Ignoring The Perils Of Fake Scientists

Two days ago, experts told us that global warming is destroying Alaska. Bloomberg says global warming is making Alaska winters warm.

Fairbanks is having their coldest March on record, with near record cold in the forecast for the next week.

For the year so far, Fairbanks is averaging -6F, with declining January-March temperatures since 1981. This year is averaging 23 degrees colder than 1981, when CO2 was 345 PPM.

Over the last 40 years, there has been no temperature trend in Fairbanks.

The Nenana River currently has one meter thick ice.

There is more sea ice than normal along the Alaskan coast.

‎nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png

Congress needs to cut off funding to this scam, and these fake scientists, politicians and journalists need to be called out and humiliated. Enough is enough.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

272 Responses to Ignoring The Perils Of Fake Scientists

  1. John F. Hultquist says:

    Do you remember “Have Gun — Will Travel”? [1957 – 1963]
    Richard Boone played a man called Paladin.

    Now US ecologist Richard Boone tries, and fails, to entertain in like manner.

  2. Gail Combs says:

    Trump’s budget proposal is making major cuts:

    EPA 31.4%
    Corp of Engineers 16.3%
    NASA 0.8%
    USAID 28.7%
    Ag (USDA) 20.7%
    Education 13%
    Energy 5.6%
    Nuclear however get a bump up of +11.3%

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/16/perspectives-on-president-trumps-2018-budget-proposal/

    Full PDF
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/16/president-trump-delivers-his-fiscal-year-2018-budget-outline-full-pdf-included/

    May the screaming and howling BEGIN!

    • Gail Combs says:

      Sundance’s comments on One of the biggest scams on the American Taxpayer in history.

      Don’t give up , you will be pissed when you get through it…
      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/12/most-americans-dont-know-about-president-obamas-uniparty-slush-fund/
      They were all in on it..

      Another backgrounder on the budget situation that provides the LONG history of shenanigans (as agreed to in 1974) on why our budgets are so F..Ked Up or rather how they are DELIBERATELY designed to screw the tax payer.
      http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/06/obamas_spending_and_the_dog_that_didnt_bark.html

      “In the 1974 Budget Act, Congress slipped this concept into the budgeting process. What it means is this: spending in the next fiscal year that supports all the programs — the current services — in the current fiscal year is automatic: it is the baseline.”

      We need ZERO BASE BUDGETS!

      I did it for years and it is the best way for a business to save money. No taking last years $$$ and adding a % you have to JUSTIFY every penny you want to spend.

    • SxyxS says:

      Cutting USAID-
      the most imortant non-Soros Pseudo-NGO for the Wall Street.

      The bankers will kill him.

      • gator69 says:

        This banker voted for him, and supports him. Most bankers are conservative, and have no love for Progressive schemes.

        • Gail Combs says:

          There are bankers and then there are Central Banksters.

          Bankers hate the Banksters.

          John Allison of BB&T on the Banksters (The Fed)

          http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/04/business-hero-john-allison-bbt-the-bank-that-atlas-built/

          …According to Allison, “They called us and said, ‘Okay, we’ve had these capital rules forever, and you guys got a lot more capital based on those rules. But we’ve decided we’re going to have some new capital rules. And based on these new capital rules, we don’t think you have enough capital. Now, we don’t know what the rules are, but we’re confident that if you don’t take the TARP money, you won’t have enough capital.’ ”1

          Allison knew that the bank examiner was just a messenger boy for his bosses in Washington, D.C., where the Federal Reserve under chairman Ben Bernanke was desperate to save a few insolvent mega- banks, even if the entire banking system had to pay the bill do it.

          Allison says, “There were three large financial institutions in serious trouble in the capital markets.” Presumably he means Citigroup, Bank of America, and General Electric Credit. But Bernanke didn’t want to reveal to the public how weak these three really were — so all banks would be forced to take TARP money. “He felt like if he forced all the large banks, all the $100 billion banks and over, to participate, the market couldn’t figure it out. . . . It was a huge rip-off for healthy banks.”

          Allison signed. He had to. He had adamantly opposed TARP when it was being debated. He thought it was wrong. He thought it was unfair. He thought it was unnecessary. But he had to sign. A Southerner who often expresses himself in gracious understatement, Allison says, “To be forced to do that with 30 days left in your career, on something you were adamantly opposed to in the first place, was not much fun.”….

          (We changed to BB&T)

        • SxyxS says:

          When i talk about bankers i mean the superbankers.
          Those who controle the Big Banks, FED and(according to carrol quigley)and the central banks and the BIS.
          Those Bankers in Brazil Clinton met secretely telling
          them that she like to see 300 mio illegals in the USA.

          Those Bankers who rig the Libor.
          Those Bankers who have their own ,undemocratic sovereign state “City of London”(no conspiracy,but facg)

          • gator69 says:

            I understand the distinction, but most do not. We get angry people at our branches yelling at hard working and honest bankers because of this sort of rhetoric, while the real criminals go on with their schemes because they go unnamed.

            I say the same when I see conservatives bashing “liberals”. I am a liberal, because I believe in our liberties as put forth by our founding fathers. “Leftists” or “progressives” are the correct terms for those who are ruining our country, and we lose support from real liberals when we lump them in with the evil ones.

            We must speak honestly and clearly if we are to ever fix the mass stupidity that has been thrust upon us by the left.

          • SxyxS says:

            Alright Gator,
            i’m sorry.
            From now on i’ll use the term bankster.
            (i have nothing against people who are legislating money supply and are just usefull parts of a society,but the parasites using this system as a tool)
            It is not about small business,
            but about big corporations,big banks,mcdonalds ,amazon etc etc,
            destroying cultures,health,wealth,societies,wholesale-
            it is about the big ones.
            no matter wether they hide behide socislism,capitalism,communism or a big state.
            When they grow too big they get too dangerous.

    • RAH says:

      “May the screaming and howling BEGIN!”

      It already is and will no doubt raise to a deafening crescendo when the time comes. I love Trumps “skinny budget”. Skinny because during the first year of a presidents term they simply do not have time to produce a detailed budget to present to congress.

      What this is going to do is put the RINOs on the hot seat. Those that claim to be conservative but who vote differently are going to be exposed when they refuse the cuts for what ever reason. It is a given that democrats will oppose every single measure except of course for some democrap senators in states that Trump took that know they will have to face their constituents in 2018. It is going to be interesting and revealing and I look forward to it.

      Trump is doing an excellent job of not only playing the dempcrap opposition but also making things very uncomfortable for the establishment RINOs. Put up or shut up boys!

      • Gail Combs says:

        Don’t forget to call your Congress Offal and rub their noses in the fact we are following them CLOSELY…

      • RAH says:

        The establishment RINO types in congress are already scared. If Ryancare makes it through the HR, and I believe it will, the ball will be in the Republican senators court and that fact has them shaking in their boots. There is not doubt in my mind that the majority of senators of both parties would rather they didn’t have to deal with it but it is down right toxic for RINOs and many Democrats that are up for reelection next year.

        • Gail Combs says:

          They might try for an assassination but I do not think they dare because a ‘Warren Commission’ just isn’t going to fly this time around. As that link to a comment showed, people are now willing to bring the chickens home to roost. The 4-chan group showed just how fast they can do so.

  3. SxyxS says:

    Can one imagine how harmfull global warming would be for Alaska.

    More crops,
    more vegetation=more animals
    much less cost for heating.
    Not being cut of from the rest of the world for weeks because of snow.

    Thx god they have people like Boone trying to save alaskanians? from this.
    (of course this guy is a climate super expert…. as ecologist)

  4. Rick says:

    Wow, nice cherry pick!

    Maenwhile, back here on Earth, hears the reality regarding Alaskan temps in the past few years.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201613

    For most of the year, Alaska “baked”, with record heat at the local and statewide level. With a statewide record that dates to 1925 (92 years), Alaska had its second warmest winter, warmest spring, second warmest summer and a warmer-than-average fall. The persistent heat led to Alaska’s warmest year on record. Each of the three years since 2014 is among the three warmest on record for Alaska, with 2015 tied with 2002 for third warmest. At the local level, the annual average temperature in Barrow was 7.1°F above the 1981-2010 average. Nome was 5.1°F above, Fairbanks 3.9°F, Anchorage 4.4°F and Juneau 2.7°F above the 30-year average. Since 1925, Alaska has observed an average temperature increase of 0.30°F per decade. Statewide precipitation totals were near average for the annual period. Seasonally, several climate divisions in western Alaska were record dry in the 2015/16 winter, while the spring precipitation was wetter than average in Bristol Bay and the Panhandle. Statewide summer precipitation was generally wetter than average, especially for the interior. Autumn precipitation totals were below average across much of eastern Alaska.

    • tonyheller says:

      Moron alert. It is -19F in Fairbanks now. Go move there.

      • Rick says:

        Spoken like a true Science Illiterati. Just ignore/deny all the NSIDC, PIOMAS, and DMI data.

        Here’s someone who actually does honest research:

        http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/dmi/

        • tonyheller says:

          I love it when a new moron shows up.

          • Gail Combs says:

            So do I.
            Your wolf pack get a new play toy to sharpen their teeth on. ?

          • Gail Combs says:

            Have fun with your new play toy guys and don’t leave TOO many tooth marks. I have to head out to work.

          • Rick says:

            Wow, you’re really showing me up by ignoring and denying data from actual SCIENCE websites!

            And that devastating name calling!

          • Rick says:

            lol…none of your insipid “arguments” you think refute AGW have any bite. They don’t even have gums.

          • AndyG55 says:

            This worm is obviously one of the Neven/ Jim Hunt crew. Paid to take over because Jimbo is neutered.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Rick, as a real scientist who’s not “denying data from actual SCIENCE websites”, explain to us what are the scientific reasons to change measured raw data and pretend it is still data?

          • Rick says:

            Andy, I’m not part of any crew. I have bio and chem degrees and have spent 30 years consulting in the science community. I’m not a layman like you who is so easily taken in by skeptic/denier dis-information blogs. I get my science from peer-reviewed papers written by experts in their respective fields.

            You get your’s from AGW deniers and armchair “scientists” with an agenda and have no idea what they are talking about.

          • Rick says:

            Wellington,

            Are you referring to the completely debunked “climategate” nonsense?

            http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

            Or the completely debunked accusations made by fools against Thomas Karl?

            http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

            Whichever, don’t let salient facts deter your baseless abject denial.

          • AndyG55 says:

            roflmao.

            Did Jimbo put you up to this… very funny.

            You are very much taken in by scam propaganda AGW blog, like Neven , Realclimate..

            you cite them.. next will be SkS or something.

            You are just so brain-blocked that you don’t even know it. !

            So funny, and a bit of a pity, to see a person who should be rational, but is so unable to see past the AGW scam.

          • Rick says:

            Andy, please stop embarrassing yourself. Tell you what, I’ll go with what NAS has concluded as a result of decades of arduous climate research.

            http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/

            You stick with your denier blogs and rabbit holes.

            Gee, which has more credibility? lol

          • AndyG55 says:

            roflmao..

            and now you are citing Snopes..

            So hilariously funny !!!

            You really are a most GULLIBLE little twit, aren’t you , Rick

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Rick.. he really is an out-on-the-fringe
            warmista junkie.. a religiou zealot !!

            It will be such fun watching him bluster and carry on.

            Please keep going Rick, it is people like you that help the realist side grow and grow. :-)

            We could ask him to produce a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming a convective atmosphere… but probably need to play with I’m a bit more first. :-)

          • Rick says:

            Andy, here you go:

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

            You keep ranting senselessly and flaunting your science illiteracy, and I’ll keep clubbing you over your empty skull with actual science….peer-reviewed science.

            Prediction: you next “argument” will be the futile and ignorant claim that peer-review can’t be trusted. I love that baseless inanity!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yeehaw.. the Marty Feldman paper, I knew it was coming, Thanks !! :-)

            Starts at base of La Nina, ends at peak of El Nino, Natural warming caused a tiny immeasurable (had to be teased mercilessly from the data) increase in radiation due to the warmer atmosphere.

            Did they do a partial time series investigation ending at 2008, NOPE, I wonder why that would be..

            Why did it take 5 years to “tease” the tiny increase out of the data” or did the data actually finish in 2012. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out.

            A very shoddy paper, to say the least.

            And absolutely ZERO proof that CO2 caused any warming, because ALL the warming came from a small El Nino event, like ALL warming does and has.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “will be the futile and ignorant claim that peer-review can’t be trusted”

            As many as 65% of peer-reviewed articles are proven not just wrong, but abjectly wrong.

            Didn’t you know that?? Oh dear.. your ignorance is starting to surface. !!

            They are the one you will choose.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

            And when you get trillions of dollar resting on getting “the right answer”, like in the AGW scam, pal/review becomes basically worthless.

            You do know the purpose of peer-review, don’t you??

            Waiting for an answer on that one, see if you actually understand anything.

          • Rick says:

            Right on cue! lol What a surprise!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Neven is like Jimbo, he doesn’t have an honest bone in his body.

          LIES OF OMISSION from the very start to the very end of his blog.

