spike.

      Nothing to do with CO2 warming AT ALL. In fact, an ocean COOLING event.

      UAH was ZERO TREND until the spike.

      DESPITE this large spike, Arctic sea ice is STILL up with the last couple of years !!

      Quite amazing, really. !!

  6. RAH says:

    Yep. Kinda cold up there now. CO2 and AGW ran off to somewhere else apparently.

  7. RAH says:

    Reality.

  8. Sunsettommy says:

    Rick, has comeback with a long comment,but did he bring anything of value to the discussion table?

    He starts off terribly:

    “It’s the group assault! Oh my, how do I respond to the all out denial?

    With derisive laughter.

    You denial disciples are so deep down the rabbit hole that you have no idea which way is up. ”

    Nothing here worth anything.

    You reply to Gator,

    “gator. No one denies natural variability has caused past climate change. We have a good understanding of M cycles TSI, volcanism, ocean currents, et al…good enough to very confidently conclude that none of these individually, or in any combination can explain current warming.

    It’s CO2. End of story.”

    You didn’t answer him at all,just incoherent babble,here is what he asked of you that you didn’t answer:

    Gator writes,

    “1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”

    End of story!

    Colorado Wellington, politely asked you to answer a question:

    “Also, Rick, to help us understand your thinking, please quantify what range of temperatures and glaciation you consider within the boundaries of natural variability (assuming you believe there is such a thing).”

    You replied by not answering the question:

    “Co We

    Please source a peer-reviewed study concluding that natural variability explains current warming. Then show how well it is substantiated by mainstream science….or just stop the nonsense and save yourself further embarrassment.”

    It is clear you can’t answer questions given you,since you never did. Since it is you and your fellow warmists who are pushing the AGW claims, it is therefore in your ball court to answer the questions based on it. You didn’t since you have nothing. everyone here knows you have nothing, that you know you have NOTHING! since you never provided anything.

    Then you attacked Andy with nothing:

    “Andy. you are just flat out ignorant when it comes to climate science.”

    This is what you responded to:

    “Rick, you are welcome to put forward a paper proving empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

    We are waiting…. produce a paper to support the very basis of your brain-washed religion.”

    He is still waiting,since you never answered it. Why can’t you try answering Andy?

    ==================================================

    The rest is about your reply to what I wrote:

    Now you ranted in reply to my statements which are actually based on what the IPCC states and what the Satellite data and the NOAA shows,you gave me NOTHING in return. No counter evidence,facts or even a simple scientific statement at all.

    Here in part,is what I wrote that Rick bad mouthed me on:

    “Rick,

    your ignorance of the topic is very high,since we only have 38 years of Satellite data to use. Surface stations are irrelevant since they don’t measure the Tropical atmosphere where the postulated “hot spot” show have been found,it never did show up,which is a corner stone of the AGW conjecture.

    Strike one!

    Since 1979,satellite data show a small per decade warming trend of just .13C, about ZERO trend since 1998. The IPCC says it was supposed to warm around .30C per decade,which it never happened in ANY decade since 1980.

    Strike two!

    The IPCC says it was supposed to have more tornadoes,hurricanes than usual since 1990,it didn’t,now less since 2005 to record lows.

    Strike three!”

    your dead on arrival reply:

    “Sunsett,

    Your special ignorance is glaring. Your “evidence” refuting AGW is so moronic and vapid that you don’t even qualify to step up to the plate. You struck out long ago…..LMAO!”

    It is clear you have NOTHING to counter me with ,even when I gave you several openings to prove me wrong, you didn’t even try. You have NOTHING to answer me with,because as everyone now knows, you have NOTHING to offer here.

    I was correct about you when I first read your comment I responded to, since you didn’t provide a single answer to several questions,that you didn’t reply to claims about what the IPCC says,or what the Satellite data tells us.

    All you did what show everyone that you are full of hot air as a typically ignorant warmist moron, you clearly are.

    It is correct when I stated that the IPCC projected around a .30C per decade warming as stated in the 1990 report,because I have read it there:

    “Based on current model results, we predict: under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with a uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that
    seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025…”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

    Since you show no interest in learning,because you are a empty headed loudmouth jerk, I will not bother showing you the easy to find Satellite data showing there is indeed only a .13C per decade warming trend since 1979 and that I correctly stated there is a flat trend from 1998 to early 2017.

    Since you are a empty headed loudmouth jerk,I will not bother posting what the IPCC stated about the Tropical Atmosphere either,or that there are a number of published science papers that does exist, showing that early in this interglacial period,there were indeed a few thousand years of little to no Summer Ice in the Arctic region.

    I doubt you even know what the AGW conjecture is about,since you indicate your profound ignorance in it.

    You ended your dribbling pusty foul smelling loudmouth bullshit with this:

    “This is the extent of your “defense” of your insipid denial??? Wow, you guys are really “sciencing” the shit out of me! LO F’N L!”

    It is clear that you are full of shit! That you are simply another ignorant warmist regulan blood worm, who is stupid as hell troll, is clearly evident in your FACT FREE,EVIDENCE FREE reply to several people, some who are scientists.

    I will add you into a forum essay that will be written soon write at my climate forum, about more brainless warmist morons, who make fools of themselves. Who show no interest in trying a real debate here,because they are full of of NOTHING!

    Thank you for making my case easier…..

    • AndyG55 says:

      Widdle Wicky seems to have the mentality equivalent to that of a yapping Chihuahua behind a 6ft fence.

      Failed Arts student, is my guess.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I wonder if he wore a pink hat when he marched yesterday ?

      • Rick says:

        …and explain to me how this applies to current warming….

      • AndyG55 says:

        Notice that when CO2 was at its maximum, it was TOTALLY UNABLE to maintain or increase temperature.

        In fact , temperature dropped rapidly.

        DOH !!!

        USE what little brain hasn’t been already been washed out of that pre-pubescent retard skull of yours, Ricky-poo.

        The sure had the hose up full when they brain-washed you, didn’t they. All that is left is a slimy green ooze. ;-)

      • AndyG55 says:

        And you never answered, Rick.

        Did you wear a pink pussy hat when you marched with the useless idiots yesterday ?

        • Rick says:

          Deflect,Deny,Deflect. Deny.

          The AGW deniers mantra. lol…

          Hint: How are current globally warming temps causing an increase in atmospheric CO2?

          C’mon, andie-boy…you tools love to flaunt ice core data which you claim “proves” CO2 follows temps.

          Show me even a sliver of evidence demonstrating that rising global temps are driving an increase of CO2.

          You’re a pathetic joke, andie.

          • AndyG55 says:

            roflmao..

            Told y’all another tanty was on it way.

            So funny watching this juvenile’s pathetic efforts.

            Show me even a sliver of evidence demonstrating that rising CO2 are driving an increase of global temps.

            So far you are batting a BIG FAT EMPTY ZERO !

            Just one paper proving empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Or can’t you even support the very basis of your farcical AGW religion??

          • AndyG55 says:

            It doesn’t matter where the current HIGHLY BENEFICIAL CO2 rise is coming from, partial natural from oceans etc, partial from humans.

            So long as it keeps rising, the future of food supplies on this beautiful CARBON-BASED planet of ours is ensured. :-)

            Be VERY thankful we are not back in the “survival only” realm of sub-300ppm CO2 anymore. ! :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            And you never answered, Rick.

            Why the evasion, I wonder ????? ;-)

            Did you wear a pink pussy hat when you marched with the useless idiots yesterday ?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Did you wear a pink pussy hat when you marched with the useless idiots yesterday ?”

            A further question for widdle wicky…..

            Do you wear your pink ‘vag hat’ to bed to keep your boyfriend/missus happy ???

    • Rick says:

      Sunsett, take off the blinders. The sun set on your insipid BS decades ago. LMAO at you abject denial and ignorance of mainstream climate science.

      Name one, just one science organization that supports your naive beliefs. just one, sunny-boy…one….

      • AndyG55 says:

        So sad that Ricky doesn’t realise that statements are put out by the political elite of the science bodies.

        No-one else gets asked.

        Ignorance runs very deep with you, doesn’t it Ricky. !

      • David A says:

        The NIPCC and the scientist that signed the Oregon Petition as well as the scientist that run CO2 science.

        Now Rick, name one organization making a pro CAGW statement that submitted their statement to their membership for a vote. ( The answer is ZERO)

        • Rick says:

          The NIPCC and the Oregon petition,…2 pathetic jokes you think are evidence refuting AGW. LMAO at your denial!

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, we have shown you that the OP is real, your denial of reality is disturbing. And the NIPCC is made up of professional scientists who knw far more about climate than you ever will.

            http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

            You claim to “know” all forcings, and yet refuse to share.

            You claim to have scientific training, yet you refuse to give you idenntity.

            You are a joke Ms Rick.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Then you feeble girl, think Freeman Dyson, Edward Teller, Fred Singer, and many more stellar scientists are stupid…….

            You are all wind and pust as usual.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Gator,

            I pointed out that even the Desmoblog article she posted, believes the OP is real,it only objected on how many were listed out of the total membership as being trained for the “climate science”.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Rabid Ricky.

            You are NOTHING but a failed Arts student.

            Deeply brain-washed by AGW propaganda mantra.

            That is very obvious.

  9. gator69 says:

    gator. No one denies natural variability has caused past climate change. We have a good understanding of M cycles TSI, volcanism, ocean currents, et al…good enough to very confidently conclude that none of these individually, or in any combination can explain current warming.

    It’s CO2. End of story.

    Great! Now do as I asked, and prove it. 4.5 billion years of precedent does not simply disappear overnight without explanation. Your team has made an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary proof. So far you have provided ZERO proof.

    Ms Rick this is not a discussion of religion, we need facts and figures, not rhetoric and speculation.

    Capiche?

  10. RAH says:

    RAH, lol…the fundamental change is that we have pumped GTs of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1950….oh, but that doesn’t have any effect on the “chemistry” of the atmosphere…LO F’N L!.

    Then how did CO2 become the “primary driver” when it has been much higher in the past even during times when this planet was much colder fool?

    Just ignore the paleo evidence. Just ignore the current hiatus. Just ignore that satellite and radiosonde temperature data disproves that CO2 is the control nob. Just ignore the fact that not a single prognostication or prediction by the CO2 crowd has come to pass and the models the whole scam is based on have demonstrated that they are not even close to accurate tools. Ignore it all because that’s all you can do Right? Never mind that never ever in the past has CO2 been the “prime driver” of climate on this planet. NEVER! Ignore that fact.

    But in coming here and challenging and thinking you’ve go the answers you’ve run into a hornets nest. There is diversity of opinion here on many subjects including climate, but not on the question of CO2 being the “prime driver” of the climate because there is absolutely no scientific empirical evidence to support that hypothesis and my question was a challenge to you to try and figure that out. But instead you replied in the simple minded way I expected.

    The answers to why you and so many others believe this simplistic alarmist pap is simple. Simple explanations fabricated for the consumption of the simple minded who will not nor can not possibly look into the evidence themselves and form their own informed opinions based on the evidence and data. Their whole outlook on life, science, and current events driven by group think with no consideration of challenging it because to do so would make them the nail standing out that will without question be pounded back down by the mob.

  11. RAH says:

    Rick
    Show me the signature of CO2 in this graph.

  12. RAH says:

    Where is are the finger prints of CO2 being the “prime driver” of the climate?

      • Rick says:

        …and explain to me how this applies to current warming….

      • AndyG55 says:

        Notice that when CO2 was at its maximum, it was TOTALLY UNABLE to maintain or increase temperature.

        In fact , temperature dropped rapidly.

        DOH !!!

        USE what little brain hasn’t been washed out of that fetid neanderthal scull of yours, Ricky-poo.

        Or you could just throw another tanty !!

        • gator69 says:

          Andy, please do not insult Neanderthals, they don’t deserve to be compared to a common overconfident juvenile putz like Ms Rick.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You are correct, gator.

            Dear Neanderthals, I hereby apologise for the insult by comparison.

            But I didn’t want to offend the single celled amoebas.

          • Rick says:

            “you’re the best, Andy!”

            “Why thank you, gator!”

            “Isn’t it difficult to be so much more informed than the world’s leading scientists, gator?”

            “It is indeed . andy!”…. now go back to sleep, buttercup”

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Ricky, seems he has zero-science to offer that can’t be immediately blown out of the water as either bad science or model based assumptive crap.

            And he still can’t produce any paper that shows empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            No wonder he is so, so ANGRY within himself.

            Do keep trying though, little juvenile….

            … we all like a good laugh :-)

          • Rick says:

            andie:

            Care to discuss, pussy?

            Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot May 14, 2015

            https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

            Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)

            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=8572A89879FEDED610E5FAE3B54A8892.c1

            Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions

            https://phys.org/news/2014-12-global-links-carbon-emissions.html#nRlv

          • AndyG55 says:

            “world’s leading scientists”

            He means Wil Happer, Freeman Dyson, Richard Litzen, the 49 NASA scientists who want the scam to stop and the 30,000 + scientists that signed the Oregon petition

            Plus the Russia solar scientists predicting cooling

            … or does Ricky mean that load of pseudo-science modellers that frequent the AGW scam with zero validation assumption driven crap. ?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Been discussed Ricky.

            Posting it again doesn’t mean anything except to highlight your ignorance and brain-washing

            Shown WANTING and seriously devoid of any real science… not that you would have even the slightest clue what real science is.

          • Rick says:

            Happer, Dyson, Lindzen and the OISM petition???

            LMAO! Yeah, there’s real credibility…lol

            Educate yourself regarding the OISM bullshit:

            https://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda

            You should be thoroughly embarrassed, but you’re too naive and brainwashed to realize your own ignorance of climate science….funny stuff, andie…keeps me laughing!

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, it is you who needs to be educated on the Oregon Petition, and many other things as well..

            Qualifications of Signers

            Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

            The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

            All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

            The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

            Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

            1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

            2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

            3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

            4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

            5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

            6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

            7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

            The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.

            Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

            1. Atmosphere (579)

            I) Atmospheric Science (112)
            II) Climatology (39)
            III) Meteorology (343)
            IV) Astronomy (59)
            V) Astrophysics (26)
            2. Earth (2,240)

            I) Earth Science (94)
            II) Geochemistry (63)
            III) Geology (1,684)
            IV) Geophysics (341)
            V) Geoscience (36)
            VI) Hydrology (22)
            3. Environment (986)

            I) Environmental Engineering (487)
            II) Environmental Science (253)
            III) Forestry (163)
            IV) Oceanography (83)
            Computers & Math (935)

            1. Computer Science (242)

            2. Math (693)

            I) Mathematics (581)
            II) Statistics (112)
            Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

            1. Physics (5,225)

            I) Physics (2,365)
            II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
            III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
            2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

            Chemistry (4,822)

            1. Chemistry (3,129)

            2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

            Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

            1. Biochemistry (744)

            I) Biochemistry (676)
            II) Biophysics (68)
            2. Biology (1,438)

            I) Biology (1,049)
            II) Ecology (76)
            III) Entomology (59)
            IV) Zoology (149)
            V) Animal Science (105)
            3. Agriculture (783)

            I) Agricultural Science (296)
            II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
            III) Plant Science (292)
            IV) Food Science (81)
            Medicine (3,046)

            1. Medical Science (719)

            2. Medicine (2,327)

            General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

            1. General Engineering (9,833)

            I) Engineering (7,280)
            II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
            III) Metallurgy (384)
            2. General Science (269)

            Unlike the Union of Concerned Socialists whose only qualification for membership is a working credit card, The OP has standards.

            “Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

            In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.”

            So, they DO have over 31,000 scientists, in spite of the chicken little claims.

            The there is the Union of Concerned Scientists who have Dr Kenji…

            “Reader DJ writes in Tips & Notes:

            Since becoming a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists when I found out all you needed was a valid credit card, my curiosity about who and what they really are has spiked.

            I decided to put that theory to the test. I am very proud to announce that a member of my family has been accepted into this prestigious organization. With pride, I present new UCS member, Kenji Watts:

            Yes, Kenji is our dog. Apparently, the claim is true, all that is required to be a member of the illustrious group of “concerned scientists” is a valid credit card. No discerning questions were asked of me when I prepared Kenji’s application and no follow up check after the application was done. I simply put in his name, address, and provided a valid credit card that matched the address.”

            But then appeals to authority are for religions, and not science.

            As Galileo explained, it is “certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller than the number of those who reason badly….reasoning is like running and not like carrying, and one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.”

            That’s another free educataion from the gator, you are welcome Ms Rick.

          • AndyG55 says:

            desmog roflmao.. far-left, brain-washed, anti-science cockroaches

            No wonder Ricky feels at home with them. :-)

          • Rick says:

            OISM is thoroughly debunked bullshit. ….and you criticize AGW consensus studies?? LMAO!

            You may now continue to parade your long-winded ignorance…funny stuff!

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, you are a denier.

            I showed above that your opinion of the Oregon Petition is flat wrong. I provided facts proving your source is lying.

            WTF is your mental issue missy?

          • Rick says:

            gatorette, you’re a real tough gal, aren’t you? LMAO, little pussy!

            In that I deny your ridiculous AGW denier stance, I am indeed a denier.

            Do you actually believe this petition is somehow empirical evidence refuting AGW?

          • gator69 says:

            Do you actually believe this petition is somehow empirical evidence refuting AGW?

            The petition is just as empirical as your models and appeals to authority, Ms Rick.

            Let’s try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Notice that when CO2 was at its maximum, it was TOTALLY UNABLE to maintain or increase temperature.”

          Ummm.. no answer to that one, hey Ricky ;-)

          So sad, so juvenile and brain-washed….. so PATHETIC.

          • sunsettommy says:

            He must be unaware of numerous predictions of death spirals the last decade, only to see it fail.

            The turd then comes along with his death spiral crap,insulting us numerous times.

            He is also unaware of how Dr. Sherwood manufactured his absurd wind/temperature data hybrid to create what is not there.

          • Rick says:

            The Arctic is in a steady death spiral. It’s been predicted and it’s happening. Because it isn’t happening in your “selective” timeframe, you actually think this is evidence refuting AGW?

            LO F’N L!

          • AndyG55 says:

            No worm-brain.

            Its recovering from extremes of the late 1970’s, which were up there with the extremes of the LIA. Back a small way toward the norms of before that COLDEST time of the last 10,000 years.

            I bet you choose to live somewhere warm, or would you prefer the cold desperate times of 200 or so years ago.

            How’s your inner-city fossil fuel warmed basement going, , little hypocrite. :-)

            Face it widdle wicky, you are so gullible, brian-washed and non-thinking, that you have been sucked in by the biggest scam in history .

          • Rick says:

            “Its recovering from extremes of the late 1970’s, ”

            LMAO! ..and it’s now settling into a new “equilibrium” right? lol

            Watch and wait, andie,,,,

          • sunsettommy says:

            It is sad,that Rick is this ignorant since he doesn’t care about the Arctic history of the ENTIRE Interglacial,where for a few thousand years, there were little to no Summer ice in the region.

            All the while the CO2 levels were at the 260 ppm level,which means something other than the magic molecule did it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You prefer the EXTREMES of the LIA do you.

            Live in Siberia??

            Or, in your abject ignorance, don’t you know that the late 1970’s were up there with the extremes LIA. ?? That’s it isn’t it.

            You think you pitiful ADHD lifespan is the only time that matters.

            Stop being a scaredy little child-mind and wake up to reality, you poor brain-washed fool.

          • Rick says:

            andie, why do you and sunnie keep bring up past climate change? The causes of the LIA, MWP, Holocene Optimum, et al, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the causes of current warming.

            Why do you so readily believe the conclusions of Paleoclimatological studies, yet reject the conclusions made by the same scientists regarding the cause of current warming?

            You never answer this because it totally paints your hypocritical little candie-asses into a corner. lol…

          • AndyG55 says:

            poor ignorant brain-washed ricky,

            There is very little current warming., We are barely a bump above the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.

            We are NOWHERE near the temperatures of the Holocene Optimum, which was GLOBAL nothing to do with axial precision etc

            Now off you run, take you ADHD meds and enjoy the massive benefits that slight warming and the use of fossil fuels affords the modern world and modern plant life and food supply. :-)

          • Rick says:

            Because scientists understand the causes of past climate change is just one of the reasons they are so certain that current warming is primarily driven by man.

            You can’t seem to wrap your diminutive mind around this, which I find freakin’ HILARIOUS!

          • sunsettommy says:

            The troll is back again,saying NOTHING of substance.

            The warmist turd, has ignored the long failed IPCC per decade temperature projections,which is nonessential to maintain his delusions.

            The IPCC,based on the AGW hypothesis:

            .30C per decade, from 1990.

            The Satellite:

            .13C per decade since 1979. .05C per decade since 1998.

          • AndyG55 says:

            So, they still haven’t found the right mix of Valium and Ritalin for you , hey widdle wicky.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ROFLAMO..

            No wonder you are panicking if you have Dessler as a colleague. (pull another name out of your rectum next time)

            And no wonder you are so RABID, seeing the anti-science, anti-life AGW scam starting to crash in on itself.

            Poor Rabid-Ricky !!

  13. Andy DC says:

    Dear Rick,

    How do you explain the significant cooling during the period 1940-1980, during which time CO2 was constantly rising? How do you explain that the 3 winters from 1977-1979 were the three coldest consecutive winters in US history? How do you explain the large southward retreat of the Florida citrus industry during the 20th Century?

    How do you explain that there has not been a heat wave in recent years that has even approached those of the 1930’s in terms of duration, coverage and intensity?

    How do you explain that the hottest temperature recorded by any Washington, DC area weather station took place 136 years ago. In September, no less.

    How do you explain that by far the strongest US hurricane (Florida Keys) was 82 years ago and the 2nd strongest (Camille) was 48 years ago?

    How do you explain the record drought of landfalling major US hurricanes, now going on 12 years?

    How do you explain that by far the worst US tornado (Tri-State) took place 92 years ago, killing almost 700 without hitting a major city?

    How do you explain the repeated record crops in the US Corn Belt? How do you explain that areas of drought in the US have been falling and not rising.

    Yes, the climate is changing. Always has always will. But there is no conclusive evidence that the changes are primarily related to CO2. Whatever recent changes there have been have largely been beneficial and anything but catastrophic.

    It is far better to check the actual facts, rather than parroting pre-fabricated propaganda, obviously produced to justify spending billions each year on a non-existant “crisis”.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “rather than parroting pre-fabricated propaganda”

      oh butt..

      Pre-fabricated propaganda pap is the ONLY thing that rickitty has.

      He is EMPTY without it.

    • sunsettommy says:

      11 Days have passed, since Rick ignored Andy DC questions.

      Snicker.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “How do you explain that the 3 winters from 1977-1979 were the three coldest consecutive winters in US history? ”

      And incidentally, the largest Arctic sea ice extent since the LIA, and pretty much level with much of the last period of that coldest of periods in 10,000 years.

      I think we can all be very very thankful for the totally beneficial warming since then.

      And for the rise in CO2, which is absolutely beneficial to ALL life on Earth.

      Even rabid cockroaches like Rick need CO2.

  14. Rick says:

    The reality as to what is happening in the Arctic. Hint; Arctic ice is in a death spiral. and it is not going to “recover” when the AMO flips.

    http://observer.com/2017/05/scientists-release-climate-change-report-artic-region-unraveling/

    But I’m sure some of you will find reality difficult to accept and claim that these studies are all using fabricated data, the methods are flawed, they are lying, blah, blah blah.

    I’ll just stick with what actual research scientists have concluded and leave the BS to you Klimate Klownz.

    • gator69 says:

      So…

      #1- You cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

      #2- You cannot provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

      Impressive!

      Run along Ms rick.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Arctic ice is in a death spiral. and it is not going to “recover” when the AMO flips.”

      Your continued wilful IGNORANCE of ocean cycles is quite LAUGHABLE.

      Only clown here is you. Rick

      Did you know that NSIDC has extent GREATER than 2006, 2015, 2016, and it will shortly overtake 2004, 2007, 2014.

      MASIE has sea ice extent above 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2015 and 2016, and probably catching 2013 in the next couple of days.

      FACTS and DATA are an enema to you, aren’t they , you poor little brain-washed twerp.

      • Rick says:

        Andy, why lie so blatantly? You have a horrible case of the denials. Here’s reality from the NSIDC;

        https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

        “Arctic sea ice extent for April 2017 averaged 13.83 million square kilometers (5.34 million square miles), and tied with April 2016 for the lowest April extent in the 38-year satellite record. The April 2017 extent is 1.02 million square kilometers (394,000 square miles) below the April 1981 to 2010 long-term average. The largest reductions in ice extent through the month occurred on the Pacific side of the Arctic, within the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk. Little change in extent occurred in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic.”

      • AndyG55 says:

        Poor Ricky, can’t even find and analysis the ACTUAL DATA himself.

        Has to rely on someone else to put it into a low end graph form him.

        The facts were correct from data direct from MASIE and NSIDC when posted.

        Get over it…

        Or you could just chuck another ADHD derived tantrum.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Ricky-dolt, you do know that current Arctic sea ice extent is HIGHER than it has been for around 95% of the Holocene, don’t you ?

        Or in your brain-washed IGNORANCE do you DENY that fact, as well. ;-)

        • Rick says:

          andie’s little panties in a bunch because she’s been caught lying…lol…

          and again, dipshit, the cause of Holocene warming has, as well as other past climate changes, nothing to do with the cause of current warming.

          How stupidly stubborn can one be to keep rejecting this fact? You seem to have set the standard.

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, you keep claiming to know all the forcings, and yet we are still waiting for you tom disprove natural variability.

            So…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Get to it missy!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Still ZERO data from you, little yapper.!!

            You have ZERO facts to reject.

            Must be nearly Tantrum Time for Ricky, before his keeper puts him into his straitjacket.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Have you got the data from the actual source.. and organised and analysed it, yet..

            Come on ricky , show you have something more than just a single-cell amoeba brain.

          • AndyG55 says:

            I just learnt something..

            It is possible for a single-celled amoeba (Ricky) to have a manic-depressive ADHD fit !!

            amazing !!!

          • Rick says:

            Andy,

            I’ll stick with Mark Serreze (who is a peer I have conversed with on the topic) and his team in Boulder when it comes to the Arctic…..but I’m sure you think they are “manipulating” data….lol.

            As for the Holocene Optimum, studies show it was likely caused by M cycles and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period. The result of the effect was maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the perihelion was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 0.2% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time.

            This has absolutely nothing to do with the cause of current warming. AGAIN… siiiiiigh… it’s NOT M cycles, volcanism, changes in TSI, nor ocean currents that are causing current warming, fucktard.

            The whole crux of your moronic AGW denial “argument” is; “The climate changed before man was here, so man can’t possibly change the climate.” Stupid beyond belief.

            You’re a fucking climate cretin, andie…..and a pathetic little insecure one at that.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor ricky posts another ADHD fuelled anti-science rant, yap-yap..

            a Chihuahua behind a 6ft fence

            ZERO-reality.

            so hilarious to watch. :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            Holocene optimum was GLOBAL.

            OOPS there goes ricky’s rant.

            Down the gurgler into the sewer where it came from.

          • Rick says:

            Andunce.

            “The Holocene was global!”
            So what, dipshit. The cause of the Holocene has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the cause of current warming.

            Thanks for continuing to parade your ignorance while leaving a trail of red herring behind…lol

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor widdle wicky, your brain-washed ignorance is becoming quite boring .

            The Holocene optimum was global, that destroys your axial procession excuse.

            Sorry your rancid brain-washed sludge can’t process that.

            And yes we do know what causes and has caused the very slight warming since the LIA, but you will never see it from inside your fetid, slimy troll cave.

    • Latitude says:

      The reality as to what is happening in the Arctic…
      ..it’s labeled “opinion”

      • Rick says:

        and your opinion is labeled “moronic”

        • AndyG55 says:

          By a moron. so what.

          You are totally irrelevant to any scientific or rational discussion.

          Now off you go and take your ADHD meds before you have another tanty !!

          • Rick says:

            It’s the cutting, rapier wit of andie!!!

            Run for the hills!

            Good God, you’re pathetic idiot.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Get you meds adjusted, wicky,

            .. and get checked for rabies.

          • Rick says:

            more rapier wit directly from the elementary school playground.

            wow, andie, I’m crestfallen! Please stop the abuse!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Tanty time for wicky woo.

            The only abuse is coming FROM you, bonehead.

            Elementary school is still beyond you.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Yawn,……

      Zzzz….

      • Rick says:

        And once again, actual data regarding the reality of the Arctic death spiral makes the insipid AGW deniers eyes glaze over.

        Pathetically hilarious!

        • gator69 says:

          Found that paper yet Ms Rick? You keep avoiding the science. Why is that Ms Rick?

          • Rick says:

            gatorette, your sophomoric “quiz” is a complete waste of my time, little pussy.

            Even a Climate Cretin like you could probably Google the answers in a few minutes….or a few hours given your intellect…

          • gator69 says:

            So another solid fail, eh Ms Rick?

            Nicely done denier.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            I see Ms Rick voted “present” again.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Even a Climate Cretin”

            mirror, mirror..

            … and you still FAIL MISERABLY.

        • sunsettommy says:

          People like you have been blaring this death spiral prediction for over a decade now. But it still there every year.

          Now it is boring.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            I reckon Ms Rick upped her shrill and dirty talk to stake her claim in Nye’s Quadrant.

            I wonder what Mr Rick thinks of all that …

          • Rick says:

            and you dolts were screaming “recovery” in 2013 and 2014…”the AMO is flipping”….whooops!

            What idiots….facepalm time!

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Say hi to Nye, Ms Rick.

          • gator69 says:

            and you dolts were screaming “recovery” in 2013 and 2014…

            I was saying, and am still saying, who gives a sh!t.

            Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Rick? Why is Arctic ice more precious to you than human life? And why will you never engage me in a basic discussion of the science?

            But mostly Ms Rick, why do you hate poor brown people?

          • AndyG55 says:

            You have spent your life face-palming.. why would you change now, .

            Now off you go and take your Valium/Ritalin combo, get your mind somewhere back on a semi- rational balance…

            , and above all….. stop panicking.

          • Rick says:

            Sure, Serreze is lying. You gals know so much more and are so more qualified….gee…who to believe?…lol

            The more you klimate klownz are shown to be dead wrong, the more you dig your little spiked heels in…typical of AGW deniers. Pathetic, but typical.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ricky-AGW shill, you do know that current Arctic sea ice extent is HIGHER than it has been for around 95% of the Holocene, don’t you ?

          Or in your brain-washed IGNORANCE, do you DENY that fact, as well. ;-)

          • Rick says:

            Andy,

            I’ll stick with Mark Serreze (who is a peer I have conversed with on the topic) and his team in Boulder when it comes to the Arctic…..but I’m sure you think they are “manipulating” data….lol.

            As for the Holocene Optimum, studies show it was likely caused by M cycles and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period. The result of the effect was maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the perihelion was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 0.2% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time.

            This has absolutely nothing to do with the cause of current warming. AGAIN… siiiiiigh… it’s NOT M cycles, volcanism, changes in TSI, nor ocean currents that are causing current warming, fucktard.

            The whole crux of your moronic AGW denial “argument” is; “The climate changed before man was here, so man can’t possibly change the climate.” Stupid beyond belief.

            You’re a fucking climate cretin, andie…..and a pathetic little insecure one at that.

          • gator69 says:

            I’ll stick with Mark Serreze (who is a peer…

            This explains all the Arctic screaming. LOL

            But seriously Ms Rick, why do you hate poor brown people.

          • Rick says:

            why do you ask gator? Are you a poor brown person?

          • gator69 says:

            Would it make a difference, Ms Rick the natural climate change denier?

          • AndyG55 says:

            So Rick remains perpetually brain-washed.

            As expected.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Still unable to produce one single piece of empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            So sad, so pathetically brain-washed.

            Arctic sea ice is above the level of 95% of the Holocene.It has fortunately recovered somewhat from the extremes of the Little Ice Age. 1979 was up there with those extremes.

            Greenland ice mass is higher than for most of the last 8000-9000 years.

            The only place there is a problem is in your chicken-little farce of a brain.