        • R. Shearer says:

          Educate yourself, it’s cooler now than it has been over the previous warm periods since this interglacial began.

          • Rick says:

            R. THAT is your “argument” refuting AGW??? lol

          • AndyG55 says:

            Your absolute religious zealotry on AGW is so, so funny to watch. Your total lack of any form of rational thought is so obvious to all.

            This is going to be so much fun !! :-)

          • Rick says:

            Andy, how about a link to a legitimate science site to back your inane denial of AGW?

            All you have offered is baseless empty conjecture.

            Hint: that’s not science.

          • Rick says:

            Oh, and Andy, where do you get “zealotry” from? I’m simply stating what every science organization in the world has long since concluded regarding the overwhelming empirical evidence substantiating AGW. I have also provided numerous links which contain numerous kinks to peer-reviewed research on the topic.

            You have offered nothing but rage and baseless conjecture. Quite childish and completely risible.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ROFLMAo.

            You really are a NON-THINKING zealot, it comes through in your every post, you are just too brain-washed to see it.

            Its HILARIOUS to watch.

            Again, do you think that any of these societies has actually asked their members? NO, the statements are issued by the political animals at the top.

            Are you so DUMB and NAIVE that you don’t realise that !!!! really !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            I don’t need to offer anything, because all you have presented so far is the same old propaganda nonsense that we are all very used to.

            Every link you have posted has been to the very priests of the AGW scam. !

            We have seen it all before. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Again the plea to consensus.

            Ignore the science.. good little AGW troll.

          • Rick says:

            Andy, all you offer are rants and lies.

            You are all hat and no cattle. Thanks for the chuckles!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Rick is showing a religious zealot, offering nothing but the usual brain-wash AGW pap.
            its so funny to watch.

            Everyone reading and watching will be laughing at you until their side hurt,

            I know I am.

            Its like teasing a Jehovah Witness apostle, with questions to substantiate their beliefs. :-)

          • Rick says:

            Andy. Good news!

            You’re free now! I’ve grown tired of owning you.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Tired of being own, tired of being trolled into revealing you baseless religious AGW zealotry.

            You poor exhausted little troll.!

          • Rick says:

            Science illiteracy keeps rearing it’s ugly head…. Oh, hi again, Andy. I told you that you’re free now.. move along….chop-chop!

        • R. Shearer says:

          Rick, anyone that suggests the climate has acquired 2+ million atomic bombs is not being honest.

      • Rick says:

        I’ve actually lived there before for 2 years. So it’s -19. Not uncommon for March or even April. That obviously negates the extreme warming in Alaska the past 4 years and somehow proves AGW is a hoax, right?

        • RAH says:

          So that warm blob of water sitting off the Alaskan coast all last year during an El Nino had nothing to do with it right? It’s weather man! Not climate.

          • Rick says:

            It wasn’t there for 4 years. Also, expect those warm blobs to become more frequent due to AGW.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Rick doesn’t seem to understand a WARM northern ocean/Alaska is a sign of heat head towards outer space.

            The current weather pattern with cold eastern USA and warm Alaska is NOT a pattern of a warming world.

          • Gail Combs says:

            The Laurentide Ice Sheet sat a mile deep over Chicago not Alaska.

          • Rick says:

            Gail doesn’t seem to understand the complete picture regarding ocean warming due to AGW.

            https://weather.com/science/nature/news/rising-ocean-temperatures-challenge

            “Compiled by 80 scientists in 12 countries for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)”

            https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

          • Norman says:

            Rick

            The blob was there for about 4 years. It begin in 2013.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean)

            http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/ClimateTrends/StateWide_Change_1949-2016_F.png

            The really warm Alaska temperatures and California drought do seem linked to the “blob”

            Now the blob is gone and so is warm weather in Alaska and drought in California;

          • Gail Combs says:

            “Gail doesn’t seem to understand the complete picture regarding ocean warming due to AGW.”

          • Gail Combs says:

            You mean ocean warming like THIS?

            These are the temperature measurements at different depths by Argo.

          • Rick says:

            Gail, educate yourself regarding ocean warming. Then come back when you have an inkling as to what you are talking about, k?

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

          • Rick says:

            Norman, what do you think was ultimately responsible for the forming of the blob? Where did all that heat come from?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Where did all that heat come from?”

            And Rick starts showing his abject wilful ignorance on the very first day on the job. :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Gail doesn’t seem to understand the complete picture regarding ocean warming due to AGW.”

            Rick, we have been fed the BS for ages.. And the fact that you don’t know it is BS, shows that it is you who don’t underswtand

            I bet you have just lapped up every piece of propaganda BS they have fed you, like a good little AGW troll, and have now come to regurgitate the lies and mis-information here.

            We have seen it all before. You have NOTHING !!

          • Rick says:

            Andy, denial of science isn’t science. How do you reconcile the fact that literally every science organization on the planet takes the same stance on AGW?

            Your “argument” seems to be that they are lying….that it’s a big conspiracy involving tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of scientists involve in the research.

            This is completely unsubstantiated BS and you should be ashamed of your willful ignorance.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “denial of science isn’t science.”

            Ok, so STOP doing it !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            It seems you have a brain-block at least as big as your mate Jimbo’s

            You cannot hope to learn REALITY if you continue to block all rational thought.

          • Rick says:

            Andy, , once again, denial of science and the stance that EVERY science organization on the planet takes isn’t science. It’s still just denial.

            Grow a brain stem and come back when you can rationally discuss in detail why you deny what every science organization says regarding AGW.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Calling on the “consensus” ..

            And you pretend to be a scientists??

            so funny !!

          • Latitude says:

            Gail Combs says:
            March 18, 2017 at 5:23 pm

            The Laurentide Ice Sheet sat a mile deep over Chicago not Alaska.
            ===
            You know something about that…
            ..as cold as it was, Alaska could not have been frozen over
            There would have been no land bridge

          • Rick says:

            Andy, consensus is important in science. What it says is that after examining the plethora of empirical evidence, there is strong agreement among scientists that the conclusions are correct.

            There is a consensus on evolution and heliocentrism for a very good reason. The same is true for AGW. Denying this does not render it meaningless.

            I noticed you can’t post one link to a legitimate science source to back your inane stance/ Why is that, Andy?

          • AndyG55 says:

            a few trillion dollars buys a lot of “consensus”, even if it that consensus has to be fabricated.

            You don’t also “believe” in the Cooked 97% , do you?

            That would mark you as a totally brain-washed irrational suckophant.

            And no “consensus” is NO PART of science, (it is part of POLITICS, which is all that AGW is) and in fact, “consensus” has held back scientific advancement in many, many cases.

            Just like the fake-consensus and the trillion dollar ear-marked funding is holding back climate research to the late 1800’s

          • Rick says:

            Andy, you obviously can’t discuss actual science, so you resort to the denier’s last desperate strategy:

            A cry that science is bought and paid for and it’s all a big money-grubbing conspiracy. Can you possibly be more naive and …well…stupid?

          • AndyG55 says:

            You have yet to present any science, just rampant propaganda from the heart of the AGW scam.

            Not doing very well, are you little troll. !

            Your arrogance is backed only by your ignorance.

            You baseless belief system is unsubstantiated, and I’m guessing you know it, otherwise you wouldn’t be here trying to persuade yourself, while ignoring all data and facts in front of you.

            Politically and monetary driven consensus has NOTHING to do with science, and if you don’t know that, I wonder if you ever did any real science at all.

            Just making it up, you are no scientist, that is FOR SURE.

          • Rick says:

            Andy, of course. Nature, The National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics. Numerous links to peer-reviewed studies. It’s all “propaganda”

            What specifically are your “non-propaganda” sites?

          • AndyG55 says:

            And now you can’t escape, can you, little worm on a hook.

            You really think the pal-review is NOT driven by the HUGE funding available.

            Did you ever explain what the purpose of peer review is ?? Do you even know ???

          • Rick says:

            Andy, your sources which back your inane anti AGW stance? Stop deflecting like a little coward. Put up or shut up…

          • AndyG55 says:

            Oh dear, poor Rick.. proves he is a Jimbo stooge.

            Everything you have posted has been countered.

            Go away and find something other than your baseless AGW propaganda mis-information.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Did you ever explain what the purpose of peer review is ?? Do you even know ???

          • AndyG55 says:

            You do know what a “null hypothesis” is don’t you Rick.

            Waiting for proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            That is the basis of your baseless religion.

            And please, not the comical Marty Feldman paper again !! Or the one showing that humidity affects cooling. Seen them. No cigar. !

          • Rick says:

            Can’t provide a source, huh, coward? Deflection and denial aren’t science sources, Andy.

            Provide a link to what you believe is “the real truth” lol

          • Gail Combs says:

            Rick says:

            “Andy, consensus is important in science.”

            GOOD GRIEF! You claim to be a scientist and write THAT?

            Consensus is the antithesis of science. As Max Planck said:

            “New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment….

            A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

          • AndyG55 says:

            No scientist , this Rick guy… that is for sure

            Just another yapping AGW operative.

            The consensus, AGW pal-review, paid-for-paper. (where data is squeezed and tortured to yield a pre-determined result)

            The standards of the AGW zealot :-)

            But hey, what can we expect..

            Its all they have !! :-)

        • Gail Combs says:

          It is OCEAN TEMPERATURES!

          “The epic 2015 fishing season has come to a close and Southern California anglers are now looking forward to reeling in more fish in 2016. A warm water blob off the Southern California coast (courtesy of El Niño) meant warm offshore waters deep into the year – and plenty of exotic fish to be had….”

          http://www.fishrapnews.com/features/fishing-season-review/

          From Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

          It’s alive! ‘The blob’ lingers at new depth, scientists say
          Marine ecosystems still at risk as ‘the blob’ sinks deeper below the surface, says DFO
          http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/it-s-alive-the-blob-lingers-at-new-depth-scientists-say-1.3663878

          • Rick says:

            Correct Gail. Ocean temperatures are on the rise due to AGW.

          • Gail Combs says:

            You are ignoring PHYSICS.

            Co2 CAN NOT WARM THE OCEANS. It is the sun that warms the oceans and the solar wavelengths shift so although TSI may stay the same the amount of solar energy entering the oceans at different depths DOES NOT.
            SEE NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/sdo_eve.html

            Depth for different wavelengths of solar energy CO2 is on the very far right off the graph and is only capable of penetrating a minuscule few microns (millionths of a meter) past the surface and no further, it could therefore only cause evaporation (and thus cooling) of the surface ‘skin’ of the oceans.

          • Gail Combs says:

            And just in case you think I am making that up…

            Optical constants of water in the 200nm to 200µm wavelength region

            Extinction coefficients k(\lambda) for water at 25° were determined through a broad spectral region by manually smoothing a point by point graph of k(\lambda) vs wavelength \lambda that was plotted for data obtained from a review of the scientific literature on the optical constant of water. Absorption bands representing k(\lambda) were postulated where data were not available in the vacuum uv and soft x-ray regions. A subtractive Kramers-Kronig analysis of the combined postulated and smoothed portions of the k(\lambda) spectrum provided the index of refraction n(\lambda) for the spectral region 200 nm<=\lambda<=200 µm.

          • Rick says:

            Gail, educate yourself regarding ocean warming. Then come back when you have an inkling as to what you are talking about, k?

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

          • AndyG55 says:

            We are interested in the TRUTH, not baseless AGW mis-information and paid propaganda.

            Find a site with some real science on that isn’t TOTALLY SCREWED UP with AGW bias.

            Oh that’s right.. its all you guys are capable of

            It is your JOB to spread the AGW manure..

          • AndyG55 says:

            Ocean temperatures are on the rise due to AGW.

            LIAR !! There is no proven anthropogenic CO2 warming of the oceans.

            It is in fact not possible. Take your propaganda pap elsewhere.

          • Rick says:

            Wow Andy. Your little panties seem to be in quite a bunch!

            “There is no proven anthropogenic CO2 warming of the oceans.

            It is in fact not possible. Take your propaganda pap elsewhere.”

            LO F’N L! The force of abject denial runs deep in this one!

            Educate yourself:

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Rick.. more baseless junk.

            There is nothing in there that shows CO2 warms the oceans

            You again post the regular propaganda mis-information

            Tell us how the measured OHC before 2003.

            This will be funny to see! :-)

            And yes. There was this period called the Little Ice Age.

            A rational person would expect, hope for, warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

            If you like it cold.. move to Siberia… I bet you won’t

            Or do you choose somewhere much warmer, you know , like southern England?

          • Rick says:

            Andy, you stated:

            “There is nothing in there that shows CO2 warms the oceans”

            Here you go. Continue your education:

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

            As for the LIA (and MWP), we know what caused both and those causes have absolutely nothing to do with current warming.

            Regardless, it would behoove you to get up to speed regarding the latest research on the LIA and MWP.

            Start with the PAGES 2K Consortium. Then come back and explain to me in scientific detail just how 78 researchers from 24 different countries and from 60 different institutions have it all wrong, okay?

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

            “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Rick, calling on the two most BASED propaganda sites in the world.
            So hilarious.