            If you want to live in the cold .. move out of your inner city far-left hypocritical moron, fossil fuel powered ghetto, and live in Siberia.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Hey Chicken-little widdle wicky..

            …. did you know that hyper-ventilating / ranting, like you always do, increases your inner CO2. :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Serreze,.

            Has been proven wrong with basically every prediction he has ever made.

            credibility.. roflmao !!!

          • sunsettommy says:

            Rick,as usual is a profoundly ignorant warmist loon,who doesn’t know why people here think Mark Serreze is someone not worth taking seriously because he made terrible sea ice predictions.

            Here it is from December 12, 2007:

            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20071212&id=E8tOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9R8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3919,3618027&hl=en

            Serreze, said Arctic is screaming.

            Try again, Ricky.

          • AndyG55 says:

            There is massive evidence of the Holocene Optimum over the whole world, including SH.

            So you axial tilt argument matches your leftist head-tilt, and has a hole in it even more void than your cranium.

          • Rick says:

            Sure, Serreze is lying. You gals know so much more and are so more qualified….gee…who to believe?…lol

            The more you klimate klownz are shown to be dead wrong, the more you dig your little spiked heels in…typical of AGW deniers. Pathetic, but typical.

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, why do you hate poor brown people? And why do you spread lies? Is it because you hate poor brown people?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Serreze is lying”

            Nah, just drunk too much AGW Kool-Aide.

            Softened his mind.

            and like yours, turned it to non-thinking mush.

            NO death spiral..

            your boyfriend’s prediction FALSE and DISPROVEN

            Now go take another Valium and lie down, before you have yet another 5 year old type tantrum.

          • sunsettommy says:

            I see that warmist TROLL Rick can’t even try to be honest, when he says something:

            Rick,

            “Sure, Serreze is lying. You gals know so much more and are so more qualified….gee…who to believe?…lol”

            No one said he was lying, you trying a strawman angle?

            what Tony and others have showed is that Mr.Serreze made failed PREDICTIONS in 2007,of no summer ice by 5 years ago. He was WRONG!

            The Summer ice cap is still around today.

            That is why he lose credibility.

            The more you talk like this:

            “The more you klimate klownz are shown to be dead wrong, the more you dig your little spiked heels in…typical of AGW deniers. Pathetic, but typical.”

            the more people think YOU have serious brain problems,since you show lack of rational and logical thinking skills. You were shown the evidence, that Mr. Serreze made a statement that have been shown to be incorrect.

            Want to know what “other” FAILED warmist sea ice experts predictions were since 2008?

            Here it is by direct evidence from their own mouths and even their own websites:

            Ice-Free Arctic Forecasts

            https://realclimatescience.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts-2/

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Sure, Serreze is lying.”

            Actually, probably the ONLY remotely correct thing Ricky-chicken-little-sky-is falling has posted on this blog.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “why do you ask gator? Are you a poor brown person?”

            Ms Rick reveals quite a mindset, doesn’t she?

          • Rick says:

            Keep digging in with those little spiked heels, AGW deniers!

            The Arctic is in a steady death spiral. Because previous ice free summer predictions made by some have not come to pass, does not negate this fact.

            Speaking of failed predictions; Tell me, when is the AMO going to flip and this long failed prediction of “Arctic recovery” going to commence? lol..

            Watch and wait, girls….watch and wait!…lol

          • gator69 says:

            So after all your ranting, Ms Rick…

            #1- You still cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

            #2- You still have not provided even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            And lastly, you still cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            And to top it all off, Ms Rick, you still have not explained why it is that you hate poor brown people.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            I wonder if Mr Rick likes Ms Rick talking dirty to him. It seems quite a habit for her …

          • AndyG55 says:

            NSIDC has day 126 2017, ahead of

            2004, 2006 , 2014, 2015, 2016

            MASIE has day 126, 2017 ahead of..

            2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015 and 2016.

            Yes we are watching the FACTS… pity you aren’t.

          • AndyG55 says:

            I bet if woddle wicky looked around him, he would have trouble finding anything that was NOT derived in some fashion from the fossil fuel industry.

            Yet this is what he wishes to DESTROY.

            He wishes everyone (except himself , presumably) to move back into bark huts and live in the stone age.

            He even brings his own inner pestilence with him. :-)

  15. RAH says:

    Yea, not a whole lot of melting going on up there right now. In fact there is some freezing going on.

  16. AndyG55 says:

    MASIE now (day 125) has 2017 Arctic sea ice extent ahead of :

    2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015 and 2016

    • AndyG55 says:

      Also.

      Russian charts show “old ice” to be:
      12% higher than 2016
      41% higher than 2008
      26% higher than 2009
      30% higher than 2012

      An analysis I did earlier in the year yielded the following graph from Russian charts.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Oh , and I left out 2013 in my latest calculation. A know weather event..

        but 2017 is some 65% higher than 2013 :-)

        Death spiral… NOT !!

  17. RAH says:

    And then there’s this:
    Data Analyses Show Rapid Global Surface Cooling, Growing Arctic Ice Thickness – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.0w77LgqV.lLucZQd9.dpuf

  18. sunsettommy says:

    Saved this thread,for a long essay I will post at my climate forum, showing how dumb and ignorant warmists are. Rick will make a nice addition to my essay.

    • AndyG55 says:

      He is certainly hilariously MANIC, isn’t he. :-)

      Poor chicken-little child needs his medication adjusted. !!

      • gator69 says:

        He?

        The reason I assumed Ms Rick was female was precisely because of her unwarranted hysteria.

        But you could be right Andy, maybe all this is driven by her hatred of poor brown people.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Ha ha ha,

        because Rick is so prolific with his stupid comments,I plan to devote part two,just for this dishonest fella.

  19. sunsettommy says:

    Rick, you make clear that you are stupid as hell,since Desmoblog doesn’t even dispute the existence of the petition. What they complain about is this:

    “Atmospheric Science (113)

    Climatology (39)

    Meteorology (341)

    Astronomy (59)

    Astrophysics (26)

    So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.”

    What they leave out is why people you and them at Desmofoggy, are exposed as being irrationally stupid people. Why?

    Here is why:

    The IPCC reports does the very same thing,where they have Economists,Physics,Biologists,Botanists,Geologists, Mathematicians, and many more work in developing the reports,since 1990.

    Not only that The Oregon Petition has many more science groups in it that Desmofoggy completely ignore in their dishonest misleading post. Smoggy posted only the first block, but left out Earth and Environment blocks.

    Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

    1. Atmosphere (579)

    I) Atmospheric Science (112)
    II) Climatology (39)
    III) Meteorology (343)
    IV) Astronomy (59)
    V) Astrophysics (26)

    2. Earth (2,240)

    I) Earth Science (94)
    II) Geochemistry (63)
    III) Geology (1,684)
    IV) Geophysics (341)
    V) Geoscience (36)
    VI) Hydrology (22)

    3. Environment (986)

    I) Environmental Engineering (487)
    II) Environmental Science (253)
    III) Forestry (163)
    IV) Oceanography (83)

    Desmofoggy also didn’t bother to show this either:

    “All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

    The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

    Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

    1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

    2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

    3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

    4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

    5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

    6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

    7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.”

    http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

    • gator69 says:

      I wonder if Ms Rick can do math? Let’s help her out!

      31,000 x .005 = 155

      As I recall the 97% figure encompassed 76 self selected climate experts, meaning that the majority of climate experts say CAGW is BS.

      So in reality, only 33% of climate experts say CAGW is real.

    • old44 says:

      It took one bloke to figure out gravity.
      It took one bloke to figure out evolution.
      It took one bloke to figure out the Theory of Relativity.
      It takes 30,000 to try any bluff their way through the maze of GW, AGW, CAGW, CC, ACC, CACC, and untold billions in grants.

  20. sunsettommy says:

    From Desmoggy blog:

    “Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.”

    Misleading because the Petition was created to fight the KYOTO Treaty proposal, that was at the time being debated. The OISM was against it,hence the Petition.

    “The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.”

    Misleading again since the words, NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCE were never anywhere on the petition at all. I have seen the original page when it first came out,nothing on it indicated it was from NAS.

    “Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since deceased) a notorious global warming denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

    Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.”

    Desmoggy now wades into the lie arena here, since from day one of the petition,Dr. Seitz was described as PAST President, of the National Academy of science,USA.

    It is right here on this petition page where he wrote the cover letter.

    http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php

    Desmoggy still can’t stop lying or mislead with their smearing claims:

    “The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

    So pathetic since people who signed the Petition,do so of their free will and after they were invited to read the Letter From Frederick Seitz AND the science paper that forms the basis of their decision, to sign or not to sign:

    “Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research”

    http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

    Freeman Dyson,Edward Teller, Fred Singer and many more famous scientists signed the Petition. I personally know a few of them who signed it,they KNOW what they signed for.

    It appears Desmoggy has insulted up to 30,000 people……..

    • AndyG55 says:

      “It appears Desmoggy has insulted up to 30,000 people……..”

      Desmog is an insult to ALL people… just by its very existence.

      A LYING, DECEITFUL, far-left SEWER.

      Just the sort of place you would expect a manic ADHD alarmist to cite.

      • Rick says:

        If 30,000 actually rejected AGW (they didn’t), then they’d deserve to be insulted…just like you, moron.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Still search for the right meds, I see.

        • gator69 says:

          If 30,000 actually rejected AGW (they didn’t), then they’d deserve to be insulted…just like you, moron.

          Ms Rick, the 31,487 scientists that did actually sign the Oregon Petition, agree that there is no scientific evidence that man made CO2 is going to cause catastrophic heating and disruption of the Earth’s climate. In fact the 31,487 scientists that acyually did sign the Oregon Petition also said increased CO2
          would likely be beneficial to life on Earth.

          I know this does not fit your world view, so maybe you should crack open that thick head and try thinking about changing views that may be wrong.

          But please, if you prefer, continue making a total ass of yourself and continue to further discredit CAGW.

  21. sunsettommy says:

    To expand on the dishonest,misleading Desmoggy blog statements,first here is the misleading attempt:

    “Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.”

    But the Petition Project site, said this:

    “ABSTRACT

    A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.”

    and,

    “SUMMARY

    Political leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting human production of “greenhouse gases,” chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2). They feared that CO2 would result in “human-caused global warming” – hypothetical severe increases in Earth’s temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. During the past 10 years, many political efforts have been made to force worldwide agreement to the Kyoto treaty.”

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    See how Desmoggy distorts what the Abstract said?

    See how much they leave out on what the Petition Project stated about what they object to?

    See how dishonest they are?

    ==========================================
    Here is the ORIGINAL Dr. Seitz cover letter,that Desmofoggy thinks was duping well educated people:

    “Letter from Frederick Seitz
    Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

    Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of “global warming,” a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.

    The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

    This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

    The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

    It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

    We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

    Frederick Seitz
    Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
    President Emeritus, Rockefeller University”

    Notice that in 1998 he was PAST President of the NAS?

    The NAS was goaded to post this absurd statement since a simple examination of the Petition has NOTHING of the NAS set up in it:

    “The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

    Go ahead look everywhere in this ORIGINAL Petition Project (as it was originally called) website:

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

    Desmoggy apparently think 31,000 Petition signatories are easily duped into signing,implying they are too easily manipulated by a simple science paper and easily read and undestood Cover letter, from Dr. Seitz.

    Think Freeman Dyson or Edward Teller were conned into signing,think they are stupid?

    • gator69 says:

      Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on the OP Tommy. I doubt Ms Rick will acknowledge hard and fast facts (once again), but for the many others who will read this thread with an open mind there is no doubt that the OP is indeed valid, and indeed devastating to the alarmist dogma.

  22. sunsettommy says:

    The strident dishonest of Rick,Griff,Jim and many other warmist cultists is shown over and over,even when they have been told that for long periods of time in the early part of the Holocene of little to no Summer sea ice in the Arctic region.

    They have been shown this over and over a number of science papers and even a presentation from Dr. Meier,who said this:

    “Can the Arctic really become sea ice-free during summer?

    It has been suggested that the Arctic really can’t lose all its sea ice during summer because there isn’t enough energy to melt all of the ice in the short summer. There are a couple of reasons why this thinking is faulty.

    First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-part-2/

    Here is another science paper warmists ignore:

    “New insights on Arctic Quaternary climate variability from palaeo-records and numerical modelling

    Abstract

    Terrestrial and marine geological archives in the Arctic contain information on environmental change through Quaternary interglacial–glacial cycles. The Arctic Palaeoclimate and its Extremes (APEX) scientific network aims to better understand the magnitude and frequency of past Arctic climate variability, with focus on the “extreme” versus the “normal” conditions of the climate system. One important motivation for studying the amplitude of past natural environmental changes in the Arctic is to better understand the role of this region in a global perspective and provide base-line conditions against which to explore potential future changes in Arctic climate under scenarios of global warming. In this review we identify several areas that are distinct to the present programme and highlight some recent advances presented in this special issue concerning Arctic palaeo-records and natural variability, including spatial and temporal variability of the Greenland Ice Sheet, Arctic Ocean sediment stratigraphy, past ice shelves and marginal marine ice sheets, and the Cenozoic history of Arctic Ocean sea ice in general and Holocene oscillations in sea ice concentrations in particular. The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185

    • Rick says:

      sunny….lol….I have never questioned what Paleoclimatologists have concluded regarding Arctic sea ice conditions in the Holocene, you dolt.

      I tried to explain to you Klimate Klownz that the cause of Holocene warming has absolutely nothing to do with the cause of current warming. You nuts seem to think that because it’s been warmer in the past, that human activity can’t affect climate. This is absurdly stupid, but you just keep parading your ignorance of this fact, k?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Holocene Optimum was GLOBAL.

        You anti-science EXCUSE, came from the sewer and was immediately flushed back where it came from.

        Still waiting for a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

        waiting… waiting….. yawwwwwn !!!

        • Rick says:

          Doesn’t matter if it was global. The cause has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the cause of current warming.

          Why can’t you get your little marshmallow arms around that?? lol

          • AndyG55 says:

            You have no idea anything to do with climate, do you widdle wicky.

            Sucked into the AGW scam, and now it occupies your whole irrational ahdh infected mind.

          • Rick says:

            Can’t address the salient fact that we understand the causes of past climate change and that this is just one of the very reasons the SAME scientists are telling you that the cause of current warming is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the causes of past climate changes.

            You are a Climate Cretin of the highest order, candie-andie. lol

          • AndyG55 says:

            You can’t address ANY salient facts.

            You have proven you have ZERO knowledge about climate.

            Now go ask your keeper to tighten your straitjacket back up, before you hurt yourself.

      • sunsettommy says:

        You are one of the worst warmist troll I have even seen on the internet. You are full of wind and pust.

        The whole point of showing that there were long periods of little to no Summer ice,yet no climate catastrophe showed up,that CO2 was at the 260 ppm level,the whole time.

        The obvious eludes you so easily.

        • Rick says:

          You have no understanding of orbital mechanics, I see.

          The CO2/ice threshold is much lower when M cycles cause an increase in TSI.

          Your understanding of Paleoclimatology is infantile at best.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You have proven you cannot back even the most basic farce of your baseless religion.

            Go and yap somewhere else, pathetic infantile trollette.

          • sunsettommy says:

            You are truly stupid,since what you gabber about doesn’t even address what I said.

            CO2 effects are the same then as it is now,which warmist scientists have long argued about.

          • Rick says:

            lol…you fools are flat out ignorant regarding Paleoclimatology.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Say a zero-knowledge fool ?

            Your opinions of what we know are of ZERO merit or importance.

            You are nothing but that smelly stuff that comes from the rear end of a yapping Chihuahua.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Rick,

            You post nothing to support your claim, but ready to pour on the insults instead. Meanwhile I posted a few science based sources to support my statements.

            You are not a rational being.

  23. sunsettommy says:

    Another science paper,warmists ignore:

    “Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue.