            1. extra humidity slows down evaporation… nothing to do with radiation, especially not
            from CO2.

            2. When you get a group of highly paid operative(from the climate trough) together,…. you can fabricate anything, every DENIAL of Earth’s history !!

            You pretend to be a consultant, you work for money to get the desired result, correct ?

            That is all your second link is.

            Do you really DENY that the MWP and LIA didn’t exist ?

            Do you really DENY that the Earth is in a cooler period of the current interglacial.

            Climate Change Denial is strong with you, Rick.

          • Rick says:

            Andy…lol…now science journals like Nature and peer-reviewed research are “propaganda”?

            Wow, son! Tell me; what do you take to alleviate your severe science allergies?

          • AndyG55 says:

            ROFLMAO..

            If you haven’t realised by now that “Nature” is a stalwart for the AGW scam, there really is no hope for any rationality to ever enter your mind.

            Do you even know what the purpose of peer review is.

            Do you REALLY think it is part of the scientific process???

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

          • Rick says:

            Ah yes, scientists have been wrong about some things in the past, therefore they must be wrong about AGW.

            Brilliant deduction, Andy! Jeez, son. You have the science acumen of a dung beetle and obviously enjoy the same diet.

            Time to watch some hoops.

            Go crawl back down your rabbit hole and enjoy the view like a good little denier!

            I enjoyed you verifying via your rants that stupid just casn’t be fixed

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor little AGW propaganda zealot…

            … off you trot back under your bridge over the AGW sewer.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Still waiting to see if you know what peer-review actually is.

            Still waiting to see if you can support even the most basic suppository of your AGW religion.

        • Steven Fraser says:

          Rick, if ‘ extreme warming’ has been in effect for the last 4 years, why are alll the March High temp records from last century? Here is the chart… ( I hope it formats OK)

          http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USAK0083

          Historic AverageHome » Local » Historic Averages
          Fairbanks, Alaska
          Daily Averages & Records – °F
          Date Average
          Low Average
          High Record
          Low Record
          High Average
          Precipitation Average
          Snow
          Mar 1 -6° 17° -40° (1956) 41° (1981) 0.02″ NA
          Mar 2 -5° 18° -39° (1956) 47° (1968) 0.02″ NA
          Mar 3 -5° 18° -38° (1956) 46° (1957) 0.02″ NA
          Mar 4 -5° 19° -35° (1956) 45° (1990) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 5 -4° 19° -33° (1992) 49° (1957) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 6 -4° 20° -35° (1971) 47° (1984) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 7 -3° 21° -34° (1971) 47° (1955) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 8 -3° 21° -32° (1971) 45° (1984) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 9 -3° 22° -36° (1971) 47° (1965) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 10 -2° 22° -30° (1971) 51° (1965) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 11 -2° 23° -29° (1959) 50° (1992) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 12 -1° 24° -30° (1959) 49° (1970) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 13 -1° 24° -35° (1995) 46° (1981) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 14 0° 25° -37° (1964) 46° (1988) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 15 0° 25° -36° (1964) 46° (1998) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 16 1° 26° -28° (1959) 44° (1981) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 17 1° 26° -28° (1959) 46° (1981) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 18 2° 27° -25° (1966) 50° (1981) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 19 2° 28° -22° (1959) 53° (1981) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 20 3° 28° -25° (1959) 49° (1998) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 21 4° 29° -27° (1994) 57° (1998) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 22 4° 29° -25° (1994) 52° (1998) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 23 5° 30° -30° (1995) 50° (1974) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 24 5° 30° -29° (1995) 53° (1998) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 25 6° 31° -28° (1962) 53° (1998) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 26 6° 32° -23° (2004) 51° (1999) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 27 7° 32° -20° (2004) 51° (1970) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 28 8° 33° -41° (1971) 50° (1990) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 29 8° 33° -13° (1972) 50° (1973) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 30 9° 34° -18° (1972) 53° (1994) 0.01″ NA
          Mar 31 10° 34° -22° (2004) 51° (1970) 0.01″ NA

          • Rick says:

            There’s a bigger picture you are purposely ignoring. Educate yourself regarding Arctic warming.

            https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Rick, before the current EL Nino there was no warming this century in the Arctic

            You cannot educate yourself by looking at places like RealClimate, except if you are after the most base-level of propganda anti-science.

            Who is paying you to spread your baseless propaganda, Rick.

            Why are are so, so worried about facing the truth, ;-)

          • Latitude says:

            roaring laughing…..

            Rick just said it’s nothing new, that the Arctic has been a lot warmer…..and it was all natural

            from his link.

            “plants and animals that were frozen in the ground begin to decay”

          • AndyG55 says:

            He is stuck in his microcosm of the natural, highly beneficial warming since the LIA.

            He probably doesn’t know a single thing about pre-LIA temperatures, pre-LIA Arctic sea ice.

            He probably thinks 1979, which was an extreme AMO based, sea ice period is actually the norm.

            They are always so , so ignorant and lack any sort of time perspective.

            I like to start their education process by introducing them to this video.

            https://vimeo.com/14366077

            Enjoy the video Rick.. and try to learn and try to think, rather than the baseless regurgitation of propaganda non-facts.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yes Rick , the climate HAS changed,

            We are very much in a cooler period of the current interglacial, only just a small bump out of the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

            The small amount of warming is absolutely beneficial, and the increase in atmospheric CO2 has lifted planet out of a very dangerous, edge of subsistence minimal value, that had it dropped any lower would have meant the extinction of all life on Earth.

            Comprehend, ?

            .. nah.. you would have to turn your mind-block off first

          • Rick says:

            Andy, tell me; why do you so readily accept what scientists tell you regarding past climate change and it’s causes, yet you reject what these same scientists tell you regarding the cause of current warming?

            It can’t possibly be your ideology can it?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Why do you DENY the existence of Holocene warm period, RWP, MWP, LIA, etc etc

            What is it with you and DENIAL. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            You still haven’;t realised that the science behind the anti-CO2 scam is BOGUS, have you.

            You poor brain-washed little child,

            Everybody knows what the cause of the current slight, but highly beneficial warming is, and it is NOT CO2

            The only warming in the whole of the satellite data record is from El Nino events, and even the most brain-washed zealot can pretend they are caused by atmospheric plant food.

          • Rick says:

            Andy, what the hell are you ranting about now? I accept what scientists tell us about past climate changes and the causes.

            Again, stop deflecting and tell me; why do you so readily accept what scientists tell you regarding past climate change and it’s causes, yet you reject what these same scientists tell you regarding the cause of current warming?

          • AndyG55 says:

            You still haven’;t realised that the science behind the anti-CO2 scam is BOGUS, have you.

            There is NO PROOF. Just conjecture.

            And the REAL scientists like Happer, Soon, etc and the 30,000 that signed the Oregon Petition, are also telling us it is BOGUS.

            Do
            you
            comp-
            re-
            hend !!!

            Or is rational scientific thinking too much for you.. you need your science spoon-fed to you by the AGW propaganda scammers.

            You poor GULLIBLE, non-thinking little troll. !!

            There is NO MECHANISM by which CO2 can cause warming in a convective atmosphere, except by fantasy.

        • Rick says:

          Andy. Your sources? Stop being coewardly. Put up or shut up.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Waiting for you to produce something other than propaganda pap.

            You have replied to a post by Gail. She gave her sources.

          • Rick says:

            And I debunked Gail. Stop relying on her to fight you battles, son. She already lost.

            Your sources? Stop being cowardly. Put up or shut up.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You did not debunk Gail, except in your own brain-washed mind.

            Do you know what the purpose of peer-review is??

            Waiting for you to support the very basis of your fantasy religion. !

          • AndyG55 says:

            The satellite data sets show no warming from CO2 in 39 years.

            There is no paper proving warming in a convective atmosphere.

            You are relying on an unproven assumption.

            That is all the AGW religion has.

            Why are you here except as a Jimbo the clown replacement ?

        • Jl says:

          Is Alaska the globe, as in global warming? Didn’t think so.

      • Robert Austin says:

        Moron on steroids, Tony. Still doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate.

  5. CO2isLife says:

    Cutting off funding is exactly what they need to do. They are using the public’s funds to undermine the public.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/climate-science-on-trial-temperature-records-dont-support-nasa-giss/

  6. Steven Fraser says:

    Tony, Nenana this morning is a chilly -24F, quite warmer than when I was there in September.

    The webcam image you posted comes from the tower in the accompanying pic. A rope from the tripod will go to this tower, then down to the little bldg you see at the left. That is where the clock is located.

  7. gator69 says:

    Rick, your intense belief is breath taking, but it is not science. What we have learned about climate change over the past few decades, and after thousands of scientific studies, is that we cannot disprove natural variability as the cause of any climate changes we have seen.

    Do you get this excited when the Sun sets?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Heh. Heh!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Rick is almost certainly one of the Neven/Jim Hunt propaganda slime crew.

    • Rick says:

      Yeah, those pesky science journal links and peer-reviewed studies aren’t science.

      Do you people actually read and believe what you type?

      • gator69 says:

        Rick, follow along please, and do not deflect.

        Please do me two 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.

        In am willing to discuss this with you further, but I do not want just links to websites or papers, I want it in your own words. You may use links as references, but you will need to know where in that reference you supporting facts lie, because I will ask you. And you will have no answer.

        • Rick says:

          gator, I just responded with links to several studies,but the post is “awaiting moderation”

          • gator69 says:

            Your response was exactly what I had hoped for Rick! I could not be more pleased at how you unmasked yourself as being grossly ignorant of climate science, or science in general for that matter.

            My “trap” works every time a true believer steps in it. LOL

            Great job Ricky! (Yay!)

          • AndyG55 says:

            And he is so incredibly DUMS and anti-science , that he doesn’t even realise how easily he is being played. Its HILARIOUS :-)

            He is probably ranked as a big “F” when it comes to AGW trolls

          • Sunsettommy says:

            You probably posted too many links in the comment,thus tripping the Moderation bin.

      • Rick says:

        gator, you asked:

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

        Of course natural variability has always affected the climate. However, extensive research shows that natural forcings have been overridden by anthropogenic forcing, and the latter has been the primary climate driver since at least 1950

        Do you actually believe this is a trap for me to step in?

        As for peer-reviewed studies substantiating this, here are several. There are more. I have neither the time nor desire to type out long diatribes explaining the details when the papers elucidate them quite well.

        It is obvious you haven’t done much research if you weren’t even aware of one of these.

        https://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3659.1?prevSearch=%5Bauthor%3A+delsole%5D&searchHistoryKey=

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6464/abs/367634a0.html

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6264/abs/344324a0.html

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.738/abstract;jsessionid=D07F15BFECC70D2B73387EF8BAD89FA1.d03t01

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL036228/full

        Additionally, I’ll humor you on question 1, although it’s easily researched. The most powerful forcing over long periods time; Orbital forcing as described by Milankovitch theory. This is the most likely cause of the 23 glacials and interglacials in the past 2.6M years of this current ice age.

        On a shorter term, variations in TSI, volcanism, and changes in ocean currents. As for the latter, sparing details, A strong ~125 year oscillation in the N.Atlantic ocean is the most significant of these.

        The bottom line is that none of these, nor any combination thereof, can explain warming for the past 100 or so years. Something you would know if you’ve done your homework.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ROFLMAO.

          Models models, suppostitions, ignoring natural forcings, relying on fabricated data (GISS), suppository statistical dumps.

          SO, SO funny !!

          Not ONE IOTA of real proof.

          This is exactly what we come to expect from you clowns.

          That is why we ask you to post this sort of garbage.

          The MODELS have been proven to be highly inadequate for anything except base-level propaganda.

        • gator69 says:

          Do you actually believe this is a trap for me to step in?

          You just did Rick , thank you! And here is where…

          However, extensive research shows that natural forcings have been overridden by anthropogenic forcing…

          No they do not, not even one. They suggest that man has overridden NV, but that is because the believe it to be so, and are paid to obtain those results. Their models upon which they base their wild claims are a joke and have no predictive powers.

          “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

          The fact remains that 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. And that tere is not even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          Zero.

          And the fact that you believe that there is, proves just how ignorant of the subject that you are Rick

          You can believe in Bigfoot for all I care Rick, but you cannot expect me to believe that Bigfoot exists without proof.

          Keep the faith, brother.

          • Rick says:

            lol…keep up the abject denial

            You have the climate science acumen of a dung beetle and obviously enjoy the same diet.

          • Gator says:

            Rick, I was a geology and climatology student right after the global cooling scare, and right before the great global warming swindle. I have followed the science extremely closely ever since, and that is why I know for a fact that AGW is just a theory.

            There is no refutation of NV in any published papers. But then you are ignorant of this fact.

            Poor Ricky.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “keep up the abject denial ”

            Yes you are…..

            You have been weighed,
            you have been measured,
            and you have been found wanting.

            Your arrogant ignorance is all you have left. ! :-)

          • Rick says:

            gator, anyone saying it’s “just a theory” does not understand how much evidence must be collected in order for a hypothesis to be firmly established, let alone a theory.

            You also don’t seem to understand what constitutes “evidence”.