    Abstract
    Extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coasts show that these areas once saw seasonally open water. In addition to beach ridges, large amounts of striated boulders in and on the marine sediments from the same period also indicate that the ocean was open enough for ice bergs to drift along the shore and drop their loads. Presently the North Greenland coastline is permanently beleaguered by pack ice, and ice bergs are very rare and locked up in the sea ice. Predictions of the rapidly decreasing sea ice in the Arctic Ocean generally point to this area as the last to become ice free in summer. We therefore suggest that the occurrence of wave generated shores and abundant ice berg dropped boulders indicate that the Arctic Ocean was nearly free of sea ice in the summer at the time when they were formed. The beach ridges occur as isostatically raised “staircases”, and C14-dated curves for relative sea level change show that they were formed in the Early Holocene. A large set of samples of molluscs from beach ridges and marine sediments were collected in the summer of 2007, and are presently being dated to give a precise dating of the ice free interval. Preliminary results indicate that it fell within the interval from c. 8.5 to c. 6 ka – being progressively shorter from south to north. We therefore conclude that for a priod in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted “greenhouse situation” expected to appear within our century.”

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F

    • Rick says:

      “OOH, OH! It was warmer in the Holocene!”

      No frickin’ shit, Sherlock!

      What does Holocene warming have to do with current warming?

      Hint: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

      • AndyG55 says:

        DENY climate change all you want, wicky.

        and RANT all you want

        Its hilarious watching your tantrums, like a 5 year old in a supermarket who can’t have that chocy bar it wants.

        FACTS are against you little child. GET OVER IT

        • Rick says:

          Again, moron, the cause of Holocene warming has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the cause of current warming.

          Why do you take Paleo studies as Gospel, yet reject what the same scientists are telling you regarding the cause of current warming?

          You can’t answer without outing your ignorance, denial, and hypocrisy. lol

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yes widdle wicky, whatever you want to believe.

            Still waiting for a paper that shows CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            so far you are flying using your own flatulence.

          • Rick says:

            You deflect because you can’t address the salient fact that we understand the causes of past climate change and that this is just one of the very reasons the SAME scientists are telling you that the cause of current warming is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the causes of past climate changes.

            You are a Climate Cretin of the highest order, candie-andie. lol

            Oh, and here’s a link to a study you “demand”, which I already linked…lol. Now go ahead and deny this exists or explain how shoddy the research methods are and then link YOUR paper disputing this, ok, pussy?

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            “The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.”

          • AndyG55 says:

            Feldman again

            a BIG OOPS of a paper, reliant totally on El Nino spike.

            And the fools didn’t even know it !!

            So much for being scientists. !

            There are rumours their data actually went to 2012.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Actually it is has a lot to do with the current situation,you are simply too stupid to see it.

        • Rick says:

          You are full of shit, sunny. Changes in orbital mechanics were the cause of the Holocene and have nothing to do with current warming.

          Directly from the NOAA (but your “rebuttal” will be “They are lying!” ) LMAO at your abject denial!

          https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period

          “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”

          Explain away, sunnie-boy! lol

          • sunsettommy says:

            Never once disputed that as a cause of the earlywarming,what YOU can’t figure out is why warmist scientists never waver in saying CO2 warm forcing effect are always the same.

            Meanwhile you are a joke anyway since temperature changes were large through the holocene, even during the previous glaciation cycle,where temperature swings were even larger.CO2 was never a factor in all that time,as it was below 250 ppm the whole time.

            Here is a chart for you fella,based on the ice core data:

            http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0128766b0364970c-pi

          • sunsettommy says:

            I like this admission,that flew way over your head:

            “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”

            Notice what they leave out?

            The Suns output has been at the highest levels in thousands of years the last few decades. With increase solar radiance,warmed the ocean waters up,which helps drive strong El-Nino’s,which has been the SOLE cause of warming since at least 1979.

            There have been many science papers published in recent years supporting this premise. You are not being told the whole story.

          • Rick says:

            sunnie, this is utter bullshit.

            “The Suns output has been at the highest levels in thousands of years the last few decades. With increase solar radiance,warmed the ocean waters up,which helps drive strong El-Nino’s,which has been the SOLE cause of warming since at least 1979.”

            The fact of the matter is that the sun’s output has not risen in the last few decades as you so erroneously claim. but rather the opposite.

            From the American Institute of Physics – a history of research on solar activity

            http://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm

            “The continuing satellite measurements of the solar constant found it cycling within narrow limits, scarcely one part in a thousand. Yet the global temperature rise that had resumed in the 1970s was accelerating at a record-breaking pace, chalking up a total of 0.8°C of warming since the late 19th century. It seemed impossible to explain that using the Sun alone, without invoking greenhouse gases. “Over the past 20 years,” a group reviewing the data reported in 2007, “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.” It was a stroke of good luck that the rise of solar activity since the 19th century halted in the 1960s. For if solar activity had continued to rise, global temperatures might have climbed slightly faster — but scientists would have had a much harder job identifying greenhouse gases as the main cause of the global warming.”

            https://phys.org/news/2015-03-fluctuations-solar.html

            “As far as the long-term change in the solar activity is concerned, the Sun is evidently currently in what, from the perspective of Earth’s inhabitants, is a very interesting phase. Sunspot counts in the past years indicate that solar activity is on the decline again after 60 very active years. For the coming decades, the researchers expect a decrease in solar activity. Climate change skeptics now claim that this cooling could counterbalance the global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. But Krivova dismisses this: “Current scientific work and the reports of the IPCC clearly show that greenhouse gases have contributed many times more than the Sun to the change in the Earth’s heat balance in the past decades.”

            Welcome to reality, sunnie….if you choose to enter….lol

          • AndyG55 says:

            ROFLMAO

            ” Sunspot counts in the past years indicate that solar activity is on the decline again after 60 very active years.”

            Do you even read what you copy??

            60 VERY ACTIVE YEARS.

            How many feet can you fit in your mouth at one time, child-mind.

            They also absolutely CAN the climate models because those worthless models don’t treat solar effects properly, in fact ignore them
            completely.. We already knew that. !!!

            “No climate model can deliver reliable data if the solar activity isn’t computed correctly”

            She also confirms that solar activity has dropped considerably over the last decade or so, with the system lag, this should start to manifest itself over the next couple of years.

            NO WONDER you are on the verge of PANIC, widdle wicky !!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            And the take-way is in the last paragraph

            “Even today, researchers don’t really understand the processes taking place in the middle atmosphere. Knowledge about the Sun’s impact is also fragmentary.”

            DOH !!!

            Thanks for the paper.. so funny that you didn’t bother to read it first :-)

            Poor brain-dead widdle -wicky.

          • Rick says:

            How moronic can you get?

            The conclusion is that there is ZERO evidence that any type of change in solar activity accounts for current warming…..same thing all models show.

            Try reading for comprehension for once.

            “Over the past 20 years,” a group reviewing the data reported in 2007, “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”

          • AndyG55 says:

            A group of AGW comfirmation bias hacks?

            So what

            Their ignorance of anything to do with solar and lags in solar effects are ta joke.

            They, and you, probably even think that TSI is the only variable

            That’s IGNORANCE for you… DOH !!!

  24. sunsettommy says:

    The early Holocene CO2 levels were in the 250-260 range during the time of little to no Summer ice in the Arctic region. Here is another science paper warmists will ignore, because it is against their religion:

    “Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific-Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean)

    ABSTRACT

    In this study, we present new detailed biomarker-based sea ice records from two sediment cores recovered in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea. These new biomarker data may provide new insights on processes controlling recent and past sea ice changes. The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP. This Late Holocene trend in sea ice change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas seems to be contemporaneous with similar changes in sea ice extent recorded from other Arctic marginal seas. The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice (and surface-water productivity) are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation. The short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution Middle Holocene record is probably related to solar forcing. Our new data on Holocene sea ice variability may contribute to synoptic reconstructions of regional to global Holocene climate change based on terrestrial and marine archives.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2929/abstract

    From his own CHART indicating that the Current Arctic region is above average for the entire Holocene:

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17-768×496.jpg

    The obvious question is how did that happen while CO2 level were around the 260 ppm range?

    • Rick says:

      So it was warmer in the Holocene…No shit, Sherlock! lmao!

      The cause of Holocene warming is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the cause of current warming.

      Why do you take Paleo studies as Gospel, yet reject what the same scientists are telling you regarding the cause of current warming?

      You can’t answer without outing your ignorance, denial, and hypocrisy. lol

      • AndyG55 says:

        Poor widdle wicky, started denying Holocene optimum.

        when proven wrong makes up excuses he can’t substantiate and has to say past warming was unrelated… yes little child, whatever your brain-washing forces you to “believe”.

        Now has nothing but his brain-washed mantra to stop his irrational mind from exploding.

        There has been very little warming, little trollette, we are only a small bump out f the coldest period in the last 10,000 years..

        And what little warming there has been is easily accounted for by solar and ocean effects.

        In fact the ONLY warming during the whole satellite era has come from El Nino events, which are totally unrelated to any human cause.

        No warming between those events… no CO2 signature.

        Just a made up fabrication.

        You STILL haven’t provided any proof that you have any idea of “forcings” and their relative strengths.

        You STILL haven’t provided one single piece of measured proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

        All you have is your rabid yapping.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Andy, it is clear he doesn’t know how ignorant he is,that you and a few others here are scientists,who know a lot more than she/she does.

          You and Gator and Colorado have asked this CO2 turd many times these questions:

          “You STILL haven’t provided any proof that you have any idea of “forcings” and their relative strengths.

          You STILL haven’t provided one single piece of measured proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.”

          she/he never will since the little bug has no idea.

      • sunsettommy says:

        I post published science papers,post what the IPCC says, YOU NEVER provide a counterpoint to them,just a lot of wind and pust and insults by the truckload.

        You have been shown what the per decade rate is supposed to be according to the IPCC,while I showed several times now, that the rate is less than HALF that.

        While negligible warming since 1998,that is soon to vanish as the last of the El-Nino effect fade away. Since 1979, virtually all warming has been from El-Nino events and zero to a small cooling trend without El-Nino hanging around.

        This is why you are so full of crap,because deep down you know this is true,thus you blusher,insult,ridicule,name calling in every post without any rational statements in between them, El-Nino’s have been THE cause of warming in the satellite age.

        • Rick says:

          Oh. now it’s El Nino’s that account for all warming, huh?

          Wrong again:

          https://phys.org/news/2016-02-el-nino-global-warmingwhat.html

          And then there’s this thorn in your denier side…OOOPS! time for yet another facepalm!

          Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming:

          https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2100.html

          • sunsettommy says:

            From your second link:

            “Here we present climate modelling evidence for a doubling in the occurrences in the future in response to greenhouse warming. We estimate the change by aggregating results from climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 3 (CMIP3; ref. 10) and 5 (CMIP5; ref. 11) multi-model databases, and a perturbed physics ensemble12. The increased frequency arises from a projected surface warming over the eastern equatorial Pacific that occurs faster than in the surrounding ocean waters13, 14, facilitating more occurrences of atmospheric convection in the eastern equatorial region.”

            Another climate model exercise.

            CO2 warm forcing effect hupothesis are to be in the ATMOSPHERE only. “Back radiation” doesn’t go past the surface of the waters anyway.

            Pathetic.

          • AndyG55 says:

            first paper..

            “Scientists know that El Niño contributes to an increase in global temperatures”

            Well yes.

            The rest is just AGW propaganda pap.
            The sort lapped up by the brain-washed cultists.

            There is no proof that CO2 effects ocean warming.. In fact, all physics says NOPE..

            But just keep “imagining”.. its what AGW cultist do.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “CO2 warm forcing effect hypothesis are to be in the ATMOSPHERE only”

            And that is now a very FAILED hypothesis. !!

            The only thing adding any heat to the atmosphere is El Nino and ocean effects..

            … NEITHER of which have ANYTHING TO DO WITH CO2.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Zero warming from 1980-1997…

          • AndyG55 says:

            ZERO warming after effects of 1998 El Nino had died down in 2001, to start of 2015/16 El Nino

          • AndyG55 says:

            This TOTAL LACK OF WARMING when there isn’t an El Nino, coupled with the fact that El Ninos are NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2..

            shows that the small beneficial warming has had NOTHING to do with human CO2.

          • Rick says:

            Time for a reality check, girls!

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

            Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .

            In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset.

            Here’s how global temperatures in the four datasets compare over the past 130 years. You can see they all show a warming trend, but there are some year-to-year differences too.

            Global average temperature anomaly
            Global average temperature anomaly from 1880 to 2012, compared to the 1951-1980 long term average. Source: NASA Earth Observatory.
            Of the four datasets, GISTEMP (red line) shows the fastest warming. JMA tends to track slightly lower than the others (purple). So why do we see differences between the datasets?

            The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task.

            Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor widdle wicky doesn’t seem to know that all those sets are based on the FARCICAL GHCN data.

            So funny just HOW IGNORANT he is. !!!

            High coverage .. what a load of complete BS !!!

            All that grey area..

            NO DATA.. absolute fabrication

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor fool probably doesn’t even know that NASA’s own satellites CONFIRM RSS and UAH data..

            And really, using one of the main AGW scammer groups as a reference.. so hilarious. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Time for a reality check,”

            The reality check is in the two graphs I posted.

            No warming in any period not affected by NON-CO2 El Ninos.

            or are you going to go even further down your funky mushroom induced rabid hole and claim El Ninos are forced by CO2.

            Now that would be even more hilarious than your mindless ranting elsewhere. :-)

          • Rick says:

            “Farcical GHCN data”

            lol…any data that paints your sorry ass into a corner you dub, “farcical”, or “manipulated”.

            The only thing here that’s been manipulated is your miniscule understanding of climate science. The only thing here farcical resides in that little space between your ears.

            You gals are a laugh riot with your abject denial….keeps me laughing!

          • AndyG55 says:

            GHCN has been PROVEN to be HIGHLY manipulated, ALWAYS in the “right” direction to support the baseless AGW religion

            YEs, it is

          • gator69 says:

            lol…any data that paints your sorry ass into a corner you dub, “farcical”, or “manipulated”.

            Ms Rick, there is no such thing as “adjusted data”. Data is what you get, not what you make.

            da·ta ˈdadə,ˈdādə/ noun:
            1- facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

            You guys use artifacts of analysis to make your BS claims, not data.

            Is this yet another climate science fact about which you wtre completely unaware Ms Rick? TThe more you post, the dumber you get.

        • sunsettommy says:

          You never did honestly addressed my comment here at all:

          https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/extent-of-multi-year-arctic-sea-ice-is-the-highest-in-a-decade/#comment-49916

          since it was about the PER DECADE warming projection. You COMPLETELY avoided answering. Your el-nino reply fails, because the reality is that the IPCC per decade projection is a massive failure,making your el-nino comment worthless.

          Without el-nino’s there is no warming trend worth talking about.

          • AndyG55 says:

            MASIE now has 2017 extent above:-

            2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016

            and is having the slowest “melt from maximum” of any years in the MASIE data.

  25. gator69 says:

    Ms Rick, you constantly claim to know exactly what changed previous climates, and exactly what is changing our climate now.

    Put up, or shut up, Ms Rick.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    Stop dodging the science Ms Rick.

    • Rick says:

      gator, it’s not me claiming this, it’s the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of scientists who do the research. You know, the conclusions you abjectly deny?

      Natural variables are still and always have been at play. What you struggle to grasp is that AGW has overridden, or “trumped”, if you will, the effects of natural variability. This is where you disembark the boat of reality and the conclusions of 150+ years of rigorous scientific research

      The cause of current warming, especially since about 1950?

      It’s not M cycles
      It’s not volcanism
      It’s not changes in solar radiation
      It’s not tectonic plate movement.
      It’s not ENSO

      Stop dodging the science, gator, and explain to me what YOUR “alternate hypothesis” is and the peer-reviewed research to back it…or just stop parading your ignorance on the topic.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Ha ha ha,

        You STILL have not answered Gators question.

        It should be easy since you made this consensus whopper:

        “gator, it’s not me claiming this, it’s the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of scientists who do the research. You know, the conclusions you abjectly deny?”

        Meanwhile you have completely ignored my per decade warming trend point over and over,gee I wonder why………

        • Rick says:

          The answers are in my above post, moron.

          The “no warming for 18, 19 yrs”.. or whatever you want to make up is a lie.

          Here’s more reality for you to deny:

          https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

          Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .

          In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset.

          Here’s how global temperatures in the four datasets compare over the past 130 years. You can see they all show a warming trend, but there are some year-to-year differences too.

          Global average temperature anomaly
          Global average temperature anomaly from 1880 to 2012, compared to the 1951-1980 long term average. Source: NASA Earth Observatory.
          Of the four datasets, GISTEMP (red line) shows the fastest warming. JMA tends to track slightly lower than the others (purple). So why do we see differences between the datasets?

          The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task.

          Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor widdle wicky doesn’t seem to know that all those sets are based on the FARCICAL GHCN data.

            So funny just HOW IGNORANT he is. !!!

            High coverage .. what a load of complete BS !!!

            All that grey area..

            NO DATA.. absolute fabrication

            Grey area.. NO DATA.. they say it themselves. !!!

          • sunsettommy says:

            Rick,

            Once again you show how ignorant AND stupid you are, since they leave out something critical,that your ignorant stupid mind misses.

            Do you know what it is little child?

            The omission is so obvious to rational people who have been in this stuff since the 1970’s, as I have. I have already brought it up a few times with you yet you STILL don’t notice what is missing.

            It is one of THE most important measurement,one the IPCC brings up in EVERY report they publish.

            I will pass the other obvious holes in your stupid link.

            Pisstemp is a TERRIBLE data set since those gaps have no data in them at all,which is also poorly sited as well in the few places they are in.

          • Rick says:

            Wow, you gals have the denials bad! It doesn’t matter how much evidence I post, you simply deny it or claim it’s doctored or inaccurate. That’s a real scientific defense, girls! LMAO!

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, I am still waiting…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Seems Rabid-Ricky doesn’t know just how bad surface station data is.

            Sparse, unevenly space, constantly changing, subject to huge, often unknown UHI effects, subject to massive unsupportable adjustments.

            The whole surface data is just one big FARCE, totally at the mercy of the largest AGW scammers and fraudsters on the planet NCDC/NOAA/GISS…

            … and they have no mercy, they torture it until it says exactly what they want it to say.

            Goodness know how much money they have made out of this venture.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You basically know nothing about climate, do you, widdle wicky.

        The ONLY warming in the whole satellite record has come from El Nino events.

        So yes , it is ENSO, ocean currents and solar effects.

        And if you think TSI is the only change in solar energy….
        … you are even more ignorant than even I thought you were.

        Surface warming is certainly man-made.. a mix of UHI effects and massive maladjustments.

        You STILL have no paper to show empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere…

        You STILL can’t support the very basis of the AGW scam.

        Just ignorant brain-washed, (until there is none), rabid, unsupportable belief.

        • sunsettommy says:

          The little turd,doesn’t seem to realize that the entire AGW scam, are built on many unverified climate models that have long been shown to lack forecast skill. There are NO empirical research existing,which is why he and many other warmist morons never produce the papers.They don’t EXIST!

          Already told this ignorant moron,that the climate models in the IPCC reports keep pushing the .30C per decade projection,while the Satellite data shows less than half that rate.

        • Rick says:

          andie, lol…save yourself further embarrassment and educate yourself:

          From the American Institute of Physics – a history of research on solar activity

          http://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm

          “The continuing satellite measurements of the solar constant found it cycling within narrow limits, scarcely one part in a thousand. Yet the global temperature rise that had resumed in the 1970s was accelerating at a record-breaking pace, chalking up a total of 0.8°C of warming since the late 19th century. It seemed impossible to explain that using the Sun alone, without invoking greenhouse gases. “Over the past 20 years,” a group reviewing the data reported in 2007, “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.” It was a stroke of good luck that the rise of solar activity since the 19th century halted in the 1960s. For if solar activity had continued to rise, global temperatures might have climbed slightly faster — but scientists would have had a much harder job identifying greenhouse gases as the main cause of the global warming.”

          https://phys.org/news/2015-03-fluctuations-solar.html

          “As far as the long-term change in the solar activity is concerned, the Sun is evidently currently in what, from the perspective of Earth’s inhabitants, is a very interesting phase. Sunspot counts in the past years indicate that solar activity is on the decline again after 60 very active years. For the coming decades, the researchers expect a decrease in solar activity. Climate change skeptics now claim that this cooling could counterbalance the global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. But Krivova dismisses this: “Current scientific work and the reports of the IPCC clearly show that greenhouse gases have contributed many times more than the Sun to the change in the Earth’s heat balance in the past decades.”

          • AndyG55 says:

            The ONLY warming in the whole satellite record has come from El Nino events.

            So yes , it is ENSO, ocean currents and solar effects.

            And if you think TSI is the only change in solar energy….
            … you are even more ignorant than even I thought you were.

            Surface warming is certainly man-made.. a mix of UHI effects and massive maladjustments.

            You STILL have no paper to show empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere…

            You STILL can’t support the very basis of the AGW scam. YOU ARE AN INEFFECTUAL RANTER. !

            Just ignorant brain-washed, (until there is none), rabid, unsupportable belief.

          • AndyG55 says:

            That last paper.. you obviously didn’t read or comprehend it

            So hilarious..

            60 YEARS OF VERY ACTIVE SOLAR ACTIVITY. !

            Take your foot out of your mouth before you post, bozo. !! :-)

            “Even today, researchers don’t really understand the processes taking place in the middle atmosphere. Knowledge about the Sun’s impact is also fragmentary.”

            And she confirms the recent roll-off in solar activity.

            With the lag in the Earth’s system, a cooling trend should kick in real soon.

            Won’t that be so embarrassing for you. :-)

            No wonder you and your fellow AGW scammers are so, so in PANIC. :-)

          • Rick says:

            andunce:

            Which part of this don’t you understand?

            “Over the past 20 years,” a group reviewing the data reported in 2007, “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”

            And add to that 10 more years of a slight decline in solar activity and now you are left with 30 years of warming that you can’t reconcile with your cherry picking bullshit.

            It’s not the sun, morons. This has been proven ad nauseum…..but of course you deny it.

            Pathetic little girls….

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, are you going to runa away, or lie again?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Rick says:

            gatorette,

            I’m pitching
            You’re catching.

            You are also free now. I’ve grown tired of owning you.

          • gator69 says:

            In your dreams Ms Rick!

            Let’s try again, idiot.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • AndyG55 says:

            poor Rabid-Ricky,

            The only warming over the past 20or so years has come form El Nino NON-CO2 events.

            Her last statement is AGW mantra for getting funding.

            It is a standard unproven AGW RANT.

            We are STILL waiting for a paper proving empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            So far you are just one big fat rabidly yapping EMPTY drone.

      • Latitude says:

        AGW has overridden, or “trumped”, if you will, the effects of natural variability…..

        So you’re saying we would be a lot cooler now?

        • Rick says:

          Wow lattie, let me guess; no college? lol..

          • AndyG55 says:

            Little ricky can’t answer..

            no more kindy for him !!

          • sunsettommy says:

            You have no idea who he is,thus your college question make you even more stupid.

            Here many have science degrees, and the host of this blog has a full Geology degree.

          • gator69 says:

            Wow lattie, let me guess; no college?

            This coming from the troll who cannot grasp basic logic? LOL

            Ms Rick, remember when you said the Sun had not been active? Woopsy!

            We have been presently living in a period of very high sun activity with a level of activity that is unprecedentedly high for the last few centuries covered by direct solar observation.

            http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf

            So it is no wonder that…

            #1- You still cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

            #2- You still have not provided even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            And lastly, you still cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            But keep digging Ms Rick, you are close to completely discrediting CAGW all on your own.

          • Rick says:

            And you have no idea who I am. Latitude has demonstrated zero science acumen, hence my assumption.

          • gator69 says:

            I don’t give a rat’s ass who you are, because I know waht you are, an idiot.

            Try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Rick says:

            gator, you an incorrigible fool.

            It’s not M cycles
            It’s not solar activity
            It’s not changing ocean currents.
            It’s not volcanism.

            Gee, maybe it’s The Force! LMAO at your ignorance.

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, you cannot measure that which you cannot count. So how is it you can claim to rule out forcings you cannot measure?

            Hmmm?

            Let’s try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Rick says:

            gatorette, I’ve listed all major climate forcings repeatedly.

            Try a remedial reading course.

            None of them, nor any combination thereof, can account for current warming (since about 1950).

            Denying this further parades your glaring ignorance and abject denial.

          • gator69 says:

            gatorette, I’ve listed all major climate forcings repeatedly.

            Gawd I’ve been waiting for you to say just that! LOL

            You have less than zero knowledge of climate science.

            Moron of the year… Ms Rick!

          • AndyG55 says:

            ” remember when you said the Sun had not been active? Woopsy!”

            Even the link he posted said that we have had 60 YEARS OF VERY ACTIVE SUN.

            Big whoops !!!!

            This putz is as umb as dumb gets. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            And the take-away to go with his inability to answer gator is any rational way comes fromone of the articles he cites.

            “And the take-way is in the last paragraph

            “Even today, researchers don’t really understand the processes taking place in the middle atmosphere. Knowledge about the Sun’s impact is also fragmentary.”

            Poor Rabid-Ricky is so hilariously DUMB that he can’t even see that this counteracts every bit of AGW mantra he keep dribbling and yapping about.

            Don’t know what the sun’s interactions are.. ..

            but its not the sun,

            even though we have had 60 years of very active solar effects at the same time as the warming. then no warming at all except an El Nino transient this century.

            He probably so dumb that doesn’t even know that an El Nino is a release of energy from the ocean.. ie an ocean COOLING event !!

            The guy really is a base-level moron. !

          • AndyG55 says:

            “And you have no idea who I am.”

            Yes we do, you are a low-information, ADHD fuelled, rabid trollette.

            And you also don’t seem to know anything except the propaganda pap sold to you by an SkS-type “climate change 101” course.

            You are destined to remain PERPETUALLY IGNORANT… and to bask in that arrogant ignorance.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            She took it hook, line and sinker.

          • Latitude says:

            “None of them, nor any combination thereof, can account for current warming (since about 1950).”

            So you’re saying we would be a lot cooler now?

  26. gator69 says:

    gator, it’s not me claiming this, it’s the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of scientists who do the research. You know, the conclusions you abjectly deny?

    Ms Rick, we have already shown that only 33% of climate experts believe in CAGW. I have personally challenged you for weeks to back your wild ass assertions about “knowing” climate forcings, and you have failed completely each and every time. Math and science are not your strong suit.

    Natural variables are still and always have been at play. What you struggle to grasp is that AGW has overridden, or “trumped”, if you will, the effects of natural variability. This is where you disembark the boat of reality and the conclusions of 150+ years of rigorous scientific research

    Great! Now share Ms Rick.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    The cause of current warming, especially since about 1950?

    It’s not M cycles
    It’s not volcanism
    It’s not changes in solar radiation
    It’s not tectonic plate movement.
    It’s not ENSO

    Sorry Ms Rick, but you cannot substantiate that claim until you complete the two tasks above, tasks you have repeatedly failed to accomplish. Why is that Ms Rick? Just how f’ing stupid are you? This is basic logic Ms Rick!

    Stop dodging the science, gator, and explain to me what YOUR “alternate hypothesis” is and the peer-reviewed research to back it…or just stop parading your ignorance on the topic.

    Ms Rick, I am not making the dubious claim that for the first time in 4,500,000,000 years, man is altering our climate. I have nothing to prove, it is called the “null hypothesis”, and it stands as the precedent.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you have provided zero evidence to refute natural variability. You are possibly the dumbest troll I have ever met.

    You don’t understand basic math, English, science or logic. You have no clue what you are speaking of, as you are an obvious parrot, simply regurgitating what you have heard from the 33%.

    • Rick says:

      How f-ing retarded can you be? Let’s see, so the Earth’s climate has gone through numerous changes in 4.5B years. Then man came along and the population grew to over 7B…and they pump gigatons of CO2 into the atmospere, but there’s just no way this can affect climate, because the climate changed without man.

      You’re the type Climate Cretin who would see a dead man lying face down in the street with a knife in his back, but conclude he died of “natural causes” because other men before him died of natural causes.

      You Klimate Klownz ENTIRE insipid “argument” comes down to:

      “The climate has been changing since the beginning of Earth’s history without man’s influence, therefore man can’t possibly affect climate.”

      You set a new standard for naive, science illiterate, willful ignorance……or is it even willful?

      • gator69 says:

        I hear your huffing and puffing Ms Rick, but I still do not see…

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        You are an idiot.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Gator, this turd doesn’t know,which is why you are getting the second grade replies.

          She doesn’t carry on a minimal debate at all, just a lot of wind and pust statements,incoherent and stupid,often not even addressing what the other person is talking about.

          I think this is a retarded liberal,who doesn’t know how to debate credibly.

          • Rick says:

            sunnie,

            Everytime I post links, you gals claim the studies are flawed or the links are “propaganda”

            One can’t reason with the unreasonable any more than one can educate the uneducable.

            You are all completely unreasonable and too closed-minded to being educated.

          • AndyG55 says:

            If you knew anything about actual science , you could see where they are flawed..

            and you would be able to distinguish between real science and propaganda pa.

            But you don’t, so you can’t.

        • Rick says:

          gatorette,

          Newsflash!:

          I’m pitching
          You’re catching.

          “The climate changed before man, therefore man can’t change the climate” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          Your lack of reason defies logic, dumfuq.

          • gator69 says:

            Why Ms Rick, I had no idea you had the hots for me.

            “The climate changed before man, therefore man can’t change the climate”

            Ms Rick, that is what intelligent debaters call a “straw man”. I never saikd that.

            Let’s try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself, idiot.

          • AndyG55 says:

            And a limp-wristed pitch it is, for sure

            …. dropping constantly at your own feet, then dribbling.. constant mindless dribbling.

            pathetically FEEBLE.

        • Rick says:

          So it’s not willful…it’s just plain ignorance…lol

      • sunsettommy says:

        Rick,

        it is clear you have no idea what the NULL hypothesis is.

        When are you going to answer Gators questions?

        “1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”

  27. sunsettommy says:

    Now Rick is lying like hell:

    “sunnie,

    Everytime I post links, you gals claim the studies are flawed or the links are “propaganda”

    One can’t reason with the unreasonable any more than one can educate the uneducable.

    You are all completely unreasonable and too closed-minded to being educated.”

    Never said it was “propaganda”, that is putting words into my mouth.

    I pointed out what was missing for that second link,explained why it damages their post. You come back with ZERO against what I said. You have nothing to defend their omission,which is critical for their position. But since they left it out completely tells me they know it would badly damage their entire presentation.

    Per Decade trend statement ,was used in every IPCC report from 1990 onwards. But the article doesn’t mention this critical metric at all. I know why since their own temperature report in the article fails the IPCC minimum bar.

    You lack debate or critical thinking skills. You are so dumb, that people who are reading your juvenile replies are laughing at you.

    Tony, I suggest that you consider banning this human embarrassment. He is too lousy as a troll.

    • gator69 says:

      Now Rick is lying like hell:

      Yes she is!

      Ms Rick says:
      May 9, 2017 at 11:25 pm
      gatorette, I’ve listed all major climate forcings repeatedly.

      https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/extent-of-multi-year-arctic-sea-ice-is-the-highest-in-a-decade/#comment-50020

      It took weeks, but she finally took the bait, she swallowedit whole!!!

      • sunsettommy says:

        I KNOW Rick, doesn’t have a science background or even well read in it,since the comments this stupid troll posts,are so shallow,lacks critical thinking skills and uses the over the top confrontation style that only juvenile people would so.

        This troll has to go, unlike Griff, who is very civil if silly,Rick is a loudmouth jerk, with no interest to a credible civil mature debate on anything.

        • gator69 says:

          But Ms Rick claims that Serreze is a peer, and that she knows all major climate forcings.

          Apparently we have discovered all forcings now, and there are only 5 “major” forcings. I’m guessing they are static and never change, and that the myriad other forcings could not possibly change Ms Rick’s major 5 grouping, and that any unkown forcings have zero effect.

          Or it could be invisible ink…

          • sunsettommy says:

            Already told Rick, that Dr. Surreze (Surreal ice man) was badly wrong about his statements back in 2007,when he whined the ice was about to vanish soon.

            Rick, of course bad mouths me for telling the truth about Surreze (surreal ice man) failed predictions without him/her even attempting to prove me wrong.