            You just outed your lack of understanding of one of the very cornerstones of science.

            You are not a man of science. No one relying on this tripe of a denier blog for “science” is.

          • gator69 says:

            gator, anyone saying it’s “just a theory” does not understand how much evidence must be collected in order for a hypothesis to be firmly established, let alone a theory.

            Actually Ricky, you are right in a sense. The more scientific statement on AGW is that is it a failed hypothesis, as it has no predicive value.

            Found a single paper yet? Or are you still barking?

          • Rick says:

            “The more scientific statement on AGW is that is it a failed hypothesis, as it has no predicive value.”

            You are a terrible liar…lol

            “There is no refutation of NV in any published papers. But then you are ignorant of this fact.”

            One more time; No one is refuting that natural forcing affects climate. That is asinine. The 6 studies I linked are clear on that. The salient point you either ignore or flat out deny is that all the studies explain how natural forcings alone can’t explain current warming, but anthropogenic forcings do easily account for it.

            Why can’t you grasp this….aside from the fact that you don’t allow you preconceived bias to be trumped by actual evidence?

          • gator69 says:

            The salient point you either ignore or flat out deny is that all the studies explain how natural forcings alone can’t explain current warming, but anthropogenic forcings do easily account for it.

            OK. Dio me a favor, ansd we will agree.

            List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            I’ll be waiting Mr Stepped In It Again! LOL

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I have neither the time nor desire to type out long diatribes ”

          What do you mean??

          That is all you seem to be capable of !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “However, extensive research shows that natural forcings have been overridden by anthropogenic forcing, and the latter has been the primary climate driver since at least 1950”

          UNPROVEN CLAPTRAP.

          The AGW mantra, built on suppository models. !!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Rick,
          You have to explain why, when CO2 was at it’s peak, Glaciation occurred… REPEATEDLY.

          Petit et all — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.

          Fischer et al — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.

          Mudelsee – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.

          Caillon et al analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years

        • Gail Combs says:

          Detail of the last 150,000 years showing how CO2 lags temperature by about 8,000 years following the Eemian inter-glacial. Full glacial conditions were established with HIGH inter-glacial CO2 concentrations. In other words CO2 was not able to stop glaciation.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Also CO2 has been much much higher without ‘runaway GoreBull Warming’ instead the earth was a lush jungle.

          • Rick says:

            Gail, It’s amusing that you so readily accept what scientists tell you regarding past climate changes and the corresponding causes, yet when the same scientists tell you that CO2 has become the primary climate driver, you reject this knowledge. Why is that?

            Lastlly, increased CO2 can both precede and follow temperature increase. Denying this simply indicates you either haven’t done the research, or you choose to remain willfully ignorant. Either way, the onus is on you.

          • Gail Combs says:

            “Gail, It’s amusing that you so readily accept what scientists tell you regarding past climate changes and the corresponding causes, yet when the same scientists tell you that CO2 has become the primary climate driver, you reject this knowledge. Why is that?”

            1. Because they are NOT ” the same scientists”

            2. FOLLOW THE MONEY!
            >>a. Four billion dollars a day worldwide is spent on ‘reducing carbon dioxide’ via solar panels and windmills and bio-fuels that would otherwise be seen as useless.

            2. b. What is in it for the banksters?

            World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
            The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

            2. c. Whats in it for Universities?
            Obama made sure universities got funding for ‘climate research’ from a variety of sources, like the EPA, USDA, Dept of Defence, Dept of Energy…. so that a future president could not easily cut the funding.

            The federal government gave out more than $40 billion for research and development (R&D) to universities across the country in fiscal 2011. Universities depend heavily on federal funding, with many of the top programs relying on the government for more than 60% of their R&D budgets…

            http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/25/universities-getting-the-most-government-money/

            That does NOT include the stimulus funds that went to solar and wind manufacturers many of whom ended up bankrupt. OR all the other methods that had tax payers involuntarily paying such as for mercury filled twisty light bulbs.

            So there is a vast monetary incentive to keep the Fraud going which includes Banksters, industry, and universities as receivers of tax payer funds they would not otherwise get.

            3. MODELS… [Continued]

          • Gail Combs says:

            3. MODELS

            3a. Models have been shown not to have the ability to predict future climate. Because of this ClimAstrologists changed the wording from predict future climate to project future climate.

            3b. The IPCC admits the models aren’t worth spit.

            …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible

            IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

            3.c The IPCC itself, has given up on calculating a meaningful climate sensitivity – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)

            “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”

            So much for settled science.

            The path of the energy flow is embarrassingly simple: from Sun –> Earth –> Space.

            3d. The models don’t handle clouds/albedo well and the Climate Modelers admit it. Albedo regulates the amount of energy that reaches the earths surface and is not reflected back to space.

            3e. The models keep the SUN CONSTANT!

            The excuse is TSI varies little but this does not take into effect changes in the ratio of shortwave lengths vs long wave length.

            And WAVE LENGTH MATTERS…
            [Continued]

          • gator69 says:

            “Models all the way down…”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA

            Best laughs… hand held calculators match super-computer models… 12:28, climate model uncertainty (error bars)… 24:25

            “Cloud error is 114 times larger than the variable they are trying to detect”

            Dr Patrick Frank has presented his paper to 6 Journals, has had 16 reviewers, 13 of which were modelers. The count is 13 to 3 against publication, all 13 modelers voted against it.

            All 13 critics were incompetent in their reviews, making basic errors in comprehension.

            But, but, the models!!! LOL

          • Gail Combs says:

            3f. Despite claims the sun does change.

            REVIEW: A 3,000-Year Record of Solar Activity

            According to Usoskin et al. (2014), the Sun “shows strong variability in its magnetic activity, from Grand minima to Grand maxima, but the nature of the variability is not fully understood, mostly because of the insufficient length of the directly observed solar activity records and of uncertainties related to long-term reconstructions.”
            Now, however, in an attempt to overcome such uncertainties, Usoskin et al. “present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity” covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them “to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail.”

            As a “unique” and “rare” event in terms of both magnitude and duration, one would think a lot more time and effort would be spent by the IPCC and others in answering that question.
            Instead, IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun’s influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth’s atmosphere.

            A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

            …..Models focused on the reconstruction of heliospheric parameters (HMF or the modulation potential φ) cannot be verified in this manner since no heliospheric data exists before the middle of the 20th century. Comparison to direct cosmic-ray data after the 1950s (or, with caveats, after the 1930s – McCracken and Beer, 2007) is less conclusive, since the latter are of shorter length and correspond to a period of high solar activity, leading to larger uncertainties during grand minima. It is important that some (semi)empirical relations forming the basis for the proxy method are established for the recent decades of high solar activity. The end of the Modern grand maximum of activity and the current low level of activity, characterized by the highest ever observed cosmic ray flux as recorded by ground-based neutron monitors, the very low level of the HMF and geomagnetic activity, should help to verify the connections between solar activity, cosmic ray fluxes, geomagnetic activity, the heliospheric magnetic field, and open field. Since some of these connections are somewhat controversial, these extreme conditions should help to quantify them better.
            (Page 44)

            Note that several “predictions” of the general decline of the coming solar activity have been made recently (Solanki et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2011), however, these are not really true predictions but rather the acknowledge of the fact that the Modern Grand maximum (Usoskin et al., 2003c; Solanki et al., 2004) must cease.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Let’s restate gators’s first task

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

        A MASSIVE FAIL from you at step one, Rick.

        Back to kindy for you. !

      • Gail Combs says:

        Rick first you have to give a SOLID data based explanation of the NATURAL 8 to 10 and up to 16 degree C warmings that occurred in a decade of so. Unless you can explain that you do not have a leg to stand on….

        ESPECIALLY since they happened while CO2 remained relatively constant.

        • Rick says:

          Gail, because events like the YD, which isn’t well understood by any stretch, the D-Os, and Heinrichs..also not well understood, occurred without an increase in atmospheric CO2 does not in any way refute that CO2, a known climate driver (and don’t start with the Vostok ice cores prove CO2 ALWAYS follows temperature BS), is not the primary cause of current warming. I linked 6 peer-reviewed studies in this thread (there are many more) showing that anthropogenic forcing has become the primary climate driver., and that any combination of natural forcings cannot account for current warming.

          This is what a plethora of empirical evidence shows.

          • gator69 says:

            I linked 6 peer-reviewed studies in this thread (there are many more) showing that anthropogenic forcing has become the primary climate driver…

            No Ricky, you linked to papers that suggest that man is to blame.

            How stupid are you?

          • Gail Combs says:

            If the D-O events are NOT well understood then there is no way in HELL you can say CO2 is ‘now’ the ‘Primary Driver’

            You have to know what ALL the main drivers are and how they interact before any type of statement like that can be made.

            Even if you do not now all the minor drivers you certainly would have to know what caused a swing of 8 to 16 C in a decade or two or what caused a switch from the cold and dusty Wisconsin Ice Age to the Holocene warm within three years.

            Only in academia could such fuzzy thinking persist that allows IGNORING the elephant in the room so you can concentrate on the flea the Politicians are paying you to look at.
            …………..

            CAGW is POLITICAL and always has been.

            “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

            That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change LINK

            The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

            SO the NATURAL drivers are specifically IGNORED.

            The IPCC mandate is similar:

            The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
            http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

            So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.

            The IPCC’s ROLE

            The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

            So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change.
            >>>>>>>>>>>

            ******************************
            AND HIDDEN AWAY SO NO ONE SEES IT THEY TELL THE TRUTH. They have no friggin idea of what the climate is going to do.
            ******************************

            …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible
            IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

            The IPCC itself, has seen the light, thrown up its hands, and given up on calculating a meaningful climate sensitivity – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)

            “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”

          • Latitude says:

            damn good post!

          • Rick says:

            Gail:

            “If the D-O events are NOT well understood then there is no way in HELL you can say CO2 is ‘now’ the ‘Primary Driver’”

            Sure I can, Gail. Just like the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say the same. Why? Because the empirical evidence substantiating that it is CO2 is overwhelming. No one has been able to show that current warming is natural, There is no “alternate” hypothesis which stands up to even minimal scientific scrutiny.

            Had you actually examined the evidence without a preconceived bias, you wouldn’t be in such denial and come across as so naive. But hey, that’s your choice, so live with it. I know better and won’t be sucked into the BS this site promotes. Even Climate Depot and WUWT distance themselves from the brain dead anti-science dis-information this site spews unabashedly. “realclimatescience” is the laughingstock in the climate science community.

            You must be proud.

          • gator69 says:

            Ass backward Rick rides again!

            No one has been able to show that current warming is natural…

            That’s not how science works skippy.

            Alarmists are making an extraordinary claim, that for the first time in 4,500,000,000 years, something other than nature has changed our global climate.

            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

            So where is it Ricky?

            Where is even one paper that refutes nature?

            Care to step in it again! LOL

          • Rick says:

            gator…lol yet again.

            “Alarmists are making an extraordinary claim, that for the first time in 4,500,000,000 years, something other than nature has changed our global climate.”

            Yes, this is the first time in the long history of our planet that humans have had the time and resources to impact climate.

            There is nothing extraordinary about increased atmospheric CO2, a known and proven climate driver. (Denying it is is to deny the conclusions of 150 years of radiative physics research, experimentation, and observation). being the primary cause of current warming.

            In fact, as evidence clearly shows it to be so, and that is exactly what scientists predicted a century+ ago.

            Gee, how surprising that the planet has steadily warmed since we began pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere!

            Even though this is far from an “extraordinary” claim, the evidence substantiating it is overwhelming…or “extraordinary”, if you prefer.

            It is astoundingly stupid to deny this, but then again, that’s what AGW deniers do. Pathetic.

          • gator69 says:

            Yes, this is the first time in the long history of our planet that humans have had the time and resources to impact climate.

            There he goes again! LOL

            Ricky, you guys have not refuted NV.

            How stupid are you? LOL

  8. Colorado Wellington says:

    This could be a record. In the shortest amount of time Rick went from smug zealot back to smug zealot.

    You went full zealot, man. Never go full zealot.

    • Latitude says:

      LOL….

    • AndyG55 says:

      The guys is an absolute full-on AGW zealot.

      Has all the brain-washed propaganda pap down pat.

      The arrogance and base-level ignorance of the AGW is emblazoned for all to see. :-)

      He doesn’t know the damage he does to the AGW cause. :-)

      NOBODY likes a religious zealot. !!

    • Rick says:

      This is very likely a record. In the shortest amount of time Wellington went from abject denial, to full abject denial. Never do either.

      • AndyG55 says:

        There is only one person here DENYING that climate changes.. naturally..

        And that is you Rick.

        Stick to that tiny period from 1979, that is your meagre, pointless existence, where you have learnt never to think for yourself.

        Ignore the FACT that we are at a cool period of the current interglacial,

        Deny the MWP and LIA existed.. your religion will not allow them to exist.

        Deny the Holocene for the first 7000-8000 years was far warmer than now.

        DENY Climate Change.

        Keep DENYING REALITY , Rick.. it is the ONLY way you can cling to your baseless AGW religious beliefs.