            Rick doesn’t know what is really going on out there……

        • AndyG55 says:

          A John Cook style education ;-)

        • Rick says:

          I have Bio and Chem degrees and 30+ years consulting across numerous disciplines in the science community, mainly climate science related for the past decade. Senior thesis was CFCs and the Antarctic ozone “hole”.

          I’ve been to Greenland with Jason Box, done work with Trenbreth and Serreze and numerous other well known scientists.

          You Klimate Klowns are brainwashed conspiracy addled evidence denying fools….nothing more.

          You try SO HARD to convince the laymen with your drivel and it is hilarious the lengths you go to and the crap you reference as “credible”, all the while denying mainstrean science and peer-reviewed study conclusions regarding everything AGW related, as well as what every legitimate science organization on the planet has concluded regarding AGW.

          I just sit back and laugh at the stupidity you so willingly parade in this forum.

          It is a source of derisive laughter for those of us who are far more well versed on the topic.

          Carry on now, gals….keep us laughing!

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick says:
            May 9, 2017 at 11:25 pm
            gatorette, I’ve listed all major climate forcings repeatedly.

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/extent-of-multi-year-arctic-sea-ice-is-the-highest-in-a-decade/#comment-50020

            Really?

            Bwaaahahahahaaaa!!!

          • sunsettommy says:

            Really with all that science background, you do such a poor job discussing climate science. You feel the need to pour on the personal attacks and insults. You write in the hit and run style,never allowing for a true debate on anything.

            Dr. Serezze did in fact predict that the Arctic would be ice free in the Summer way back in 2007, you were shown his words on it,you refused to acknowledge it.

            The IPCC did in fact from 1990 onwards predict then project a .30C per decade warming trend,while Satellite data show less than half that rate. You ignored it.

            You have been shown that early in the Holocene,for a few thousand years had little to no Summer ice in the Arctic region, you dismiss it irrationally.

            You are a poor science communicator.

          • Rick says:

            “You are a poor science communicator.”

            lol…that you even write the shit and lies you post and actually believe it is beyond pathetic.

            You gals have no idea what you are talking about.

            None.

          • Rick says:

            Here is just one example of your many lies, sunni:

            “You have been shown that early in the Holocene,for a few thousand years had little to no Summer ice in the Arctic region, you dismiss it irrationally.”

            Liar. I didn’t dismiss it at all. I noted several times that we understand what caused Holocene warming(and the corresponding Arctic melt)…everyone accepts that the Arctic was ice free. I also noted that the CAUSES of Holocene warming are understood and have NOTHING to do with current warming.

            This is a ridiculous red herring and something you fools NEVER address, but rather keep deflecting and dodging the FACT that the causes are known and it is known that current warming has nothing to do Holocene warming.

            Again, dumbass, your entire “argument” to refute AGW is to point out how many times the Earth’s climate changed without man’s influence, then somehow, completely devoid of logic and reason, you conclude that therefore man can’t affect climate.

            Willful ignorance at it most extreme…

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Rabid-Rick, batting a big fat ZERO on the science front.

            All you have mnanged to hit is your toes.

            Arctuic sea ice is currently above the extent it has been for some 90-95% of the Holocene

            The only time it has been higher is during the Little Ice Age and the recovery from that COLDEST of times.

            Them’s the facts .

            Now off you trot and take you meds, then go and crawl back to your masters for some more non-education.

          • AndyG55 says:

            And we are STILL waiting for the answer to gator’s questions

            is it COWARDICE or are you INCAPABLE.?

          • Rick says:

            andie…lmao at your idiocy.

            The only ignorant coward here is the one staring back at you slack-jawed in your mirror.

            “Man can’t change the climate because the climate has changed without man”

            What a fucking retard!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Rabid-Ricky puts forward another mindless zero-knowledge post.

            Nothing unusual there.

          • Rick says:

            Here’s the study again, candie.

            I especially like my colleague, Andrew Dressler’s comment to the AP when this came out.

            “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” ….” the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.”

            It seems a different rock fell on your head years ago….lol

            Now post your peer-reviewed paper refuting it…

            Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

          • Latitude says:

            and peer-reviewed study conclusions regarding everything AGW related, as well as what every legitimate science organization on the planet has concluded…..

            You do realize they have been wrong more than they have been right

          • Rick says:

            Lat….lol…prove it.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Gator,

        https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/extent-of-multi-year-arctic-sea-ice-is-the-highest-in-a-decade/#comment-48693

        Way back on April 24, I posted a long comment, taking this troll to task for not answering questions, other have asked her/him. Then gave Rick a fully LINK supported statement about PER DECADE warming as per the 1990 IPCC report and mentioned that Satellite temperature data shows less than half that projected rate.

        This person never responded to my comment at all.

        I agree with you that he never answered your two question you repeatedly asked over several weeks time.

        • gator69 says:

          But why discuss science when it is already settled?

          I cannot wait for Ms Rick’s return, when she produces for us the complete list of climate forcings. Because without a complete list, how could one possibly claim to know the 5 “major” forcings?

          ‘Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.’
          -Sir Walter Scott

          Bwaaahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!

          • sunsettommy says:

            She won’t produce it since she doesn’t know what they are.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Gator, the insult girls came back with this:

            “I have Bio and Chem degrees and 30+ years consulting across numerous disciplines in the science community, mainly climate science related for the past decade. Senior thesis was CFCs and the Antarctic ozone “hole”.

            I’ve been to Greenland with Jason Box, done work with Trenbreth and Serreze and numerous other well known scientists.”

            Yet has serious difficulty answering your two reasonable questions:

            “1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”

            Snicker…….

          • gator69 says:

            Tommy, anyone can claim anything while on a blog. The reason I do not tout my own education is… wait for it… IT DOESN’T MATTER!!!.

            The only thing that matters is what the science actually says. It doesn’t matter if it is Albert Einstein or Krusty the Clown delivering it, all that matters are the facts. And this is why alarmists run to the shelter of their letters and numbers, because the FACTS are not on their side.

            Before we come to class and Range the Sciences, ’tis proper we should sift the merits of Knowledge, or clear it of the Disgrace brought upon it by Ignorance, wether disguised as (1.) the Zeal of the Divines, (2.) the Arrogance of Politicians, or (3.) the Errors of Men of Letters.
            -Sir Francis Bacon, “Advancement of Learning”, 1605 (Father of the Scientific Method)

            Ms Rick has a head full of nothing but propaganda and agenda.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Agree with you Gator,but I am using this big education claim against her to expose what a shallow minded person she is. With all that claimed educational background, should have been able to at least make decent coherent counterpoints to others here,instead of the name calling,insults and hit and run replies,with no debate at all.

            Remember David Appell…?

            He he he.

          • gator69 says:

            I’ve been to Greenland with Jason Box, done work with Trenbreth and Serreze and numerous other well known scientists.”

            Gee, I wonder who funded that trip, and why? Would Ms Rick have been invited if she didn’t swallow CAGW et al whole?

            “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
            -Upton Sinclair

          • Rick says:

            You Klownz are hysterical….both definitions.

            I’m not going to appease you fools by answering your silly Climatology 101 questions that I could answer back in the 70s , and that you constantly throw out as a deflection.

            The REAL question is this. Why can’t you reconcile and address the fact that we understand the causes of past climate change, and because of this understanding, we are so confident that the causes of current warming are unrelated?

            Go ahead, keep ignoring and deflecting…and I’ll just keep laughing at your inanity.

          • Rick says:

            gatorette:

            “Gee, I wonder who funded that trip, and why? Would Ms Rick have been invited if she didn’t swallow CAGW et al whole?”

            One of the things I do with my consulting business is to secure private and institutional funding for scientific research and study. You armchair “climatologists” have no idea how this all works and constantly parrot the ignorant “they (climatologists) only get paid to produce pre-determined results”

            You have no idea how stupid this makes you look to those of us who are actually directly involved.

            You couldn’t be more wrong, but you sure as hell keep trying!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I’m not going to appease you fools by answering your silly Climatology 101 questions ”

            COWARDICE as well as snivelling, ranting, unsupportable ignorance.

            Truth is you have no idea about anything , just the propaganda pap you get fed by your scamming masters.

            Doing well Rabid Ricky, exposing the general ignorance of the below average trollette from the AGW sewer.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I’ve been to Greenland with Jason Box, done work with Trenbreth and Serreze and numerous other well known scientists.””

            No wonder you act like an ignorant know-it-all.

            Guys have been monumentally wrong over and over again.

            A mix of unsupportable arrogance, mixed with blind ignorance.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I’ve been to Greenland with Jason Box, done work with Trenbreth and Serreze ”

            Poor Rabid-Ricky,

            Perhaps you should “phone a friend” to find the answers to gator’s questions … seeing you are patently INCAPABLE of providing them yourself.

            While you are at it, maybe they can find a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            You are batting a big fat ZERO on the science front so far, little ADHD infected trollette….

            So far the only thing you have managed to hit is your toes.

          • Rick says:

            candie-andie.

            You are the most incorrigible and biggest pussy and liar I’ve encountered in awhile.

            What do you take to alleviate your severe science allergies?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Rabid-Ricky puts forward another RANTING, mindless zero-knowledge post.

            Nothing unusual there.

            How’s your toes, bozo !

          • Rick says:

            Keep denying reality, little pussy…

            Here’s the study again, candie.

            I especially like my colleague, Andrew Dressler’s comment to the AP when this came out.

            “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” ….” the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.”

            It seems a different rock fell on your head years ago….lol

            Now post your peer-reviewed paper refuting it…

            Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

          • AndyG55 says:

            ROFLMAO

            The Marty Feldman paper

            Did they check for partial to 2008.

            Or did they rely totally on the warming from the El Nino event

            Confirmational-bias anti-science at its worst.

          • sunsettommy says:

            From Rick’s link:

            “The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.”

            Another modeling construct with little actual data to back it up……

            Weak indeed.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Either Feldman et al KNEW that the warming during that 2000-2010 period was due to a small El Nino event, and they didn’t check to 2008.. which is very simple just shoddy science

            Or they did check to 2008 and didn’t publish that.. which is scientific malpractice.

            Or they DIDN’T know the period was heavily influenced by the El Nino, in which case it is just downright IGNORANCE.

            It took them 5 years to tease out their tiny result.. I wonder if the data actually went to 2012?

          • AndyG55 says:

            ““the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.””

            And that is exactly why CO2 DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

            PHYSICS. !!

            There is no known /proven mechanism for CO2 to cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

            CO2 doesn’t re-emit below about 11km, where its action is radiative cooling to space.

          • Rick says:

            More science denial and idiocy from the little Island of Misfit Toys.

            Where are you published works refuting this study?

            Moronic uneducated comments and denial of empirical evidence don’t count as peer-review, girls….lol

            Te denial gets deeper and deeper……

          • AndyG55 says:

            ROFLMAO.

            The normal ZERO-science rant from Rabid Ricky

            AGW scam is DYING, little trollette. :-)

            It is now just a zero-science political game.

            No wonder you are so, so desperate.

            Where will you get your next scam victim from !

          • sunsettommy says:

            Rick,in reply to AndyG55, come up with this dead comment:

            “More science denial and idiocy from the little Island of Misfit Toys.

            Where are you published works refuting this study?

            Moronic uneducated comments and denial of empirical evidence don’t count as peer-review, girls….lol

            Te denial gets deeper and deeper……”

            For a girl with two alleged college degrees, you sure write poorly on science topics.

            Andy, made specific statements about CO2 radiative cooling effect in the upper atmosphere.

            Your answer was more juvenile insults,somehow I think you do that because you have nothing to counter with.

          • gator69 says:

            Thanks for another real keeper Ms Rick, a fine example of a pig ignorant “climate expert”. LOL

            Rick says:
            May 11, 2017 at 3:50 pm
            You Klownz are hysterical….both definitions.

            I’m not going to appease you fools by answering your silly Climatology 101 questions that I could answer back in the 70s , and that you constantly throw out as a deflection.

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/extent-of-multi-year-arctic-sea-ice-is-the-highest-in-a-decade/#comment-50186

            Bwaaaahahahahahhaaaaa!!!

          • gator69 says:

            One of the things I do with my consulting business is to secure private and institutional funding…

            Yes, as I said you make money off this crap, and would never have been invited to join Serreze if you were a real scientist, only alarmists need apply.

            So thanks for verifying what I said, Ms Rick

  28. sunsettommy says:

    Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

    Excerpt:

    “We are told that there is an overwhelming agreement, or consensus, among scientists that most weather and climate changes that have occurred since the mid-20th century have been caused by human activity — our fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions in particular. We are told that natural mechanisms that used to dominate are no longer exerting much of any influence on weather or climate anymore. Humans predominantly cause weather and climate changes now.

    For example, we are told that extreme weather (hurricanes, droughts, floods, storms) frequencies and intensities have increased since about 1950 primarily due to the dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since then. Humans are now melting glaciers and ice sheets and (Arctic) sea ice at an alarmingly accelerated rate — reminiscent of an impending “death spiral“. Humans now heat up and acidify the oceans down to depths of thousands of meters by burning fossil fuels. Humans are now in the process of raising sea levels so that they will catastrophically rise by 10 feet in the next 50 years. Because of our CO2 emissions, humans are now endangering the long-term survival of 100s of thousands of animal species (especially polar bears), and climate models say we will cause a million species extinctions over the next 33 years with our CO2 emissions. The Earth is even spinning slower, or faster, no, slower, well, faster — due to human activities. Again, this is all settled science. Only those who possess the temerity to deny this science (“climate deniers”) would disagree, or refuse to believe.

    But what if much of what we have been told to believe is not actually true? What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that humans have dominated (with ~110% attribution) weather and climate changes since about 1950, which is what we have been told by the UN IPCC? What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that natural factors exert effectively no influence on weather and climate changes anymore — now that humans have taken over?

    These are compelling questions. Because in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.

    Instead of supporting the “consensus” science one must believe in (to avoid the “climate denier” label), these 500 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes associated with anthropogenic forcing. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations [NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect in the context of such large natural variability. Papers questioning (and undermining) the “consensus” view on paleoclimate (Medieval) warmth, ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, climate sensitivity to CO2, etc., are included in this collection.”

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.0wXh69Wn.dpbs

  29. sunsettommy says:

    From Popular Technology list of published science papers on the Climate, this additional to the 500 more recent papers:

    1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

    ” Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism [e.g. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)]. Please read the following introductory notes for more detailed information.

    Alarmism: (defined), “concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

    Disclaimer: Even though the most prolific authors on the list are skeptics, the inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic’s arguments against Alarmism. Some papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

  30. sunsettommy says:

    Rick (a girl with a male name),

    gave us her claimed science background:

    “I have Bio and Chem degrees and 30+ years consulting across numerous disciplines in the science community, mainly climate science related for the past decade. Senior thesis was CFCs and the Antarctic ozone “hole”.”

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/extent-of-multi-year-arctic-sea-ice-is-the-highest-in-a-decade/#comment-50119

    But has yet to post a specific counter to Tony’s post. Spends a lot of time with hit and run comments,avoids a real debate on anything,uses a lot of insults and name calling,refuses to acknowledge anything given to her,even when it is from the IPCC,Satellite data.

    Rick is a proven close minded warmist troll,who has not shown any demonstrated ability to make rational science based comments,or tolerate a different viewpoint on the topic. Inflexible,immature and too often stupid.

    The troll who mocks many here,has utterly failed to answer simple questions posted many times by Gator:

    “1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”

    This should be easy for you, with TWO college degrees sticking in your back pocket. Somehow I doubt you ever will anyway,given the way you comment here.

    Snicker……………………………

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Senior thesis was CFCs and the Antarctic ozone “hole”.””

      And what a SCAM that turned out to be ! ;-)

      Dow Corning was it ? can’t remember which company pulled of that little scam.

      • Rick says:

        The ozone depletion due to CFCs was a scam? LMAO! You’re a bonafide moron, …as if there iwas any doubt

      • sunsettommy says:

        Notice that Rick, never defended her alleged THESIS with AndyG55 on Ozone hole claims.

        She claims about herself:

        “Senior thesis was CFCs and the Antarctic ozone “hole”

        This one should have been right up her alley,with solid science based replies,since it was her THESIS! but she never did at all,instead just these two ZERO science free comments is all she could scrape up:

        1) “The ozone depletion due to CFCs was a scam? LMAO! You’re a bonafide moron, …as if there iwas any doubt”

        2) “I know all about it, candie. It’ll take another 50 years or so.