        • Rick says:

          Listen one more time, moron. Of course the climate changed naturally in the past. Humans weren’t around to disrupt it. Now we are, and the evidence that increased GHGs are the cause of current warming is overwhelming.

          Why fools like you can’t accept that Milankovitch cycles, ocean currents, TSI, and volcanism are not the cause of current warming is hilarious. The ONLY known climate driver that can explain it is increased GHGs, which are mainly the result of human emissions and deforestation.

          Unless you can prove to me that some as of yet unknown and undiscovered forcing mechanism is causing current warming, you have nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip

          Lastly, anyone denying that CO2 is a climate driver denies 150 years of atmospheric physics research, experimentation, and observation. But hey, that’s what deniers do, deny, deny, deny. It’s pathetic.

          • AndyG55 says:

            It is you that have to prove you baseless hypothesis of CO2 causing warming

            So far you are as empty as a sock-puppet without a hand.

            You wouldn’t have a CLUE about atmospheric physics if you think 0.04% CO2 drives it.. That is probably the STUPIDEST thing anyone, even griff or Jimbo, have ever said anywhere on any blog.

            It is UNSUBSTANTAITED HOGWASH.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Rick is suffering from a massive FAILURE TO PERFORM..

            …. except as a clown.

          • RAH says:

            The evidence was so “overwhelming” that there was a pause in warming of over 18 years in satellite temperature data! LOL!
            http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/02/a-new-record-pause-length-satellite-data-no-global-warming-for-18-years-8-months/

            So “overwhelming” not a single catastrophic or significant event that has been predicted by those you believe has occurred.

            The IPCC climate models which are the very foundation of the claim of Anthropological warming or climate change have provided “overwhelming” evidence of their inability to accurately project global temperatures. And yet fools fall for this crap! I gotta bridge to sell you Rick.

          • Gail Combs says:

            “… The ONLY known climate driver that can explain it is increased GHGs, which are mainly the result of human emissions and deforestation….”

            BULL SHIT!

            There is another driver. The sun.

            The sun just went through the strongest solar MAXIMUM in 3,000 years.

            In the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, Usoskin et al. “present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity” covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them “to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail.” Their reconstruction of solar activity displays several “distinct features,” including several “well-defined Grand minima of solar activity, ca. 770 BC, 350 BC, 680 AD, 1050 AD, 1310 AD, 1470 AD, and 1680 AD,” as well as “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009),” described as “a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.”

            PAPER: Usoskin, I.G., Hulot, G., Gallet, Y., Roth, R., Licht, A., Joos, F., Kovaltsov, G.A., Thebault, E. and Khokhlov, A. 2014. Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity Astronomy and Astrophysics 562: L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423391.

            Also SEE: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia by Usoskin

            Those stronger solar cycles coming out of the Solar minimum STARTED around 1840 -1850. Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years around 1850 — Naturally.

            ABSTRACT
            An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

            At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736±10 A.D.) with the 14C age date (1729±95 A.D.). The δ18O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA)….

            At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901095/full

            So what happened around 1840? Solar Cycle 8. It began in November 1833 with a smoothed sunspot number of 7.3 and ended in July 1843. Max sunspot number ~210. The prior Solar Cycle 7,began in May 1823 with a smoothed sunspot number of 0.1 and ended in November 1833. Max sunspot number ~105. And thus began the run up to the Grand Solar Maximum, highest in 3,000 years which has just ended.
            …………………

            Another paper looks at glaciers in Norway.
            A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012
            Kristian Vasskoga Øyvind Paaschec, Atle Nesjea, John F. Boyled, H.J.B. Birks

            …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

            The authors of this paper simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years.

          • Latitude says:

            The ONLY “”known”” climate driver that can explain it is increased GHGs,

            and yet no one knows what clouds do

          • Gail Combs says:

            Every ice-age began when CO2 was at or near peak levels, in other words, high CO2 levels were not enough to prevent ice ages.

            Not only that but climate ‘instability’ otherwise known as warm spikes occurred just before glaciation.

            The last interglacial was the Eemian. It was in fact LEAP that terminated the last interglacial, the Late Eemian Aridity Pulse which lasted 468 years and ended with a precipitous drop into the Wisconsin ice age. (LEAP = Late Eemian Aridity Pulse)

            A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception

            Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..

            The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”

            (Except more recent papers show glacial inception at the 65oN July insolation as high as 500 Wm2.)

            Instability of climate and vegetation dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe during the final stage of the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) and Early Glaciation

            Аннотация (abstract):
            In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Groebern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.

            This paper tells you there was a major spike resulting in massive sea level rise JUST BEFORE the descent into glaciation.
            Neuman and Hearty tell us that during the interglacial to glacial transition “sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme”

            Rapid changes in sea level and associated destabilization of climate at the turbulent close of the last interglacial maximum appear to be recorded directly in the geomorphology, stratigraphy, and sedimentary structures of carbonate platform islands in the Bahamas. Considered together, the observations presented here suggest a rapid rise, short crest, and rapid fall of sea level at the close of 5e.

            The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!
            http://www.researchgate.net/publication/249518169_Rapid_sea-level_changes_at_the_close_of_the_last_interglacial_(substage_5e)_recorded_in_Bahamian_island_geology/file/9c96051c6e66749912.pdf

            Kelly et al tells us the last interglacial was anything but stable in sea level (or temperature.)

            Sea level was 6-7 m higher than present during the last interglacial highstand 125,000-115,000 years before present (MIS 5e). Evidence from New Providence Platform, Bahamas, indicates that it was not a single rise and fall but instead oscillated a minimum of 12 m over a few thousand years.”

            “Beach deposits that are +7.6 m above present sea level on New Providence Island represent the older peak of MIS 5e sea level. A down-stepping beach ridge indicates a subsequent sea-level position at +7.0 m. A calcrete in the subtidal deposits adjacent to the beach documents the mid-MIS 5e sea level drop. In the Exumas, a calcrete associated with this fall separates subtidal facies at -5.2 m. Sea level rises again to form the younger MIS 5e highstand; this rise is represented by a beach ridge at +5.1 m on New Providence Island and Exumas reefs up to +1.5 m above modern sea level. Parallel down-stepping beach to eolian dune transitions provide evidence for a pulsed down-stepping of sea level at the end of MIS 5e. The lowest occurrence of this transition is approximately -12 m below present sea level.”
            https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2012AM/finalprogram/abstract_212012.htm

          • Gail Combs says:

            Dansgaard (Greenland Ice core team) noted three rapid climate collapses are linked to orbital features that diminished the radiance from the sun… Climate Crash

            Royal Meteorological Society
            Abrupt and sudden climatic transitions and fluctuations: a review:

            …A number of persistent oscillations exist, particularly one about 1500 years, but their amplitudes vary considerably between time periods. The Holocene appears to be no more climatically benign than the similar period in the Eemian. The importance of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation for generating abrupt climatic changes in Europe, particularly in association with sudden pulses of fresh water, is illustrated. The concept of antiphase temperature changes between the North and South Atlantic is discussed. Externally generated abrupt climatic deteriorations owing to explosive volcanic eruptions and variations in solar irradiance are also discussed…

            MIS-19 is the 8th interglacial back in the record, with MIS-1, the Holocene, being the 9th one since the Mid Pleistocene Transition(MPT). The MPT is a climate evolution period between the obliquity-paced world (41 kyr glacial/interglacial cycles) to the eccentricity-paced (~100kyr glacial/interglacial cycles). While MIS-19 may not satisfy everyone as an interglacial belonging to the present eccentricity-paced major climate cycles, it also occurred at a 400kyr eccentricity minimum cycle, just like MIS-11 (the Holsteinian) did and MIS-1 (the Holocene) is doing now.

            And Just like MIS-2 (the Eemain) MIS 19 also ended with warm spikes before the descent into glaciation.

            During the glacial inception from MIS 19 to MIS 18, the low resolution EPICA Dome C water stable isotope record (Jouzel et al., 2007) has revealed millennial variability principally marked by the occurrence of three consecutive warm events (hereafter called Antarctic Isotope Maxima – AIM, following EPICA-community-members, 2006, and noted A, B, C on Fig. 2).”
            http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/articles/pol-EPSL2010.pdf

          • Gail Combs says:

            We are either going to have another “extended interglacial”, like MIS-11 did, or we won’t, like MIS-19 didn’t, given that like those interglacials the earth is once again at a 400kyr eccentricity minimum.

            Muller and Pross concluded

            The possible explanation as to why we are still in an interglacial relates to the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005). According to that hypothesis, the anomalous increase of CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as observed in mid- to late Holocene ice-cores results from anthropogenic deforestation and rice irrigation, which started in the early Neolithic at 8000 and 5000 yr BP, respectively. Ruddiman proposes that these early human greenhouse gas emissions prevented the inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”
            http://folk.uib.no/abo007/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/mueller_pross07.qsr.pdf

            So did Risebrobakken et al:

            The climate history of the present interglacial is in many ways comparable with MIS 5.5, and the present conditions in Northern Europe do in some ways fulfill requirements for glacial inception. Even at its present minimum position the Northern Hemisphere summer insolation is, however, fundamentally different from the situation 115,000 yr ago. The insolation fall during the Holocene has been less than half of the fall during MIS 5.5. The present value is also 40 W/m2 higher than the values at 115,000 yr. Together with the high levels of greenhouse gases, this difference in insolation forcing is probably the main factor preventing glacial inception today.

            https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/2088/Risebrobakken_inception.pdf?sequence=1

            Professor Bill Ruddiman carefully inspected and compared palaeoenvironmental information about the different interglacial periods. This comparison let him to conclude that glacial inception is largely overdue. According to him, the Holocene was not supposed to be this long, but the natural glacial inception process was stopped by an anthropogenic perturbation that began as early as 8,000 years ago (rice plantations and land management by antique civilisations)
            …..

            HOWEVER Ruddiman forgot to take into account the sun!
            “Sami Solanki, Professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich Switzerland, says the Sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years than over the previous 1090 years.” (wwwDOT)swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Sunspot_activity_hits_1,000-year_high.html?cid=3990930

            GEE, where have we heard that before… Oh yes, Usoskin et al.

            And in further news from Royal Astronomical Society (RAS): “Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo.”

          • Gail Combs says:

            The last time Earth was at an eccentricity minimum was during MIS-11 (the Holsteinian interglacial). MIS-11 went long, lasting somewhere between 1.5 to 2 full precession cycles. MIS-19,also at an eccentricity minimum, lasted about half a precession cycle, as has the Holocene so far, and every post-MPT interglacial save MIS-11 has.

            NASA and the rest of the ClimAstrologists use a paper by Loutre and Berger, based on MODELS (what a surprise) to say the Holocene will not descend in to glaciation.

            But in case you were hoping for a double precession cycle like MIS-11; Lisiecki and Raymo, with an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project (and other) cores, blew the Loutre and Berger, MODEL out of the water.

            Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectivelyprecludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.
            http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

            They are backed up by another paper, Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

            NOAA explains why 65N (or 60N) June solar insolation is used.

            NOAA: Northern Hemisphere forcing of climatic cycles in Antarctica over the past 360,000 years

            …This ratio is a proxy for local summer insolation, and thus allows the chronology to be constructed by orbital tuning without the need to assume a lag between a climate record and an orbital parameter. The accuracy of the chronology allows us to examine the phase relationships between climate records from the ice cores and changes in insolation. Our results indicate that orbital-scale Antarctic climate change lags Northern Hemisphere insolation by a few millennia, and that the increases in Antarctic temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during the last four terminations occurred within the rising phase of Northern Hemisphere summer insolation. These results support the Milankovitch theory that Northern Hemisphere summer insolation triggered the last four deglaciations.

            if CO2/GHGs/etc. really represent the earth’s thermostat, and have already prevented glacial inception (Ruddiman, 2003) for perhaps thousands of years already, then by all means we should:

            A. Strip said “climate security blanket” from the late Holocene atmosphere, and be quick about it. We have denied earth next ice age for far too long already and it is Ice Ages that smarten humans up and the good lord knows we need another dose of smartening up.

            B. Be thankful we stumbled onto this interglacial climate-maintenance cocktail when we did.

            So why ever do you want to DECREASE CO2, the only possible prevention during the tail end of the Holocene especially when research shows, contrary to the shrilling screams of Alarmists, CO2 is NOT at a high level. The earth is actually close to CO2 starvation level ESPECIALLY if the earth descends back into glaciation and the colder ocean water sucks up much of the CO2 in the atmosphere as it always does.

            During the last glaciation we had carbon dioxide starvation in C3 plants: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas) and most of our food is C3 like trees and not C4 like grass.

            Again this is all backed up by another paper Royal Society: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution.

          • Gail Combs says:

            The last time Earth was at an eccentricity minimum was during MIS-11 (the Holsteinian interglacial). MIS-11 went long, lasting somewhere between 1.5 to 2 full precession cycles. MIS-19,also at an eccentricity minimum, lasted about half a precession cycle, as has the Holocene so far, and every post-MPT interglacial save MIS-11 has.

            NASA and the rest of the ClimAstrologists use a paper by Loutre and Berger, based on MODELS (what a surprise) to say the Holocene will not descend in to glaciation.

            But in case you were hoping for a double precession cycle like MIS-11; Lisiecki and Raymo, with an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project (and other) cores, blew the Loutre and Berger, MODEL out of the water.

            Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectivelyprecludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.
            http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

            They are backed up by another paper, Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

            NOAA explains why 65N (or 60N) June solar insolation is used.

            NOAA: Northern Hemisphere forcing of climatic cycles in Antarctica over the past 360,000 years

            …This ratio is a proxy for local summer insolation, and thus allows the chronology to be constructed by orbital tuning without the need to assume a lag between a climate record and an orbital parameter. The accuracy of the chronology allows us to examine the phase relationships between climate records from the ice cores and changes in insolation. Our results indicate that orbital-scale Antarctic climate change lags Northern Hemisphere insolation by a few millennia, and that the increases in Antarctic temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during the last four terminations occurred within the rising phase of Northern Hemisphere summer insolation. These results support the Milankovitch theory that Northern Hemisphere summer insolation triggered the last four deglaciations.

            if CO2/GHGs/etc. really represent the earth’s thermostat, and have already prevented glacial inception (Ruddiman, 2003) for perhaps thousands of years already, then by all means we should:

            A. Strip said “climate security blanket” from the late Holocene atmosphere, and be quick about it. We have denied earth next ice age for far too long already and it is Ice Ages that smarten humans up and the good lord knows we need another dose of smartening up.

            B. Be thankful we stumbled onto this interglacial climate-maintenance cocktail when we did.

            So why ever do you want to DECREASE CO2, the only possible prevention during the tail end of the Holocene especially when research shows, contrary to the shrilling screams of Alarmists, CO2 is NOT at a high level. The earth is actually close to CO2 starvation level ESPECIALLY if the earth descends back into glaciation and the colder ocean water sucks up much of the CO2 in the atmosphere as it always does.

          • Gail Combs says:

            And yes the earth is close to CO2 starvation levels. That is why grasses and other C4 and CAM plants evolved.

            During the last glaciation we had carbon dioxide starvation in C3 plants: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas) and most of our food is C3 like trees and not C4 like grass.

            Again this is all backed up by another paper Royal Society: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Now we are, and the evidence that increased GHGs are the cause of current warming is overwhelming.”

          Yet you can produce NONE.

          So hilariously funny

          Come on brain-washed little sewer-troll.

          One paper that proves by measurement that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

          WAITING , waiting… yawnnnnnn !!!

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        “went … to full abject denial”

        Huh? What are you talking about?

        Instead of writing such nonsense, why don’t you tell us something you should know, like what is driving your sudden zealotry.

        Did you have a vivid dream last night? Did you wake up this morning knowing your life had a meaning and there was a mission on which to embark? What got you so excited? What other things in your life create these strong emotions?

        • RAH says:

          Never mind that with the current level of warming which has consistently fallen far below the projections of those that believe in human caused warming, one MUST absolutely deny natural variation is a factor in the recent mild warming.

        • Rick says:

          Andy and Wellington:

          See my above response to gator and you might actually learn something. You both, but especially Andy, need the education.

          • RAH says:

            Yea right Rick. Your the very example of superior intellect and education. Your not trying to win anyone over here, just trolling.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Not from you, that is for sure.

            Basically everything you think you know… IS WRONG !!

            You are loaded with AGW anti-knowledge.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            You didn’t say a word about the driving force of your zealotry. Is it a secret?

          • Rick says:

            Wrong again. Par for the course for you.

          • AndyG55 says:

            YAWN !!

            You should have gone to bed ages ago, little boy.

            You are now acting even more like a one-eyed AGW zealot.

          • Rick says:

            Wellington, where do you come up with this “zealotry” BS? I’ve never said anything alarmist, but rather stated that the science substantiating AGW is valid and the evidence overwhelming. I have backed that stance with numerous links to the supporting science. Please, oh please pardon my rationality! lolz

            The only debate left is: will it get “bad” – (definitions vary widely), how bad will it get, and when?

            Then there’s a whole other animal; What to do about it. That’s not my forte, but I do keep a very small carbon footprint. You?

          • Rick says:

            Andy…lol…a “tough guy” you aren’t.

            A coward is what you have proven yourself to be,

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yawn, Wick is left in a world of his own unsubstantiated arrogance.

            Poor little wicky !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            poor widdle wicky is found out….

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Oh, for heaven’s sake. You really don’t see it, Rick, do you?

            You are so blinded by your fervor that you can’t see what almost anyone else does. You are so aroused by your sense of righteousness that you’ve accused me of “denial” when I didn’t say anything. Only zealots do that.

            You don’t know me and you are not really interested in who I am. You don’t want to know if I am a good or a bad man. You don’t care about the things I have learned in my life. You don’t want to know if I can support myself and my family with my labor. You don’t want to know if I help the poor and the needed.

            Instead, you find it important to tell me that you “keep a very small carbon footprint”. The only people who ever felt the need to boast about that and questioned me about my “carbon footprint” were zealots.

            You are one.

          • Gail Combs says:

            “Andy and Wellington:

            See my above response to gator and you might actually learn something. You both, but especially Andy, need the education.

            Given what I know of Gator and AndyG’s educational background that is absolutely hilarious. ? Ignorant Trolls are so much fun.

          • Gator says:

            Ignorant Trolls are so much fun.

            They are, by far, the easiest to “trap”!

          • AndyG55 says:

            chuckle. I don’t push that aspect.

            I just wait for them to posts something they think is science, then rip it to shreds.

            Poor widdle wicky is batting ZERO so far :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Please, oh please pardon my rationality!”

            Nothing to pardon !! :-)

          • Gail Combs says:

            I knew you guys would have lots of fun with this arrogant ignoramus.

          • Latitude says:

            The only debate left is: will it get “bad” – (definitions vary widely), how bad will it get, and when?
            ===
            He really does not understand what he’s saying.

            It’s not even understood enough to know what it will do…….
            unfortunately it’s not even understood enough to refute it

            Best we can hope for is “we really don’t know squat about it”

          • Gail Combs says:

            “The only debate left is: will it get “bad” – (definitions vary widely), how bad will it get, and when?”

            Here I thought Lisiecki and Raymo had settled it and various Russian scientists had a pretty good handle on the timing. How bad? VERY, at least if you are an ordinary human.

          • Rick says:

            lol…what a group of climate cretins you are. You rant and rave how it just can’t be CO2, despite multiple independent lines evidence, yet offer no other even remotely substantiated explanation.

            The overwhelming conclusion in mainstream science is that CO2 is now the primary climate driver and has been since about 1950.

            It’s pathetic that you so staunchly deny this. It’s as if CO2 beat you up on the grade school playground and now you harbor a grudge.

            The only thing left to debate is how bad will it get and when. Aside from a small and dwindling group of contrarians who can offer no explanation, mainstream science has long since accepted the reality of AGW.

            Eventually, you clowns will run out of excuses. All you’re left with as it stands is to cry “conspiracy”. Comically pathetic.

          • gator69 says:

            Now we see the final stage of natural climate denial. Wimpering and name calling.

            Still not a single refutation of NV. Just barking.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Eventually widdle wicky will put forward some actual proof.

            Nah.. it doesn’t exist !!!

            And he KNOWS that.

            He KNOWS he is following a baseless religion.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “despite multiple independent lines evidence”

            not one of which he can produce.. so funny

            poor widdle wicky !!

          • Rick says:

            OMG! What a litter of fools. The comically pathetic thing is you bought this BS that Tony spews and are so brain-washed that you think you know more than the world’s top scientists. You deny what every SCIENCE website says. Your idiocy on the topic knows no bounds

            All together now, climate cretins…Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger! lol

          • Gator says:

            All together now, climate cretins…Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger! lol!

            Right.

            Because we were the ignorant party that thought natural variability had been refuted.

            Rick, seek help. You are psychologically projecting.

            Found that paper yet?

          • Rick says:

            gator…lol…I listed 6 of many papers which show that natural variability alone can’t account for current warming. What part of natural variability has been overridden by anthropogenic forcing can’t you get your arms around? It’s really pretty simple, like you.

            Natural variability has been responsible for past climte change. No paleo or climatologist will deny that. Milankovitch cycles have driven all glacials and interglacials over the past 2.6M years of this ice age. Changes in TSI, ocean currents, and volcanism account for the LIA and MWP.

            None of these are causing current warming. The only forcing that accounts for current warming is anthropogenic.

            Why you climate science denying clowns can’t grasp that is a comical mystery. But hey, that’s what AGW deniers do. When presented with the evidence they deny, or worse yet, they claim it’s all a hoax, Which form of fool are you?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “None of these are causing current warming. The only forcing that accounts for current warming is anthropogenic.”

            Ahh the wonderful Argument from Ignorqance.

            All you have .

            So hilarious..

            Back to the consensus next ???

          • AndyG55 says:

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

            Waiting, waiting !!… yawwwwnnnnnn !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I listed 6 of many papers which show that natural variability ”

            Every paper based on farcical AGW models and unproven presumptions.

            If you think these actually represent “science” then you are LYING about ever having done any science.

            Arts/Lit would be about your standard of science.

          • gator69 says:

            gator…lol…I listed 6 of many papers which show that natural variability alone can’t account for current warming.

            Again Ricky, no. You linked to six papers that suggest that man is responsible for at least a portion of climate change of late. They say this because they were paid to say this.

            They prove nothing.

            They also disprove nothing.

            You should take some colege level science courses, and learn how to read these papers for yourself.

            That is if you have the requisite intellect to do so, which I am beginning to seriously doubt.

  9. AndyG55 says:

    Totally unrelated.

    Between about 12 hours and 8 hours ago, was the blog extremely slow?

    I gave up trying to post and read.. no graphics coming up

    Other sites were slow , but mostly functional.

    Probably some blockage in the pipeline somewhere.

  10. Latitude says:

    Rick doesn’t realize that global warming isn’t proven…and can’t be
    …it’s all conjecture

    • gator69 says:

      Bingo! It is a religion, and worse, a religion for the atheists of science community. This is why virtually every “scientific society” says AGW is real, just like all Chritian churches say Jesus is lord.

    • gator69 says:

      Climate change alarmism has a surprising number of attributes of a medieval or even ancient religion. Nevertheless, real religions have some pre-requisites, like a tradition spanning at least few generations. So the proper name for climate alarmism is a cult. And these are the telltale attributes:

      1) Climate alarmists pretend to possess indisputable truths about the past, present, and future. From minute details of the paleoclimate to the world state 200 years in the future, alarmists know everything.

      2) The alarmist movement stubbornly refuses to debate its dogma, calling it “settled science” and viciously attacking its critics. The attacks are not limited to name calling but include prohibiting scientific research that contradicts this dogma. Significant figures within the movement call for criminal persecution of those who publicly disagree with the dogma and, in some cases, for those who do not follow it. Proposed punishments for “heretics” and “infidels” include prison and even death.

      3) The alarmist movement has a formal doctrine-setting body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reports and summaries by this body are considered by the alarmists to be the main source of authority on all things related to climate, energy, the biological cycle, and consequentially, everything else. The cult followers (individuals, organizations, and even governments) regularly quote these unholy texts and use them to justify their decisions.

      4) The alarmist movement has its own priest class: taxpayer-funded impostor “climate scientists” who have no independent (of the climate alarmism) scientific achievements.[1]Frequently, they do not even have scientific degrees.[2] The alarmists sincerely believe that only members of the priest class are capable of understanding and seriously discussing “climate science.” Physicists, biologists, meteorologists, engineers, mathematicians, and other outsiders need not apply.

      It is worth noting that this priest class was appointed by politicians (mostly from developing countries) and is completely disconnected from the eminent scientists who founded climate change research at the peak of their scientific careers and produced the most results prior to 1985. All the eminent scientists who have publicly spoken on the topic since the early 1990s strongly opposed climate alarmism and were attacked or defamed by the alarmists. The list of these “sceptics” and “deniers” includes Freeman Dyson, William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, and Roger Revelle. None of the founders of climate change research support the alarmism.

      5) The climate change cult appears to worship the computer models that its shamans built with their own hands — literally man-made idols. Needless to say, much of the content of IPCC’s texts comes from these computer models.[3]

      6) The alarmists deny, ignore, or distort elementary scientific facts, some of which should be known even to kids:
      – Photosynthesis. Plants grow by converting atmospheric CO2 into biomass. Significant parts of the world agricultural output are due to additional CO2 fertilization.[4]
      – Archimedes’ principle. Melting of Arctic ice cannot increase the sea level because Arctic ice floats in water.[5]
      – Sunspots and the effect of solar activity changes.[6]

      7) The alarmists appeal to medieval science errors. These errors can be described as beliefs that nature has existed forever in some unchanged state. The inability of a common man or a medieval scientist to observe such changes was the cause of these beliefs. The alarmists revive these errors by denying, ignoring, or underestimating natural climate change; evolution (including species’ disappearance and adaptation); higher CO2levels in the geological past; natural sea level increases in the current interglacial period; tectonic movement; the complex trajectory of the Earth’s motion around the Sun; and the astronomic observations of stars similar to the Sun.