        Keep up the desperation though!”

        Meanwhile AndyG55, Latitude made science based replies,which were not addressed by Rick, the alleged Thesis holder on CFC’s and Ozone holes research.

        Somehow I think you are a liar since you were given a wide open opportunity to clobber AndyG55 and Latitude with solid Ozone research with, but you did NOTHING!

        You have the overwhelming motive too,still you didn’t do anything.

        You are pathetic.

        • sunsettommy says:

          It will be interesting to see if she takes the bait….

          • sunsettommy says:

            The alleged two college degrees holding troll, still has yet to directly address Tony blog post.

          • Latitude says:

            We know there’s no such thing as run away global warming….the so called tipping point
            So, oddly enough, we also know there’s no such thing as run away CO2

            …..see if Rick can wrap his head around that one

          • Latitude says:

            This is an odd post BTW…
            You can enter extent…arctic….decade any of those words into search….and this post does not show up at all……

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick’s oddly shaped head fits only one mold. Anything outside her carefully constructed tiny jackbooted mental footprint ist verboten.

            The clarion tell to her mental infancy and subsequent scientific illiteracy is that she “knows” things that are unknowable at this time (at least one of these unknowables was claimed to be “known” 40 years ago!).

            Ms Rick is long on insults and allegiance to failed doomsday sayers, but lays an enormous tantrum egg every single time we ask for proof that man is responsible for anything other than Ms Rick’s severe and crippling miseducation.

            Poor Ms Rick, disabled for life.

          • gator69 says:

            You can enter extent…arctic….decade any of those words into search….and this post does not show up at all……

            Ditto.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “with TWO college degrees sticking in your back pocket.”

      I think we all know where he keeps those two mythical college degrees! ;-)

  31. AndyG55 says:

    Did y’all know, that the last 28 days in the Arctic have had the SLOWEST melt of the equivalent 28 days of any year this century ?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Another little fact from NSIDC

      2017 has had the smallest “melt from maximum” for the last 6 days.

    • Rick says:

      Lowest volume and extent through April since satellite measurements began.

      That’s reality

      • AndyG55 says:

        NSIDC has 2017 extent above 2004, 2006,2015, 2016

        MASIE has 20167 above 2006, 2007 2009, 2015, 2016

        Russian charts have “old ice” extent
        38% above 2008
        20% above 2009
        7% above 2011
        22% above 2012
        64% above 2013
        12.4% above 2016
        (and slight above 2010, 2014, 2015)
        ie above ALL years since 2008 (which is as far back as compatible charts go)

        Real Data is your enema, Rabid one.

        don’t kick yourself in the mouth on the way out !!

        • sunsettommy says:

          Rick,

          Andy, made specific statements,about different years extent differences,how come you never address it properly?

          With your two college degrees in your shirt pocket, it should be very easy for you to do.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Rick, Andy is talking about the last 6 days,which happens to be in the month of MAY!

        While you talk about up to April only,which means you didn’t address what Andy stated at all.

        You really have two degrees?

        • AndyG55 says:

          2 degrees of idiocy, that is for certain.

          Massive Klimate Kool-Aide quaffer, brain-washed until there is NOTHING but rancid green slush.

        • Rick says:

          A six day meaningless cherry pick….wow, what an “argument” refuting long term Arctic ice loss.

          Pathetic reality denying imbeciles.

          PIOMAS, NSIDC and DMI must all be lying right?….or is it that they are “manipulating” the data to keep their grants flowing? lol

          https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

          http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

          http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

          • sunsettommy says:

            Rick, he started of with this you never replied to:

            “Did y’all know, that the last 28 days in the Arctic have had the SLOWEST melt of the equivalent 28 days of any year this century ?”

            How come you never addressed it, Ricky girl?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Simple data analysis,

            I doubt Rabid-Ricky could actually do it.

            He seems rather “low-knowledge”, and one can only conclude he is LYING THROUGH HIS rectum about degrees.

            And all the name-dropping.. roflmao. so hilarious.

            Particularly as he picks some of the LOWEST credibility scammers in the AGW cult.

            I wonder.. does he know Big Al and Bill Nye.. that would be icing on the hilarity.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Your cherrypick claims are irrational since your replies to what he actually says never gets properly addressed.

            He talks about a 6 day period,you answer with a full year of time on several links.

            Andy made a specific statement:

            “2017 has had the smallest “melt from maximum” for the last 6 days.”

            You STILL have not answered it!

            You are stupid!

          • Rick says:

            sunnie, because 6 days is meaningless…it’s another cherry-pick deflection.

            I can’t believe this has to be explained to you.

            Can’t you think for yourself and see the errors of your girlfriend, candie’s ways???

          • Rick says:

            Oh, and the 28 day slowest melt is also a meaningless cherry-pick deflection.The reality is that it’s still the lowest extent and volume at this time for any year in the satellite record.

            The near 39 year trend is glaringly obvious. Additionally, the Hadley dataset concludes that this steady long term decline began in the early 50s.

            I’ll stick with all that evidence instead of your unsubstantiated claims, k there, lil’ buttercup? lol

            Why do you rubes keep denying this stark reality?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Of course there has been a highly beneficial loss of Arctic sea ice since he late 1970’s

            Late 1970’s was an EXTREME up there with the levels of the Little Ice Age.

            Current levels are HIGHER than they have been for 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.

            You RABID denial of basic facts, and your MORONIC excuses are of great hilarity.

            While you continue to DENY facts about past Holocene history, and continue to act like a pre-pubescent low-IQ ahdh victim, we will continue to laugh at your arrogant ignorance.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Your ZRO evidence yapping continues Rabib-Ricky.

            Seems like you are a REJECT from Cook’s Climate Propaganda 101 course.

          • Rick says:

            “Of course there has been a highly beneficial loss of Arctic sea ice since he late 1970’s”

            Well, at least you admit the loss….the “highly beneficial” twist is hilarious!

            “Late 1970’s was an EXTREME up there with the levels of the Little Ice Age.”

            A claim you provide no evidence for.

            NSIDC says the steady decline began in the mid- 50s Gee, who should I believe? lmao!

            https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/01/arctic-sea-ice-satellites

            “To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

            “Current levels are HIGHER than they have been for 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.”

            Causes are known and have absolutely nothing to do with the cause of current warming. red herring alert!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Rabid Ricky.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Which is it for you chicken-little

            Choose to live in a warm climate, and/or fossil fuel heating going full bore during winter.

            So sad.. so pathetically hypocritical.

            Even relies on fossil fuel to power his internet trolling.

            Everything in his meaningless empty life, totally dependant on what he despises. :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Causes are known and have absolutely nothing to do with the cause of current warming”

            BULLSHIT alert !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            NSIDC didn’t look very far.

            and like all alarmista, probably ignored anything that was against their “meme”

          • AndyG55 says:

            And ignored the Iceland ice index..

            inconvenient !!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            And maps of ice edge

            oh look 1866, near end of LIA, was extreme

            1769, about level with 1995

          • AndyG55 says:

            And of course their very own satellite data puts a LIE to what the say.

            1974 down much lower.

            You really are brain-washed to the point of sludge by the AGW scammers, aren’t you Rabid-Ricky !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            more reading for Ricky.

            (he may need his minder’s help with this one)

          • AndyG55 says:

            And climate change started many years ago. !!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            And from Iceland sediments we see the REAL Arctic.

            RECOVERING, but only slightly, from a period that was the COLDEST is 10,000 years.

          • gator69 says:

            Once again, Ms Rick shows her pig ignorance of climate science…

            Rick says:
            May 12, 2017 at 2:16 am
            The reality is that it’s still the lowest extent and volume at this time for any year in the satellite record.

            Satellite records go back to 1974, and do not show what you claim, Ms Rick.

          • Rick says:

            “Causes are known and have absolutely nothing to do with the cause of current warming”

            BULLSHIT alert !!

            Candie, you should preface “BULLSHIT alert !!”
            with every one of your moronic posts.

            The causes of Holocene warming have absolutely nothing to di with the cause of current warming, little denier.

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period

            “What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them. It appears clear that changes in Earth’s orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter.”

            “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”

            Just what part of this last sentence can’t you grasp? lol

            Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”

            Deny away, rube!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Rabid-Ricky.. a WORM on a hook,

            unable to counter any real fact.

            So hilarious.

            You are total UNABLE to answer gator’s question.

            Should be simple for someone of your arrogant ignorance to do so…

            EMPTY, brain-washed belief.

          • Latitude says:

            The main thing about the Holocene that’s never been explained….several different theories….is why were CO2 levels totally out of step with every other interglacial

        • AndyG55 says:

          Rabid Ricky DENIES that 1979 was an extreme.

          Rabid-Ricky is a brain-washed non-entity.

          Piomas is a model only, never validated or published that I know of .

          NSIDC has 2017 extent above 2004, 2006,2015, 2016

          MASIE has 20167 above 2006, 2007 2009, 2015, 2016

          Russian charts have “old ice” extent
          38% above 2008
          20% above 2009
          7% above 2011
          22% above 2012
          64% above 2013
          12.4% above 2016
          (and slight above 2010, 2014, 2015)
          ie above ALL years since 2008 (which is as far back as compatible charts go)

          Arctic sea ice has been basically steady , and is now starting to grow.

          Won’t that make your AGW scammer mates look even more like a pack of perpetual idiots.. :-)

          No wonder you are so rabid and panicking.

          You can actually see what’s really happening, can’t you. :-)

        • AndyG55 says:

          PIOMAS is a _simulation code; while it is allegedly “data-driven,” its output is still just a simulation, not an observation. (The technical term that “climate scientists” prefer for a “data-driven” simulation is a “re-analysis,” but the numbers are still just the output of a computer-model, not field measurements or satellite remote-sensing — i.e., PIOMAS “re-analyses” are merely post-hoc estimates, at the whim of the programmers, not actual empirical observations!)

          Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, the source code for PIOMAS has never been released, let alone externally audited, and the papers describing PIOMAS “re-analyses” are more than a little vague about the theory and the “parameterizations” being used within the code. (A “parameterization” is an ad-hoc numerical replacement within a climate simulation for some aspect of climate physics that is either too complex or too poorly understood to be directly calculated — which is another way of saying that it’s a “fudge factor.”) The PIOMAS “re-analyses” do not appear to be well-calibrated against observation, and appear to contain systematic errors. For example, the correlation coefficient between PIOMAS “re-analyses” and observation is reported in the literature to only be 0.8, and PIOMAS is also reported to systematically underestimate the thickness of thick ice while overestimating the thickness of thin ice — see e.g., Schweiger et al, Journal of Geophysical Research, v.116, p.C00D06 (2011), doi:10.1029/2011JC007084:

          http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/pubs/Schweiger-2011-Uncertainty%20in%20model.pdf

          Unfortunately, PIOMAS “re-analyses” are nearly always presented as if they were “accurate measurements” of sea ice volume, rather than mere data-driven simulations of sea ice volume at the whims of the programmers.

          • Rick says:

            Funny that PIOMAS, NSIDC and DMI all concur…gee, I wonder why?

            You’re as sharp as bowling bowl, candie!

          • Rick says:

            candie,

            Why do you only refer to Russian ice charts? Have you suddenly deemed them the gold standard of Arctic data, while ignoring DMI, PIOMAS, and NSIDC, who all concur?

            NSIDC clearly states that through April, this year tied with last year for lowest extent.

            https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

            The rest of the story, despite your completely meaningless ludicrous little cherry-picks of 6 and 28 days…(wow, what great long term trend indicators!…lol), is that the 11 lowest Arctic ice extent and volume records have all occurred in the last 11 years.

            But, hey!… feel free to keep entertaining me by parading your ignorance!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yet Arctic sea ice is melting VERY SLOWLY this year, isn’t it Rabid-Ricky.

            Or are you tapping about a KNOWN weather event that held up the freeze, while causing massive freezing in north eastern Russia.

            TRIVIAL weather based changes in Arctic sea ice are far more important to you than people actually DYING of cold.

            That is TRULY SICK MINDED

          • AndyG55 says:

            “NSIDC clearly states that through April’

            Trend in last 28 days is LOWEST this century.

            Arctic is finding it difficult to melt.

            That is because the multi-years sea ice in 2017 is above any in the last 10 years.

            Data is NOT your friend is it, tantrum-child.

          • Rick says:

            “Yet Arctic sea ice is melting VERY SLOWLY this year, isn’t it Rabid-Ricky.”

            It’s the lowest it’s been ALL YEAR since the satellite era bagan.

            What tells you more about the long term trend in the Arctic…6 days. 28 days or 39 years? LMAO at your stupidity!

          • AndyG55 says:

            The FACT that Arctic sea ice extent s STILL above what it has been for 90-95% of the Holocene

            The ONLY time it has been higher was during the Little Ice Age, the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

            And I bet Rabid Ricky chooses to live somewhere warm, or has his fossil fuel powered heating working full time

            Hypocritical worm . !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Think of your next response in your dreams, chicken-little rabid ricky :-)

            You are MINE to play with.. forever. :-)

            You CANNOT escape.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “It’s the lowest it’s been ALL YEAR since the satellite era bagan.”

            That is a MANIFEST LIE. !!

            Yes, a NATURAL weather event caused a very slight minimum, but since then its been recovering very nicely, and proving rather slow to melt.

            But LIES is all you have left, isn’t it, Ricky-worm

            NSIDC has 2017 extent above 2004, 2006,2015, 2016

            MASIE has 20167 above 2006, 2007 2009, 2015, 2016

            Russian charts have “old ice” extent
            38% above 2008
            20% above 2009
            7% above 2011
            22% above 2012
            64% above 2013
            12.4% above 2016
            (and slight above 2010, 2014, 2015)
            ie above ALL years since 2008

            And current levels are above what they have been for 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.

            Why do you DENY facts. ???

          • AndyG55 says:

            Spitzbergen 1922

            From a report written for the State Department in October, 1922:

            “There were few seals in Spitzbergen waters this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however, did not surprise the captain. He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3 degrees Celsius: this year recorded temperatures up to 15 degrees, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.”

            https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

            Let’s repeat that last bit… remember, this is in 1922 !!!!!

            “and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen”

            Lets look at Spitzenberg 2017, in May !!

            Frozen solid on north coast, with thinner ice on all but the south west coast.

          • Rick says:

            Do you foolish gals think I haven’t seen all this bullshit before repeatedly? lol

            The Spitzbergen 1922 article is laughable. Why? Because this “data” represents less than 10% of the entire Arctic.

            The old Nimbus data isn’t used because it’s not accurate. There is zero eveidence that Arctic ice has been lower than it is now for the last several hundred years.

            https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/01/arctic-sea-ice-satellites

            “To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

            Sorry girls, you have no idea what you are talking about. None.

          • Rick says:

            Oh, and candie; why do you constantly bring up the Holocene?

            We all know the Holocene was warmer than today.

            We also know that the causes of Holocene warming are completely unrelated to the cause of current warming.

            Why are you trying to “argue” something that is not germane to current times? Why? Because you are an incorrigible moron with the science acumen of a dung beetle….and you’ve been fed the same diet and continue to swallow it whole.

            You Krazy Klimate Klownz are comically pathetic…

          • gator69 says:

            We also know that the causes of Holocene warming are completely unrelated to the cause of current warming.

            Prove it Ms Rick.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Radib Ricky the Ranter,

            We all know how DESPERATE you are to discount the REALITY of Holocene temperature history, because it really does totally destroy the Anti_CO2 scam.. and with it all those scammers, like you, in on the action

            THAT is why you are in such a panic about totally natural recovery from the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.

            But you have NOTHING

            you are an EMPTY sack.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ““argue” something that is not germane to current times?”

            MASIE, day 131, has Arctic sea extent above that of 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016

            For the last 2 weeks (except one day in the middle) MASIE has the SLOWEST melt from maximum of any year in its record.

            The Arctic is really having a hard time melting this year.

            That is because the “old ice”, from Russian charts is above EVERY year this century

            38% above 2008
            20% above 2009
            7% above 2011
            22% above 2012
            64% above 2013
            12.4% above 2016
            (and slight above 2010, 2014, 2015)

            And let’s remember who rules the Arctic and has the most in-situ information about it.

            It isn’t the Danes, or the US, or some third-rate AGW modellers playing with bias driven software.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Why? Because this “data” represents less than 10% of the entire Arctic.”

            Seems Rabid-Ricky’s knowledge of the Arctic is very limited. It’s IGNORANCE, yet again revealed. !!!

            When ice reaches the Spitzenberg, the rest of the Arctic is generally set solid.

            Out through Spitzenberg/Iceland region, and the outside of the Bering Strait are the areas that determine the winter extent.

            This year shows that compared to 1922, there is more sea ice on the Spitzenberg/Iceland side..
            and there is absolutely NOTHING that Ricky’s puerile ranting can do about that fact.

            Furthermore, when you consider that the Jet-stream induced “less cold” blob was over this region for most of the ice formative period, it is quite remarkable just HOW MUCH sea ice there is this year.

          • Rick says:

            candie,

            “We also know that the causes of Holocene warming are completely unrelated to the cause of current warming.

            Prove it”

            Newsflash, candie, the evidence is overwhelming. I already linked what the NOAA has concluded, and if you did a little research, instead of wallowing in denial, you’d know this.

            Milankovitch cycles aren’t causing current warming, moron.

            Your pathetic ideology won’t allow you to believe actual evidence.

          • gator69 says:

            Milankovitch cycles aren’t causing current warming, moron.

            Who said it was, Ms Moronic Rick.

            Are you married to a straw man, Ms Rick?

            Let’s try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Ranting-Pricky.

            Cannot even support the very basis of his anti-science religion.

            He KNOWS there is no mechanism whereby CO2 can cause warming in a pressure/density controlled convective atmosphere.

            all he has is his rabid, unsupportable, brain-washed, fundeMENTAList belief.

            So sad.. so PATHETIC. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            The only “Milankovitch cycle” facet that it could have been would have been axial tilt. The pathetic excuse that NH got more energy because of the tilt is TOTALLY DESTROYED by the fact that the Holocene optimum shows up in Southern Hemisphere data as well..

            OOPS.. there goes that fantasy brain fart !!!

            ITS THE SUN, Stupid.

            Just like there was a very quiet Sun during the Little Ice Age, and a “grand solar maximum” in the last half of last century.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “the evidence is overwhelming”

            Then produce some, instead of your adhd fuelled nonsense rants and tantrums.. !!

            So far you are pretty much EVIDENCE FREE.

            A standard low-level brain-washed AGW propaganda yapper. !

          • Rick says:

            “it’s the sun” lmao!

            I’ll accept the conclusions of those who actually do the research regarding the Holocene.

            Even if that were true, changes in solar activity absolutely cannot account for current warming. The ONLY explanation is the rise in CO2.

            It’s as if you klownz were beaten up on the grade school playground by CO2, and you hold a grudge. You just can’t accept the overwhelming evidence that EVERY science organization on the planet as well as the overwhelming majority of those of us who’s vocation is science does.

            CO2 is a known and proven climate driver, girls.

            I and my colleagues have known about the CO2 greenhouse effect for over 40 years. No one disputed it was real and that it posed a potential big problem in the future. It was when politics and big oil stepped in about 12 years ago and started the disinformation campaign to cast doubt…and laymen like you fools swallowed the disinformation whole because it doesn’t run counter to your ideology.

            That is the ONLY reason that deplorable AGW denier blogs like this shithole of lies came to be.

            I’ve watched from the front lines as this cluster-fuck disinformation campaign has evolved. Congrats on being completely and utterly duped!

            Now watch and wait as the Arctic continues it’s death spiral. This year could be yet another record low for extent and volume. There’s already been 4 records set since 2002. We’ll see what August brings weather-wise…

            Now go ahead with 10 or so rambling tirades in response…repeating the same bullshit for the hundredth time. I won’t be reading them. Hell, if I printed them out, they wouldn’t even qualify as toilet paper.

            You’ve given me more than ample evidence to conclude that you have been brain-washed beyond hope.

            Adios, dumb fucks!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “CO2 is a known and proven climate driver,”

            BULLSHIT

            The only paper that comes anywhere near proving that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere is the highly biased statistical crap paper from Marty Feldman which relied totally on an El Nino spike.. NOT CO2 warming..

            Otherwise, YOU HAVE NOTHING.

            You can’t answer gator’s questions

            You can’t prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective controlled atmosphere.

            You are a LYING, brain-washed sack of EMPTY fetid air. !!

            Nothing more than a yapping chihuhahua.

          • gator69 says:

            Even if that were true, changes in solar activity absolutely cannot account for current warming. The ONLY explanation is the rise in CO2.

            Prove it.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

  32. gator69 says:

    So another day in the life of Ms Rick:

    * Refuse to discuss Climatology 101 and hurl insults

    * Make outlandish and provably false staements and hurl insults

    * Insult those who have a greater knowledge of climate science, and hurl more insults

    * Pretend not to profit off CAGW and hurl insults

    * Hate poor brown people and hurl insults

    # Make fool of self throughout day and hurl insults

    Ms Rick, are you a high priest who does not need to explain your religion to the masses? I recall Medieval priests keeping texts in Latin so as to keep rthe sacred word secret, and you remind me of them. Problem for your religion Ms Rick, we here read and speak Latin fluently, I’ve been a student of the sacred scriptues of the CAGW cult for 4 decades.

    Do you still wish to claim that you can…

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    If so, call the IPCC, because they have never been able to do this.

    Or did you not know that Ms Rick?

    Rick says:
    May 11, 2017 at 3:50 pm
    I’m not going to appease you fools by answering your silly Climatology 101 questions that I could answer back in the 70s , and that you constantly throw out as a deflection.

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/extent-of-multi-year-arctic-sea-ice-is-the-highest-in-a-decade/#comment-50186

    Bwaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Rabid Ricky….Still RUNNING and HIDING like a cowardly chicken-little.

      Refusing to show just how LITTLE he knows about climate.

      Answer gator’s questions, cowardly worm. !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Or did you not know that Ms Rick?”

      Not the sort of fact Rabid-Ricky would get from Cooks Climate Propaganda 101 course. That’s why.

      Rabid Ricky is showing very clearly that is LIES about his degrees are just that, another FANTASY to live his feeble life by.

      • sunsettommy says:

        The way she writes, I think she lied about having two science degrees,because she writes science so poorly with numerous insults,practically in every comment.

        A real science degree holder wouldn’t write science so badly,spew out gobs of insults,and post so many times in a blog,they dislike so much.

        Rick,

        Has dodged me on the IPCC per decade warming trend/Satellite data. Dodge Gator on his two questions,dodged Andy, by not properly addressing what Andy specifically comments on the Ice issues.

        Example:

        Andy talks about a recent 6 day period,Rick responds by using a full year,then tries to drown Andy with insults.

        Has dodged Tony’s blog post itself.

        This is possibly the worst Troll I have ever seen,has anyone seen a worse one here?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “then tries to drown Andy with insults.”

          He’s not even very good at those.

          Pre-pubescent and very low-level… tantrum type stuff.

          As ineffective as his attempts at any sort of science…. whoops, I mean, propaganda pap/yap.

          • Rick says:

            “He’s not even very good at those.”

            Cries the little Queen of the playground insult…lmao!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Rabid -Ricky.

            Empty as usual.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor RR, doesn’t realise he has been anti-trolled.

            So hilarious. :-) :-)

            You CANNOT escape, little worm

            YOU are mine for eternity

            I am in your sludgy brain-washed mind.

            I bet you even dream of me at night.

            Your response will prove this FACT. :-)

          • Rick says:

            candie, lol…you are nothing more than a mewling little quim….one who has the science acumen of a dung beetle and enjoys the same diet…repeatedly.

            Do you actually think, with that feeble little mind of your’s, that I do anything but laugh derisively at your dis-information and lies?

            You’ve swallowed a whole heap of bullshit….it’s funny watching you desperately squirm…”Oh, Oh!, but it was warmer in the Holocene!”

            Retard.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Sweet dreams , rabid one.

            You are just another worm on a hook. :-)

        • AndyG55 says:

          Hey rabid worm,

          did you see this??

          http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/matt-ridley-wind-power-makes-0-of-world-energy/

          In whole numbers… Wind power makes 0% of world energy

          All that WASTED money.. for NOTHING !!!!!

          Hope your fossil fuel heated basement is nice and warm for you so you can look after yourself.

          How will you get to the dole office this week, without your petrol driven car ?

        • gator69 says:

          The way she writes, I think she lied about having two science degrees,because she writes science so poorly with numerous insults,practically in every comment.

          Sadly Tommie, science today is not what science once was (when we were students), it is a profit driven venture. A recent study showed that reproducibility of studies can be as low as 10%, and that money and agenda are the most prevalent causes…

          The survey asked scientists what led to problems in reproducibility. More than 60% of respondents said that each of two factors — pressure to publish and selective reporting — always or often contributed.

          http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

          And Earth Sciences are not immune to this disease.

  33. AndyG55 says:

    Hey, did anyone notice that the Arctic temperature is now BELOW the longer term average.

    That must really upset the chicken-little of the AGW-scam ! :-)

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    • AndyG55 says:

      ps… no wonder the sea ice is having such a SLOW melt recently !! ;-)

    • Rick says:

      Wow, candie, you just disproved AGW! LMAO at your ignorance….again..

      • AndyG55 says:

        You certainly have shown that you have ZERO evidence CO2 warming even exists in a convective atmosphere.

        Also that you have zero idea except propaganda pap of what drive climate.

        Otherwise you would have an answer for gator..

        but you are.. as always

        EMPTY !!

  34. gator69 says:

    I believe it is time for Ms Rick to reveal herself. Full name and credentials. I normally do not care about identities of commenters here, but I think it would be good for Ms Rick’s peers to see what an immature and pig ignorant person she really is. And she has brought this upon herself, by thrusting her persona into the debate. She has nothing to add to the CAGW arguments that we have not heard and destroyed in the past, so she offered herself up as part of her argument. Unless she comes clean, her claims of degrees, peers, and exploits can be dismissed summarily.

    So to recap, Ms Rick cannot claim man is responsible for warming until she can…

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all and…

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes and…

    … Ms Rick cannot claim any credentials until she gives us a full ID.

    • AndyG55 says:

      gator.. a bit rude to females to assume Rabid-Ricky is female.

      I suggest using a more appropriate “it”, or “cis-gender”

      of undefinable gender.. a non-gender amoeba.

      • gator69 says:

        Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi are female, as are Rosanne Barr and Rachel Maddow. With her penchant for spewing nonsense, her misplaced self confidence, and her unfounded hysteria, Ms Rick fits right in.

        So much for the “fairer sex”.

        • Rick says:

          Looks like I’ve hit a nerve and gotten all the little denier girls panties in a bunch! lol

          The Arctic is in a tailspin. It won’t recover.

          Watch and wait, rubes!

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Rick, why do you run away every time we try to discuss basic climate science?

            Is it because you are pig ignorant of it?

            Shall I repost your igonrance again Ms Rick?

            Please???!!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            The Arctic is STILL above 90-95% of what it has been in the last 10,000 years.

            The ONLY time it has been higher is during the Little Ice Age and the recovery from that COLDEST period in the whole interglacial.. so far.

            The only thing in a tail spin are chicken-little fools who refuse to accept or provide moronic excuses for the longer term history of MUCH LESS sea ice in the Arctic.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Still no answer to gator’s question

            Still no rscientific paper showing CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.

            Poor Ranter is firing blanks , yapping like a manic Chihuahua behind a 6 ft fence, acd continually treading in his own s**t

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I think I know who “she” is.

      Ms “Do-You-Know-Who-I-Am” Rick is Ronnie Pickering!

  35. AndyG55 says:

    Here’s a nice comparison of Arctic sea ice in the last few years, late November when the sea ice was “struggling” to form because of the “less cold” weather related blob over the Franz-Josef region,

    Even a blind monkey could see that 2016 had more mid-thickness or greater sea ice than any of the previous years.

    And we have all seen the large percentage increases of multi-year sea ice that 2017 has on previous years.

    But just for those with comprehension deficiencies….

    NSIDC has 2017 extent above 2004, 2006,2015, 2016

    MASIE has 20167 above 2006, 2007 2009, 2015, 2016

    Russian charts have “old ice” extent
    38% above 2008
    20% above 2009
    7% above 2011
    22% above 2012
    64% above 2013
    12.4% above 2016
    (and slight above 2010, 2014, 2015)
    ie above ALL years since 2008

    And current Arctic sea ice levels are HIGHER than what they have been for 90-95% of the last 10,000 years. Only been lower during the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest, most inhospitable, period in the last 10,000 years.

  36. RAH says:

    Because the alarmists have sought to make the Arctic and Polar bear the “canary in the coal mine” for AGW/Climate change the believers refuse to acknowledge the painfully obvious.

    Every metric, be it extent, area, volume, or age of Arctic sea ice is subject to many factors other than water and air temp and insolation. In fact of the many factors that effect that ice the ones that make the most drastic short term changes are wave and wind action. And yet despite that fact they continue to hang their hat on a “virtually ice free” Arctic as the Holy Grail of proof of AGW. It is really some silly s!$t.

    Right now we’re nearing the end of the weakest solar cycle in over a century and at the same time in the La Nina following a “super” El Nino. Neither one of which has anything to do with atmospheric CO2 concentration or human activity. But both of which have been shown in the past to have effects on the Arctic weather. And yet here we see them going on as if no factors but insolation and temperatures have anything to do with metrics of Arctic sea ice.

    • AndyG55 says:

      AMO is starting to ease downwards a bit too.

      North Atlantic temperature are dropping quickly.

      Won’t it be FUN as the Arctic sea ice level starts to ease back upwards :-)

      The Arctic chicken-little ranting and carrying-on will go even more manic. ! :-)

      • Rick says:

        LMAO! Watch and wait, candie. The Arctic will keep breaking records for lows until it has it’s first ice free summer. Then the record breaking will continue.

        Tha AMO is not coming to the rescue, unfortunately

        • gator69 says:

          So yet another day in the life of Ms Rick:

          * Refuse to discuss Climatology 101 yet again, and hurl insults

          * Make outlandish and provably false statements yet again, and hurl insults

          * Insult those who have a greater knowledge of climate science yet again, and hurl more insults

          * Pretend not to profit off CAGW yet again, and hurl insults

          * Hate poor brown people yet again, and hurl insults

          # Make fool of self throughout day yet again, and hurl insults

          Ms Rick, your comments here are eerily and disturbingly similar to those of Medieval priests who kept texts in Latin, so as to keep the sacred word secret. Those days are over.

          Do you still wish to (pig ignorantly) claim that you can…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          If so, call the IPCC, because they have never been able to do this.

          Or do they still, refuse to take your calls, Ms Rick?

          • AndyG55 says:

            He hasn’t even “phoned a friend”

            you know thoseother name-dropped chief climate scammers and wastrels..

            Seems he doesn’t actually know them, and is just LYING through his a**e…

            … although , I bet they would also run away from answering your questions. ;-)

  37. sunsettommy says:

    Rick, the alleged two science degree holder has done the following:

    Ignores/never answers the questions Gator repeatedly asks,

    “1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.” Replies with insults instead.

    Never addressed my PER DECADE warming trend, as published by the IPCC reports and what the Satellite data actually show. Replies with insults instead.

    Ignores AndyG55 LARGE temperature station coverage gaps on the land surface areas as shown here:

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/extent-of-multi-year-arctic-sea-ice-is-the-highest-in-a-decade/#comment-49996

    Ignores the evidence AndyG55 provides over and over showing what the Arctic is doing even when shown maps, replies with insults instead.

    Rick, who should been able to make rational insult free replies to all these and more,never does as she is so busy with the schoolyard insults to bother. I think she does it because she doesn’t have two college degrees at all, as her replies are often shallow and stupid.

    This is a loudmouthed warmist troll,nothing more.

    • AndyG55 says:

      A psychotic AGW parrot acting like a yapping Chihuahua…

      .. and I feel I am insulting both parrots and Chihuahuas.!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Rick, the alleged two science degree holder”

      Only person alleging that is Rabid Ricky wannabee.

      Meaningless and unsupportable..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.