      8) The alarmists have created and spread climate mythology, sometimes intentionally modeled on archaic misbeliefs that many alarmists attributed to religion. The common logical fallacy can be described as an appeal to everyday experiences, not applicable to the discussed natural processes (the “Flat Earth fallacy”). Some samples:
      – Incorrect association of CO2 with warming because of the word “greenhouse”—the mother of the global warming scare. Most city dwellers only know that greenhouses are warm and contain elevated levels of CO2 and easily led to believe that CO2 causes warming. Most farmers also know that CO2 is added for fertilization and does not cause greenhouse warming. This is why states with many farmers (like Oklahoma) are skeptics of the climate change cult and states with many professors (like Massachusetts) arebelievers.
      – Incorrect claim that (allegedly anthropogenic) global warming causes glacier melting or Antarctic ice sheet collapse. Ice cream does melt faster in a warmer room, but glaciers and ice sheets are influenced by totally different physical processes and on a totally different timeframe. See West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat and The Arctic is especially sensitive to black carbon emissions.
      – Incorrect claim that global warming causes droughts. Droughts are popularly associated with high temperatures but not caused by them. See Weaker solar activity means colder, and colder also means drier.
      – False attribution of wildfires, New Orleans’ devastation from Hurricane Katrina, current California water shortages, and various disasters to global warming. These disasters are caused by environmentalist politics, not by global warming. Hurricane Katrina was only Category 3 upon landfall. New Orleans was supposed to withstand all hurricanes up to the highest Category 5, but the required barriers were not built because of the resistance by environmentalists.
      – Time scale confusion. Processes that take hundreds of years are described as if they happen overnight.

      9) Like an established religion, the climate change cult has its own “start of the time”—usually 1880 (sometimes the 1880s), which is allegedly the beginning of instrumental temperature records.

      10) Climate change cult has its own eschatology—calamities, catastrophes, and the end of the world caused by global warming. To avoid this horrible end, we have to repent (i.e., accept the climate change cult dogma), stop sinning (releasing CO2), and generously pay whomever the IPCC or UNFCC will tell us.

      11) The climate change cult calls its dogma science but fails to make any scientific (i.e., non-trivial and testable) statements. For example, “Climate change is real” is a trivial statement. The statements about temperatures in 2100 are not practically testable. When alarmists were making testable statements (such as the infamous 1988 James Hansen testimony before Congress and early IPCC reports), they were proven to be incorrect.

      12) The climate change cult seeks and actually exerts control over governments.

      To add to the above, the climate change cult has survived multiple exposures of its frauds—something that a normal fraud cannot survive. Nevertheless, many cults involve fraud, and even true believers are not against profiting from their position in their cult. The climate change cult has been elevated by the Obama administration into state religion. Both the White House and NASA appear to have converted to this cult.

      References
      [1] James Hansen may be the only possible exception. But he is an outlier among “climate scientists” in many other respects. His climates fantasies are not approved by the cult mainstream. If the cult were not state sponsored, he would become a schismatic.
      [2] See Donna Laframboise, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.
      [3] This may sound extravagant, but this is the actual state of “climate science” today. 25 years ago, there was a clear distinction between the science and the misrepresentation of the science. For example, the IPCC First Assessment Report reviewed the science, while its Summary for Policymakers misrepresented it. Since then, the quality of the science has been steadily deteriorating, apparently both through intentional fabrication and the race to the bottom in the competence of the “climate scientists.” Existing physical models were used outside of their applicability space, and new models were developed and applied without proper validation. Some models were intentionally fabricated to produce politically desirable outcomes, other models were developed by “undistinguished scientists” through incompetence, impatience, and ideological zeal. One might guess that there was some amount of competition between the models, leading to their evolution and the survival of the fittest (models and modellers). The fitness criteria was conformance to the alarmist agenda. Apparently, the surviving models were then compared and then tweaked to better match each other. In parallel, the models have been tweaked to accommodate real-world data. When tweaking individual models was not enough, “ensembles of models” were created. Model runs were called experiments. New models were developed and parametrized based on the output of such “experiments,” then “verified” against existing models. The output of the new models became new “data” and so on. Today, the climate-related models are not understood by the modellers themselves, the models lead their own lives and describe their own imaginary worlds (like the latest Hansen paper). Today, much of the peer-reviewed literature in the “climate science” (including IPCC AR5) simply does not distinguish between the real world and computer models. This is more appropriately called worship than scientific research. This is not limited to global circulation models but permeates many parts of “climate science.”
      [4] Yes, some “climate scientists” are photosynthesis sceptics (and the rest have not heard of photosynthesis). From National Geographic, published by The National Geographic Society: High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious. Another one, from the University of Gothenburg: Increased carbon dioxide levels in air restrict plants ability to absorb nutrients. Photosynthesis skepticism is a booming research field! The leading alarmist websitecalls the fact that CO2 is plant food “a climate myth” and explains that “Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.”
      [5] The claim that the melting of “polar ice” causes the sea level to rise has been frequently accompanied by evidence that the Arctic ice area was shrinking, especially in the periods when the Arctic ice area was really shrinking. The Antarctic ice cap has not been shrinking. I am not trying to figure out who among alarmists are ignorant of the Archimedes’ principle and who intentionally mislead the public.
      [6] A few weeks ago, Sun sceptics struck again. International Astronomical Union announced: Corrected Sunspot History Suggests Climate Change since the Industrial Revolution not due to Natural Solar Trends. “Corrected Sunspot History” sounds like something from Orwell when it appears on Discovery News, CBS News, and Nature News. I understand that as an acknowledgement that the uncorrected sunspot history suggests otherwise and that Dr. Willie Soon has been correct. Of notice, the history was corrected based on a pdf file uploaded to arxiv.org, not on a peer-reviewed (or even pal reviewed) paper. Dr. Nir Shaviv has called the paperirrelevant to 20th century warming because there are other proxies confirming the increasing solar activity over the 20th century.

      • Gail Combs says:

        This is what he REALLY is talking about…

        The Progressive Commie Utopia.

      • Billyjack says:

        Actually the Church of the Environment is just one sect of the government created religion of Secular Socialism. A faith in an all powerful Supreme Central Collective with a promise of a socialist utopia on Earth. The primary target of their bluster is free market capitalism.

      • Rick says:

        A rambling diatribe of lies and dis-information. Wow, you’ve convinced me! LO F”N L!

        • gator69 says:

          Great point by point rebuttal Ricky! If you did not notice, everything is footnoted.

          Found that paper yet?

          Moron. LOL

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          So, Ricky, you have nothing. I thought so but it’s good to know you agree.

        • Rick says:

          OMG! the denial knows no bounds! LO F’N L!

          I linked 6 of many papers which clearly conclude that NV cannot account for current warming. They don’t deny NV. No climate scientist denies that NV has driven climate in the past–before humans. Now that humans have had the time and resources to affect climate, all has changed and anthropogenic forcing has become the primary climate driver since about 1950.

          Yet you deem this “an extraordinary claim” Unbelievably stupid.

          Additionally, your ludicrous claims that no one is really studying natural variables is an outright lie. You should be ashamed, but you’re too brainwashed and sucked into believing lies and conspiracy theories

          You clowns keep accusing me of “denying” NV. I have done no such thing. It’s clear from your posts that your understanding of NV is lacking severely. As is your understanding of Atmospheric and radiative physics.

          The most hilarious thing is that you buffoons are beating your little chests thinking you have “the real truth” and are somehow proving me and the vast majority of climate scientists wrong. The reality is that all you are doing is parading your ignorance as to the causes of current climate change and generating derisive laughter from the science community. The disciples of Climate Depot and WUWT are held in higher regard than the little gang of dopes here….and scientists have long since debunked their “arguments”.

          Do you still believe that Arctic ice is going to rebound when the AMO flips between 3 years ago and 8 years from now as I have seen you climate cretins keep claiming? LMAO!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Facts and data mean absolutely nothing to you, do the wicky !

          Just keep denying all the multiple planes of evidence that show that AGW is nothing but a scam

          Its what ZEALOTS do.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I linked 6 of many papers which clearly conclude that NV cannot account for current warming”

          You linked to 6 suppository models. !!

          If you think that assumption driven models are any sort of proof, you are absolutely no scientist of any sort.

        • Gator says:

          Ricky, learn how to read scientific papers, then read them for yourself, and then come back and apologize for being such a loudmouth know nothing.

          You linked to 6 papers that suggest that man made CO2 is changing our climate. And again the paper was a paid for product, putcome predetermined by the funders.

          The papers prove nothing, and certainly do not disprove NV.

          Ricky, you must learn to read scientific papers and learn to think for yourself.

          For the last time, your papers do not refute NV.

          You fell for the trap genius.

        • AndyG55 says:

          STILL waiting for that paper that proves by measurement that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

          So far you are FIRING BLANKS.

          Funny thing is, you don’t even know how BLANK you are.

          You massive brain-washed AGW zealotry is becoming quite hilarious for all to see.

          Unable to prove even the most basic idea of the AGW scam.. but you just keep BELIEVING.!

          So funny.

          So ANTI-SCIENCE

    • AndyG55 says:

      He is , however, thouroughly BRAIN-WASHED, to the stage that all he has is a sort of green slimy mush left !!

      Bringing every little piece of AGW propaganda junk science out .. yet again

      All the old stuff that has been proven to be abject NONSENSE>

      Did y’all see the latest hilarious stuff from Petite Humber?

      http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/18/potsdam-pik-climate-director-says-we-will-have-to-go-back-to-mud-huts-by-2040/#sthash.SPU9ph4W.dpbs

      Right down Risk’s tunnel-brain alley !!

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Ah, Herr Schellnhuber. Another zealot. Germany seems to be cursed by them.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          This is how Herr Schellnhuber likes to get photographed to scare little kids when his science didn’t.

          I wonder if Rick has similar leanings …

        • AndyG55 says:

          The absolute ARROGANCE that is endemic in the AGW socialist totalitarians, is caught in its full putridness.

          • Rick says:

            I’ll take the alleged “arrogance” over your ignorance and denial of evidence any time…

          • AndyG55 says:

            Your arrogance is unsupportable.

            You are proving to be a brainless weasel, ignorant of basically everything to do with how the atmosphere functions

            You still can’t even support the most basic lie of the AGW scam. the LIE that it is built on.

            You have ZERO EVIDENCE, or you would present it.

            PATHETIC, to say the least.

  11. sam says:

    These are the kind of presentations that make me check THs site every time i sit down at the computer. Can’t get enough of them lol.

  12. Billyjack says:

    Poor little Ricky is upset because his faith is being questioned. I posit that a scientific argument would never get 97% consensus. I doubt that if Evangelicals were polled about the Virgin birth you could get 97% consensus.

    • Rick says:

      lol….moron.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yes, you certain have proven you are , widdle wicky !!

        • Rick says:

          Projection is a good look for you, Andy…lol

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor child-mind.

            Still waiting for some actual science from you.

            Seems you don’t have any !

          • Rick says:

            I’ve linked and explained climate science to you cretins, especially you, Andy. At least Gail has tried to use science, although she’s failed miserably. gator, like you, keeps parading his science illiteracy and abject denial.

            Your “arguments” boil down to one inane claim:

            “The climate changed before man, therefore man just CAN’T be the cause of current warming.”

            Sharp as bowling balls, you Krazy Klimate Klownz!

            Your retorts are little more than ad hominem, so I add in a little myself in order to dumb it down to your level. It’s become apparent that your level has no bottom. Actual climate science makes your eyes glaze over.

            Are Tony and his little Island of Misfit Toys clamoring about how Mark Serreze is “lying” and “manipulating data” to show that the Arctic just set another record for lowest maximum extent and volume? And how he’s also lying when he says the long term ice losses in the Arctic are at least 70% anthropogenic?…..and that regarding the Arctic “It’s a key part of the Earth’s climate system and we’re losing it,” and that “We’re losing the ice in all seasons now.”

            http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/arctic-sea-ice-shrivels-record-low-winter-46307927

            I can’t wait to hear the reasons you clowns deny this. But oh, just wait til the AMO flips, then the Arctic will recover! Yeah, that’s the ticket! .. lol

  13. Griff says:

    To go with all the cute troll pictures, an article linking to actual science

    http://neven1.typepad.com/

    ‘Lowest arctic sea ice maximum’

    • AndyG55 says:

      Still the ignorance about pre-LIA sea ice.

      Why do you so love to display your WANTON INGNORANCE, griff?

      And your DENIAL of climate change.

      I guess because its all you have got !

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Griff and Jimbo, have the usual spasms over a few days/weeks or months of sea ice data,while ignoring the other 15,000 years of the inter glacial period,for the Arctic region.

      Meanwhile you warmist bigots,have ignored running years of record sea ice levels over at the “other” pole,Antarctica.

      It is funny seeing irrational ,illogical thinking coming out in spurts like that.

  14. gator69 says:

    ‘Lowest arctic sea ice maximum’

    In a few decades. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..

    • Rick says:

      “in a few decades” lol…sheer ignorance.

      • gator69 says:

        Unlike you Ricky, I take the entire interglacial into consideration, and do not panic over natural flucuations of ice.

        Found that paper yet?

      • AndyG55 says:

        ““in a few decades” lol…sheer ignorance.”

        Seem the only thing you have going for you is your sheer brain-washed ignorance.

        But do keep going, its fun to watch you yapping like a brainless Chihuahua. :-)

        • Rick says:

          The reality on the history of Arctic ice. No one denies Arctic ice extent has been lower (as well as ice free) in the past. The thing you morons don’t grasp is that there are different causes for Arctic ice loss and gain. You seem to cling to the ridiculous “argument” that because climate changed before man, man just cannot affect the climate. MORONIC!

          Current loss is strongly affected by AGW.

          Here’s reality:

          https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/01/arctic-sea-ice-satellites

          “Scientists have pieced together historical ice conditions to determine that Arctic sea ice could have been much lower in summer as recently as 5,500 years ago. Before then, scientists think it possible that Arctic sea ice cover melted completely during summers about 125,000 years ago, during a warm period between ice ages. 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.”

          Now go ahead and tell me how all this data has been nefariously “manipulated”. I love laughing at your idiocy.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Current loss is strongly affected by AGW.”

            In one post you have shown you ignorance of the AMO, as well as any prior Holocene Arctic history.

            WELL DONE

            There is no way that you could fudge any CO2 effect out of the data, which is following exactly as the AMO would dictate.

            You have NOTHING but bluster and religious zealotry….. ZERO proof.

          • AndyG55 says:

            That’s a graph of Reykjavik temperatures vs the AMO

            an almost exact match.

            So that your comprehension and education on these issues is so, so lacking.

            Gail has done her best to educate you, but I bet you haven’t even bothered to read any of her posts.

            You are content to remain WILFULLY BRAIN-WASHED and IGNORANT, with any sign of RATIONAL THOUGHT.

          • AndyG55 says:

            last line….

            WITHOUT any sign of rational thought.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ignoring real data such as the Iceland sea ice charts is all you need to do to maintain your fantasy.

          Biodata clearly shows that the Arctic was summer sea ice free for most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene.

          Are you also IGNORANT of that fact?,

          just like you are ignorant of basically everything else?

          DOE charts show 1950’s sea ice as being very low, as to shipping and NWP transits. Russian data also shows 1930-1950 being low.

          It is very good that you keep displaying your manifest ignorance of data and facts.

  15. Gail Combs says:

    Ricky Poo says “….where do you come up with this “zealotry” BS? I’ve never said anything alarmist, but rather stated that the science substantiating AGW is valid and the evidence overwhelming…..”

    Oh MY, the cognitive dissonance in this one is incredible.

    ……………..
    “….I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

    “…We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it…”

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit
    University of East Anglia

    “… Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week. Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them)….”

    The Royal Society in 2006: “We have no intention of inviting any known sceptics to the meeting, and certainly would not have invited representation on any discussion panel should we decide to have one”….
    “Any known skeptics” – Isn’t it nice to know ClimAstrologists have a convenient black list?

    Long version:

    The email dates from 2006, nearly 9 months before the release of the Fourth Assessment Report. Garthwaite was organizing speakers to attend a Royal Society lecture to coincide with the report’s publication.
    RG: Thank you for calling last week and my apologies for having taken so long to get back to you. I am out of the office all of this week but wanted to reassure you that the Royal Society is still very keen to hold an event to showcase the WG1 report and we have taken your comments regarding the potential content of the meeting very seriously.
    SS: thanks – I think it was very helpful.
    RG: In terms of ensuring there are no climate sceptics present at the meeting, obviously this will be difficult to ensure if the meeting is open to members of the public.
    SS: I didn’t say anything along these lines. I fully expect some to be present in the audience.
    RG: However we have no intention of inviting any known sceptics to the meeting, and certainly would not have invited representation on any discussion panel should we decide to have one.
    SS:Yes, that is the point – they should not be invited to take the podium as speakers or panelists because that is simply not an appropriate representation of the state of understanding and uncertainty. The public has been confused enough by one side says this, the other that. This issue has gone far beyond that and this meeting should reflect that.

    For more see Assassination of Science — The Climategate Emails

  16. Gail Combs says:

    Ricky says: “…No climate scientist denies that NV has driven climate in the past–before humans. Now that humans have had the time and resources to affect climate, all has changed and anthropogenic forcing has become the primary climate driver since about 1950.

    Yet you deem this “an extraordinary claim” Unbelievably stupid…..”

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yes we do ” deem this “an extraordinary claim” Unbelievably stupid…..”

    AGAIN Natural climate forcings are capable of up changing the temperature up to 16C in a decade or so. The so called ‘ anthropogenic forcing’ is AT MOST 1C IF you discount all the Natural climate forcings rolled into it.

    The Younger Dryas occurred about 12,800 years before present (BP). The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10°C (18°F) in a decade (Alley 2000).

    Lets take a look at the paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? since it gives the calculated solar insolation values @ 65N on June 22 for several glacial inceptions:
    Current value – insolation = 479W m−2 (from that paper)

    MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
    MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
    MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
    MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
    MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2

    (Changes near the north polar area, about 65 degrees North, are considered important due to the great amount of land. Land masses respond to temperature change more quickly than oceans.)

    Solar insolation isn’t a cut and dried measure for glacial inception.

    Looking at it the other way round using NOAA’s numbers (Berger) @ 60N not 65N
    (www1DOT)ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun

    Holocene peak insolation: 523 Wm-2
    ……………………………………………..decreased = 47 Wm-2
    NOW (modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
    …………………………………………….. decreased = 12 Wm-2
    Lowest insolation of the last ice age – around 464 Wm−2
    …………
    The earth is a heck of a lot closer to the lowest insolation of the Wisconsin ice age than the peak insolation of the Holocene.

    11,000 years ago…………… 523.16 Wm-2 peak insolation (About the same time as the Younger Dryas)
    Wisconsin Ice age- Holocene transition
    12,000 years ago…………… 522.50 Wm-2

    It takes about 5 Watts per square metre to raise the worlds temperature from 15°C to 16°C. And once the Earth flips into the Ice Box mode at the current insolation there is no going back.

    The ClimAstrologists are saying that the solar insolation change during the Holocene is going to be trumped by CO2 forcing when the entire CO2 forcing is 32 to 44 W m–2 [cf., Reid, 1997]. and all but 5 to 6 W m–2 of that forcing occurs in the first 200 ppm CO2 (modtran) And a doubling from 300 ppm to 600 ppm is only 3.4 W m–2

    • gator69 says:

      Now that humans have had the time and resources to affect climate, all has changed…

      The zealotry and faith run deep in this one Gail.

      All has changed!

      ROTFLMAO!!!!

      • Gail Combs says:

        Either that or the $$$ speak LOUDLY…

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Gator,

        You know this is not new.

        Every Young Pioneer and Komsomolets of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League understood how to order wind and rain around, or at least they memorized the songs about it.

        You have to get them young and you own them for life.

        Ninth-grader invents renewable energy device powered by the sun, wind and rain

        time … to affect climate, all has changed

        • Gail Combs says:

          A real crime against humanity. All those brains filled..

        • gator69 says:

          Holy Toledo CW! Had I known I could power my 4X4 with solar and wind energy, and the vibrations of rain drops, I would have started starving poor people decades ago! It all makes perfect sense now.

          OMG! Can you imagine how much better life could be if we would simply follow the Reactionary Principle, and harness Safe Space energy to rid the world of all opinions, save one.

          I’m pulling out that anchor of an “engine” tonight, and I’ll drive by those Detroit “engineers”, and show those rain drop energy deniers a thing or mathy something or ruther. I know because I read a link on the interwebs.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Actually I think we should restrict Alarmists and ClimAstrologist and Universities to the use of this renewable power source and ONLY this renewable power source (No hydro, nuclear, fossil or biofuel allowed OR materials/food made using non-renewable power sources.)

            I STILL do not understand why there has never been a proof of concept city built and inhabited by all these BRILLIANT ClimAstrologists and their universities.

            Until there is I am not going to believe a word they say.

          • Rick says:

            Holy crap! AGW deniers go to such ridiculous lengths to keep the fantasy alive. Yes, Gail, studies show that D-O events can dramatically affect climate. So can atmospheric CO2. Just keep denying the overwhelming evidence…..makes you appear really informed!

          • gator69 says:

            Holy crap! AGW deniers go to such ridiculous lengths to keep the fantasy alive.

            You should see how far natural variability deniers go, they are willing to alter historic data, current data, and future data in order to hood wink those who do not know how to read scientific papers for themselves.

            And they hate poor brown people.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Even if CO2 is a ‘magic gas’ the earth is STILL left in the “climatic madhouse” between the warm state and the VERY STABLE cold state that has been the preferred state for the last two million years.

      At this point the climate is bistable, remaining near the ‘tipping point’ means the climate varies wildly. Higher resolution proxy studies from many parts of the planet suggest that the end interglacials are quite the wild climate ride from the perspective of global climate disruption. This is where MIS 11 stayed instead of going into a full glaciation.

      Rapid changes in sea level and associated destabilization of climate at the turbulent close of the last interglacial maximum appear to be recorded directly in the geomorphology, stratigraphy, and sedimentary structures of carbonate platform islands in the Bahamas. Considered together, the observations presented here suggest a rapid rise, short crest, and rapid fall of sea level at the close of 5e.

      The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!
      http://www.researchgate.net/publication/249518169_Rapid_sea-level_changes_at_the_close_of_the_last_interglacial_(substage_5e)_recorded_in_Bahamian_island_geology/file/9c96051c6e66749912.pdf

      Don’t forget Lisiecki & Raymo said ” the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr.”

      The theoretical 4 W/m2 from CO2 are not going to kick the earth back into a warm STABLE state. The most it will do is keep the earth in the Climatic Madhouse instead of in the Ice box.

      Why do so many believe AGW?
      The problem is meridional jets, like we have been seeing for the last decade, have both warm and cold zones which mask the fact that meridional jets are actually characteristic of the Cold stable state and not the warm. How the heck do you think enough snow was generated to form mile high glaciers if not from warm tropical air get sucked north, colliding with frigid Arctic air and dumping large amounts of snow?

      2015
      Sioux Falls sets snowfall record for 2nd time in the month of November (2015). By the end of November snowfall was already more than half entire 2014-15 season total.

      Italy captured the world’s one day snow fall record twice this last winter in March TWICE.
      240cm (7.84 ft) in Pescocostanzo
      256cm (8.34 ft) of snow Capracotta

      A total of 10 feet (3 meters) of snow fell on Passolanciano, Majella burying the chairlifts (6 Mar 2015 )

      Not far away, the Greek islands in the Mediterranean were buried under 6½ ft (2 m) of snow in January.

      In Norway they were forced to remove excessive snow from ski slopes – “During the last two days we’ve got more snow than we had in the last two years together,” said Vegar Sårheim. “I had never believed we would experience this.”

      FROM 2014:
      (1) 2014 had the greatest snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere since data collection began in 1968 — (Rutgers University Global Snow Lab).
      .
      The Great Lakes obliterated all records for springtime ice last year, and this year.

      On March 1, 2014 the Great Lakes were approaching 100% Ice Cover – For The First Time On Record, only Lake Ontario was the only major holdout and by March 26, 2014 the Great Lakes broke all records.

      And on 14th October 2014, Water temperature of the Great Lakes is over 6 degrees colder than normal

      Then sticking…

      30 September 2015 BBCNews Snow patch clings on in Glen Coe

      “This is the latest that snow has ever survived on Meall a’Bhuiridh since skiing began here in 1956. “But some of our old timers here, guys in their 90s, say snow has never lasted this long.”
      He said: “The winter of 2013-14 was a record for snow depths with tows buried for many months, yet even then snow only persisted on the mountain until 28 September.
      (wwwDOT)bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-34400982

      Increase in Scotish Snow Patches.

    • AndyG55 says:

      This is all too much for wittle wicky..

      He will neither read, nor comprehend it.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I realize that but there are people, fence sitters, who will and will hopefully understand it.

      • Rick says:

        Yes, Gail, climate changed in the past. We have long since established that. There are different causes for past climate changes, as there are several climate drivers, including CO2…as much as you so ignorantly deny it. You have zero evidence that current warming can be primarily attributed to NV. None. Zero, Zilch. Meanwhile, the empirical evidence that CO2 has become the primary climate is overwhelming.

        Rant and post all the graphs and visuals you want. I’ve seen them all, heard all of your bullshit “arguments” hundreds of times. The stark reality is that they all fall apart under minimal scientific scrutiny.

        Keep going though! I’m enjoying the laughs as you so fervently plead your baseless case…

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          You have zero evidence that current warming can be primarily attributed to NV.

          Heh. You are a born entertainer. I like that in a man.

        • gator69 says:

          There are different causes for past climate changes, as there are several climate drivers

          Hey Rick!

          Please do me two 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.

          In am willing to discuss this with you further tomorrow, but if you need more time, I more than understand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *