Warmists Continue Propagating Notion That Cold Is Caused By Heat

There was a time when Science would have reached out and smacked down idiocy like this. Now it’s more like “science”

Climate change driving brutal winter?

Prolonged cold snaps on the East Coast, California drought and frozen mornings in the South all have something in common — the atmospheric jet stream that transports weather systems that’s taken to meandering all over North America.

Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis and colleagues link that wavy jet stream to a warming Arctic, where climate changes near the top of the world are happening faster than in Earth’s middle latitudes.

A new study from Francis and University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist Stephen Vavrus, published in IOPscience, backs up that theory, with evidence linking regional and seasonal conditions in the Arctic to deeper north-south jet stream waves that will lead to more extreme weather across the country.

“The real story is how persistent the pattern has been. It’s been this way nearly continually since December 2013…Warm in the west, cold in the east,” Francis said. “We think with the warming Arctic these types of very wavy patterns, although probably not in the same locations, will happen more often in the future.”

There’s always an excuse from these people, like 5 year olds caught standing next to a broken lamp. Their models weren’t cooperating, weather happens, some areas have been having brutal winters, and they had to find a way to blame weather, especially cold and snowy weather, on Mankind.

Fortunately for them, there are more than enough dupes, to put it nicely, who’ll immediately buy into this poppycock, and defend it.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

45 Responses to “Warmists Continue Propagating Notion That Cold Is Caused By Heat”

  1. Kevin says:

    Actually, they are just continuing to say that everything bad in the world is caused by global warming. If anything bad happens, like a cold snap, it’s global warming’s fault. If something good happens, like CO2 causing increases in production of grains and plants, then they are silent on the issue.

    A lot of people worry about the future and are generally afraid of the unknown. The global warming propagandists use this information as a weapon to instill fear into the hearts of people who don’t really understand science. It’s despicable. But it pays their bills.

  2. Phil Taylor says:

    The link below is the scariest Climate change article I have read in quite sometime…
    I wonder whois payingt for her outfit. Oh yes it is us!

    http://moonbattery.com/?p=55301

  3. Jeffery says:

    Fortunately for them, there are more than enough dupes, to put it nicely

    Yep, they’ve duped nearly every scientist on Earth, the governments, science foundations and major corporations! The only thing standing between humankind and Armageddon is a band of conservabloggers who don’t know what the jet stream is.

    I wonder whois payingt for her outfit. Oh yes it is us!

    Why do you think Americans are paying for her clothing?

  4. Jeffery says:

    A new study from Francis and University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist Stephen Vavrus, published in IOPscience, backs up that theory, with evidence linking regional and seasonal conditions in the Arctic to deeper north-south jet stream waves that will lead to more extreme weather across the country.

    So, they are not claiming that heat makes cold are they? They are saying the warming Arctic (a fact) causes the jet stream (a fact) to dip lower (hypothesis) into the Eastern US in winter. There are scientists that disagree with Francis’ hypothesis, why don’t you compare the arguments?

    You can’t be as dumb as you seem, but that means you’re dishonest and deliberately misleading your reader(s).

  5. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Jeffery:

    Please watch the link I sent you and you will see that it is important to get both sides of the story. You may have been brainwashed. The first sign is someone who refuses to read or watch the other side of the story. (religion)

    I can send you a list of hundreds of Climatologists that do not believe in climate change. The only reason you think it is not so, is because the media tells you it is not so, and you believe the media like most people, most government’s and most politians whose world view is left of center. Yet almost never do you ever see a Climatologist by name on the air defending this point of view, only the media or politians who are their self appointed spokesmen.

    The jet stream often comes south and el Nino which is happening this year often has an effect as well.

    >> Why do you think Americans are paying for her clothing?
    Not Americans per say, but the world as we all contribute to the U.N. Where she draws here salary paid for by people that likely can’t afford an outfit like that. If you read her wiki page you will see she has “0” science in her background. She is a professional bureaucrat and is “authorized” to lecture on “An Inconvenient Truth” produced by another person with no science background. In fact tell me the names of the people in her office with Climatologist degrees?

    Then watch the link that I sent you because after you do, your comments will will have more credibility and you will be one of the few climate change believers who at least knows the alternative theory as to why the world warms or cools. If you do not watch it then you have already made up your mind and believe because you want to believe. This is a personal challenge to you. Afterwards believe what you want to believe but at least you know the whole story and you can ask yourself why the rest of the world does not.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

    Regards
    Phil

  6. John says:

    Next time you see a person in uniform tell them that they are all being duped
    All branched recognize AGW
    And so far this winter has been the 6th hottest on record
    The extreme cold is in sharp contrast to the extend heat that most of the USA is having not realizing that is just willfull ignorance
    Like believing in unicorns because they were in the bible
    W<img class='wpml_ico' alt='' src='http://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-

  7. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    As I have said before, the best analogy for climate crap is the great scientific work on cholesterol. They are an exact parallel. Notice that recently the FDA came out saying the cholesterol in the diet is not an issue. This was a major statement after 50 years of junk science in which all scientist, doctors, corporations and anyone else that breathed said that you would die if you ate cholesterol. That is except for me and my efforts have finally paid off. Now, we are working on showing the cholesterol does not have any influence at all. So keep saying that everyone agrees with you, it makes you look like the fool you are.

  8. Phil Taylor says:

    What was the temperature this winter? Why did not the press release tell you. How much warmer is it than last year or any other year.
    Why do they never tell you the actual temperature? Also the satellite temperature is not in yet so how can we know what the adverage temperature is. Also, winter in not over yet.

    They do not tell you the adverage temperature of this year or any other year until recently because if they did you would realize that the temperature is a fraction of a degree above or below any other year. The world has only warmed 2/10th of a degree in 20 years!
    We had a cool period from 1948 to 1978, then a warm period from 1978 to 1998, then a staganate period from 1998 till now. Technically you can claim that the world is at it’s warmist since 1998 as that was the highest temperature on record then the world stopped warming but it did not get colder ethier. However, those years are the most actuarately measured years as well thanks to satellite technology. Anything before 1985 must be taken with a grain of salt as our abilty to measure temperature then had a higher error rate. My guess is that other than the 1990’s, ask any older American if they remeber colder or warmer days like this and if they are honest they will say that they do.
    Heat related occurrances of men in uniform are no higher WWII, Vietnam, or the Gulf wars.

  9. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You alone turned around the thinking on dietary cholesterol?? Great work.

    Actually it’s been known for quite some time that dietary cholesterol is less important than other dietary lipids.

    I’m pleased that you are criticizing the corporations that labeled everything “Cholesterol Free!”.

    Good luck on your efforts to show that serum cholesterol is not related to cardiovascular diseases. You may be right. Yet, epidemiological data shows a link between CV disease and serum cholesterol, but maybe the cholesterol is not the bad actor, and is just a biomarker for some other risk factor. Do you think the positive health effects of statins derive from something besides their cholesterol lowering effects?

    And of course, none of this has anything to do with global warming.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Phil,

    You’re asking me to watch 1.5 hr of Don Easterbrook? As a compromise I’ll find some of Dr. Easterbrook’s papers where he describes his theory of PDO causing warming and the coming cooling that is supposed to start soon.

    Why do you believe Dr. Easterbrook, but not the 10s of hundreds of other scientists?

  11. jl says:

    J-“A warming Arctic(fact) causes the Jetstream (fact) to dip lower (hypothesis) into the Eastern US in the winter.” A warming Arctic has happened many times before in the absence of homo sapiens (fact) which would, allegedly, in turn cause the jetstream (fact) to dip lower into the Eastern US. The fact that it may be happening again in no way proves it’s because of some more CO2 added to the atmosphere (fact). The warmunisits, when first starting this scam, said it would get warmer (fact), now they cover their asses by saying it, uh, causes cold (fact). This is one more nail in the coffin to prove they have no idea what their talking about (fact).

  12. jl says:

    Over at Steven Goddard’s place he brings to light just how stupid all of this is- by showing a US Weather Service map from Feb., 1934, which shows the exact same weather pattern- warm in the west, cold in the east. Of course the alarmists just ignore, or fail to research, these (facts).

  13. jl says:

    In other news, Great Lakes ice cover up nearly 400% since 1995, no doubt do to a warming atmosphere.

  14. Kevin says:

    You can always count on Jeffrey to link a new study that says ‘whatever not ideal thing that happened today is because of global warming.”

    To be fair though, I’m pretty sure the CO2 in the air put there by man is what made me write this. So global warming caused this comment. There is literally nothing it can’t do.

  15. Kevin says:

    I want to play this game too. Scientists say that the increased consumption of tofu by Jeffrey will cause irreparable harm to the planet.

    Want to know what damage it will cause? Tune in tomorrow and I’ll tell you. Hint: It will be whatever bad thing happened last night, and that will prove that it’s a real problem. Unless you don’t believe in science!

  16. Kevin says:

    Crap, the news just got bad. A new study found that world consumption of tofu will cause ISIS to behead someone, and the stock market to fluctuate next week. Please people, stop eating tofu. DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!

    That’s the new science! Astrology, Climatology, Tarocardology, and the newest one, Kevinology.

  17. Jeffery says:

    US Weather Service map from Feb., 1934, which shows the exact same weather

    Well there you have it, global warming is a hoax and a scam because of a weather map from 1934. And by Steven Goddard, no less.

    Why did the Arctic warm before? We know now it’s warming from atmospheric CO2, although the Fossilcists Deny it.

  18. Phil Taylor says:

    Yes i am asking you to watch a 1.5 hour youtube. It is very interesting regardless of your opinions on the topic. If you are interested enough to comment on this blog then you should be interested enough to watch this. It will be like watching a movie on a topic you are interested in.
    He is testifying before the Washington State Senate in the no BS zone.

    Why do I believe him over the hundreds of other scientists…

    A: Because I heard from him and not the others. Where are they? Who are they. (Other than Dr. James Hansen and the Godard Institute) I only hear from their mouth pieces, or reports from non Climatetoligist who do not have access to satellite data first hand. Dr. Easterbrook does. The raw data not the altered data.
    Dr. Easterbrook predicted in 1998-1999 that the warming period of the 1990’s ended in 1998 and the IPCC did not admit this until 2013.
    His predictions are far more accurate then any climate model prediction by far. He is a scientist and the IPCC’s bureaucrats are not. Not one…
    He claimed the oceans are not warming. According to NASA to their surprise they are not. He claimed that sea levels are not rising and according to NASA (small print) they are not. He claims that the weather is not any more severe then any other time and according to the U.S. weather bureau it is not.
    His claims sound reasonable. The sun warms the pacific ocean which in turn warms the earth in 20 to 30 year cycles. I can independantly verify this. When I check the claims of warmists I find a great deal of misinformation. They never tell the actual temperature why? It is always less then they claim when I do. They claimed that 2004, 2010 were the hotest years on record and then the fine print tells you that it is by less than 100th of a degree. Meanwhile 2008 and others were a colder year that goes unmentioned. Then they admit there has been no warming last decade.
    The North west Passage did not open up as predicted. Snow did not become a thing of the past. They told us in the 1980’s that 50 percent of all species will be extinct by 2050. Hows that coming along. They need to read their old press releases and so do you.
    I have heard your side of the story. I am surrounded by many people including scientists and science teachers who believe what you believe because they trust their sources without checking the facts themselves. Because they are socialists, they like this theory and the solution to it. But you can still be a socialist and not believe in AGW. Eventually when this theory is debunked who will believe socialists on any other topic.
    and if you are older like I am then you remember their claims of the past and see that they have not stood the test of time. No one claimed in the 1980’s that AGA would cause snow, or cold, or storms. Just the contrary. Droughts in the Canadian Prairies where cattle ranching will come to and end by 2015. Ontario sking by 2015 non existant. Warm very mild winters. Dr. Easterbrook’s opinions are not only his. It is by any traditional Climatetoligis who had an opinion of what warmed the earth prior to climate change. Regardless, watch the youtube then for fun watch “A inconvienient truth again” and you tell me who you believe. Then please comment here or anywhere else and your comments will resonant to the listener because you will understand more clearly where they are coming from.
    Regards
    Phil

  19. Phil Taylor says:

    I will have to start monitoring Kevinology. Could be the next big thing. Kevinology however will need to reinforce peoples already established world views. Kevinology will have to suggest to people that their peception of the world is the correct one and Kevinology is just anther example that they are right. Then they will promote it to the world for you willingly and for free. Once you have enough momentum you can charge a fee to use Kevinology. Political and ecconomic planning could be built around it and governments will have to pay you a precentage of their transactions.
    A people’s uthopia could ensue. You could be the next Kim Jong-Un.

  20. Jeffery says:

    Phil,

    Oh dear. So much to unpack here.

    Because I heard from him and not the others. Where are they? Who are they. (Other than Dr. James Hansen and the Godard Institute) I only hear from their mouth pieces, or reports from non Climatetoligist who do not have access to satellite data first hand. Dr. Easterbrook does. The raw data not the altered data.

    Not sure what you mean that “you heard from him” – do you mean you watched the video? You could also read some of the primary literature, although much is highly technical. What do you mean that Easterbrook has access to satellite data first hand and others do not?

    Dr. Easterbrook predicted in 1998-1999 that the warming period of the 1990’s ended in 1998 and the IPCC did not admit this until 2013.

    And yet the Earth continues to warm in direct contradistinction to Easterbrook’s predictions. He has presented 3 scenarios for cooling following the 1998 peak. These 3 scenarios map to three previous cooling periods, and he proposes another should have started after 1998.

    His predictions are far more accurate then any climate model prediction by far. He is a scientist and the IPCC’s bureaucrats are not. Not one…

    His predictions have not come to pass. He is no more reliable a scientist than thousands other. The IPCC reports are written by scientists.

    He claimed the oceans are not warming. According to NASA to their surprise they are not. He claimed that sea levels are not rising and according to NASA (small print) they are not. blockquote>

    But the oceans are warming and sea levels are rising.

    His claims sound reasonable. The sun warms the pacific ocean which in turn warms the earth in 20 to 30 year cycles. I can independantly verify this. When I check the claims of warmists I find a great deal of misinformation. They never tell the actual temperature why? It is always less then they claim when I do. They claimed that 2004, 2010 were the hotest years on record and then the fine print tells you that it is by less than 100th of a degree. Meanwhile 2008 and others were a colder year that goes unmentioned. Then they admit there has been no warming last decade.

    His claims may sound reasonable but that is not the test. His claims must be supported by evidence.
    Please do independently verify that the Pacific warms the ocean in 20 and 30 year cycles and that this is responsible for the current rapid warming. Why are you bothered that the temperature breaks a record by 1/100th of a degree? Was 2008 a record low? No, not even close. The Earth continues to warm – the trend is up. Easterbrook claims the warming is the transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere, but that suggests the oceans should be cooling-but they are not. The PDO can add to the variability of temperature measures but it cannot account for a continued increase. Where is that “new” heat coming from?

    Phil, with all due respect, you have hitched your wagon to a fringe scientist, not well respected in the scientific community, and whose theories do not comport with the actual evidence. What you’ve performed here is referred to as a “gish gallop” – listing several objections without supporting any with evidence.

    Would you be so kind as to pick what you consider the most important Easterbrook claim, e.g., that PDO is driving the current rapid warming and let’s discuss.

  21. Phil Taylor says:

    >What do you mean that Easterbrook has access to satellite
    > data first hand and others do not?
    Watch the video for the answer…

    >He has presented 3 scenarios for cooling following
    > the 1998 peak. These 3 scenarios map to three previous cooling periods, and
    > he proposes another should have started after 1998.
    Watch the video…
    He mentions many cooling and warming periods going back hundreds of years, this is a matter of record. Yes cooling should have started in 1998 but it did not, but it did not warm either. Maybe it’s cooling now.

    >The IPCC reports are written by scientists.
    What are their names? Watch the video.
    According to the IPCC chairman 80 percent of the 4000 people who participated in the IPCC 2007 report do not have a science background. Of the 27 people who wrote the executive summery of the 2007 report guess how many have a background in meteorology. None.

    Easterbrook may not have predicted that it cooled YET, but he predicted that it would not continue to warm.

    >But the oceans are warming and sea levels are rising.
    Really who says. The only people that count are NASA (not Goddard) and NOAA.
    Their websites says different…

    >Phil, with all due respect, you have hitched your wagon to a fringe scientist.

    One of many. Which scientist have you hitched your wagon to? Names please.

    Easterbrook is fringe in who’s opinion. Not the Washington State Senate.
    They thought him worthy of listening too. Why not you?

    >without supporting any with evidence.
    What more evidence do you want. IPCC says no current warming. Are they right or wrong. NASA says Arctic ice is now increasing three years straight after melting from 2007 to 2012, are they right or wrong. NASA says oceans are not warming are they right or wrong? Climate models forecasts vs final outcome, were they right or wrong?

    > Would you be so kind as to pick what you consider the most important
    > Easterbrook claim, e.g., that PDO is driving the current rapid warming and
    > let’s discuss.
    >
    I will after you watch the video. I feel like I am debating a book with someone who has not read it. Watch the video and all your questions will be answered. Then make up your own opinion. The video is simply an example I found where the skeptics case is quite succinct and reasonably comprehensive and obviously has a lot of information you’re not aware of.

    Then we can choose the most important Easterbrook claim.
    You’ll be shocked what it is!!!

    Regards
    Phil

  22. Jeffery says:

    Phil,

    This may take a while.

    What more evidence do you want. IPCC says no current warming. Are they right or wrong.

    Will you please cite in the latest IPCC report where it says this?

    Thanks.

  23. Jeffery says:

    For those interested in understanding Dr. Francis’ theory, she explains it simply with nice graphics here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.html

    As she points out, the mechanism is not proven (no theory ever is), but is consistent with the current data. She explains how the polar jet stream functions, and how a rapidly warming Arctic can change its typical path.

    You see, the theory doesn’t suggest that global warming is making the Earth colder, only that it promotes the shift of cold air masses in time and place.

    Although climate scientists refer to the average global surface temperature, this doesn’t mean that every spot on Earth has warmed exactly 1.4F! The Arctic has warmed more than almost any other area on Earth.

  24. Phil Taylor says:

    I sent you this information last time you asked remember. But here is a CBC report on the day before the report.
    A few mostly non American news media outlets reported this the day before or on the day of the report. I chose this article as it was from the CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation) A surperb news agency but it does have a left wing bias. The report is largly pro AGW but it does talk about this issue.
    Googling “Global Warming Hiatus” or “temperature hiatus” will bring up similar reports. Mostly by those defending it or making excuses for it as I think most warmers were taken for a loop by this, but those in the skeptics camp long suspected it as for one thing it was extremely difficult to get actual temperatures of the earth prior to 2013.

    Here is the press release Sept 26 2013:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-report-s-temperature-hiatus-fuels-skeptics-1.1868223

    Also, IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch wrote:
    According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,” Storch told der Spiegel. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”

  25. Phil Taylor says:

    >She explains how the polar jet stream functions, and how a rapidly warming Arctic can change its typical path.

    Here is an The Canadain National weather prediction of this winter based on climate models and El Nino and the Polar Vortex.
    Boy these guys are good!

    Written Dec 2 2014

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-winter-forecast-el-nino-should-keep-polar-vortex-at-bay-1.2857371

  26. Jeffery says:

    Phil,

    Thanks for trying. Do you have anything to back up your claim that the actual IPCC says no current warming? I would assume you can find it in the most recent IPCC Assessment.

    You typed: IPCC says no current warming.

    Dr. von Storch, as a “Lead Author” should have included his thoughts in the Assessment rather than in a subsequent interview.

    http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf

    With 2014 being one of the warmest recorded years, when is Dr. Easterbrook’s predicted cooling to begin?

    This is the problem with so-called skeptics. We see a laundry list of objections, each one suspect.

    I picked one out of the dozens you supplied and you can’t support it.

    Now you pick one.

  27. david7134 says:

    Phil,
    It does little good to argue with Jeff. In the end, all he will do will be to start criticizing you on a personal base, disparaging your reference material, claiming that he is reading “science” articles when he has never seen one, and in general attacking like a child.

  28. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Jeffery:

    Here is your answer from a previous email I sent you on Dec 23rd where you asked the same question. It is on page 15. That is why the media reported it on that day or from the leaked report the day before. Even the most staunch warmers acknowlege this is true. Since 1998 til now there has been virtual no warming.
    The headline about 2014 is false and I know even you know that. It only has the NOAA ocean land based data. The satellite data in not in yet.
    It is just another misleading headline. Even NOAA admits they are not certain until the rest of the data is in and even then it is 2/100th’s of a degree warmer than 2005. The years between then and now were cooler. Why do you believe this headline that is so easy to disprove, and you don’t believe others where you can easily verify?

    When does Dr. Easterbrook say it will get cooler? He said it should happen within a few years after 1998 as it takes a few years for the cooling to kick in. Also, the Arctic Ice will grow. That has now come to pass. He also said glaciers will start to grow again as they have in the past. No one knows why the temperature is stagnate. Skeptics admit it and warmers won’t. Now please read the below email again then watch the video. Otherwise i can no longer consider your questions sincere. Any resoanable person would except the evidence i have provided. Certainly a court of law. Maybe even The Washington State Senate when they were allowed to appraise the evidence in the no BS zone. So now you enter it and make up your mind. As you see from the comment above you are losing credibilty. After watching the video believe because you want to believe. We all live under our own bubble of disillusionment. AGW can be yours.

    Dear Jeffrey:

    Thank you for your reply. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
    The link you send me is a “summary for policy makers” a political version of the scientific one, and in your version a reference to the hiatus is on page 15.

    ” The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. ”
    Another way to say this is the lack of warming since 1998 is due to natural causes. The statement in red, is their opinion not established fact. I did not cherry pick 1998. They did.

    Also IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch wrote:
    “According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,” Storch told der Spiegel. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

    I also sent you this CBC newspaper report on the day the report came out as it is clearer and is also a pro global warming article in general. There were several reports of this nature but far too few.
    Here is the link. Look at it while it’s still available. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-report-s-temperature-hiatus-fuels-skeptics-1.1868223

    Also, googling “Global warming hiatus” will bring you lots of references to the IPCC report.
    Also, wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

    Up until the IPCC report was published it was impossible to find the world’s average temperature on the internet. It is still very difficult. In fact the report you sent me does not mention it even once! WHY? Ask any of your friends or colleagues what the world’s temperature is and no one will be able to tell you despite 20 years of news reports on the topic.

    To clarify, James Hansen said the the world has warmed 3/10’s of a degree in 20 years not 30 like I first stated. That was my error.
    Here is his brief interview in which he also acknowledges the lack of warming and his excuses for it.

    http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/18/i-should-correct-what-you-just-said-hansen-on-global-surface-temps/

    That should be closer to the The RSS and UAH satellite databases that you mentioned.

    Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) says the degree of warming is statistically insignificant, not I.
    He is a staunch GW promoter. Also, from a BBC interview:

    Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    From Nasa’s website concerning Arctic ice.

    “One positive from the 2013-14 winter is that multiyear ice is more extensive. From February 2013 to February 2014, multiyear ice increased from 30 percent to 43 percent (2.25 to 3.17 million square kilometers) in the Arctic basin. The total is still below the multiyear ice total in 2007, when the recent series of shrinking ice extents started. “

    *Notice that when the melting from 2007 to 2012 a period of five years it is significant and when it reverses for now close to three years, it is not.
    Why is one a trend, and the other a short term blip. What will they say two years from now?

    The link you sent me from NASA attributes the Arctic melting to mankind but suggests the Antarctic freezing to natural causes. Could they not both be from natural causes?

    1945 to 1976 saw a 31 year cooling trend. 1976 to 1998 saw a 22 year warming trend. Now we are in a 15 to 18 year stagnate trend. Soon the level of stagnation will surpass the level of warming. When the world stopped cooling, no one said we are in a cooling hiatus.
    It seems that when it warms it is because of CO2. When it cools it is because of some other reason.

    A red flag for me started many years ago when I noticed that the temperature was never mentioned in any press release. Scientists were rarely mentioned by name and if so they came from the Goddard institute. There were attempts to hide the lack of warming from the public since it was noticed in 2008. That is why the temperature was never mentioned in any news articles until the IPCC report. The personal attacks or the threatened tone of dialogue from GW proponents suggests an attempt to stifle opposing views. The lack of scrutiny by the media. Press releases published “as is” without fact checking. GW promotion is done almost exclusively by politicians and media speaking on behalf of unnamed scientists, while named scientists with opposing views are ignored.

    As far as “lore” goes we are all great at spotting the other person’s propaganda but not so good at spotting the propaganda aimed at us.
    So the global warming “lore” has been modified over the past two decades.
    It started when scientists noticed that the 1990’s were a warmer than normal decade. Then it became a political theory as much as a scientific one.
    At that time, all the emphasis was on 1990 onwards. That 1998, or 2004 or 2010 was the warmest year on record etc… What GW proponents chose not to tell you was that if so, it was by a fraction of degree C.

    Global Warming 101. (1987 to 2008)
    “The world is warming and we are to blame.”

    Global Warming 201 (2008 to 2013)
    after researchers in 2008 noticed the world is no longer warming significantly and tried to hide it.
    The term changes from Global Warming to Climate Change.
    “The climate is changing” “weather is more severe”

    Global warming 301 (2013 to present)
    after the IPCC September 2013 report and after years of focusing on weather from 1990 onwards
    “The world has warmed since 1850 until now and the hiatus is only a pause from a long term trend!”

    Again what they choose not to tell you is that any temperature readings before satellites is an educated guess with an error rate greater than the temperature variances.
    No one was taking temperature readings in the poles or the Congo, or the Gobi desert in 1850. Proxy evidence, (tree rings) though helpful is not precisely accurate either.

    Yes this is my “screed” as you put it, and I appreciate that you think I am entitled to it, but I can tell you that the notion by others that I am not entitled to it gives me pause to think that global warming is a propaganda campaign waged at you and me and not with our best interests at heart.

    In order for Gw proponents to get any credibility with skeptical thinkers, they must put the current world temperature in every report. It must be promoted by accredited scientists not their political or media spokesmen. They must debate or dialogue with those with opposing views with respect. No sneers, slurs or insults. Doing so loses the argument immediately. Both sides must be heard and evaluated on their own merit. They must make it non-political so that those who believe or do not believe do so not from ideological worldviews. To do this means removing wealth redistribution schemes from the table to solve the problem and focus on research and development into alternative sources of energy instead. Only then will a consensus be reached because adherence will hurt no one and might actually benefit everyone. The fact that the IPCC is focused on regulation and wealth redistribution over R&D with them as the broker, makes many suspicious including me.

    Regards
    Phil

    P.S. As to your second email. I am interested in knowing, It concerned me that the temperatures stated for the medieval warm period has been “revised” so that now they are considered cooler than present.
    The problem with this is that wine making was big business in England during the medieval warm period. Grapes were being grown in England then. Something that can not be done today. Suggesting that it was warmer then than now. The revising of these temperatures smell more of politics than science.

    In your email you stated The so-called Medieval warm period was a slight blip in the long-term cooling. The current rapid warming over the past century is likely the warmest the Earth has been during the Holocene.
    My question to you is what caused the slight blip? Was it the same forces that are in play now? If the world warmed then on its own then, could it not be warming on it’s own now?
    Should we not be asking these questions, or should we be be stifled and just take out our cheque books?

  29. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear David:

    Thank you for your comment. I will give it one last try and then take your advice. I sent the email below it is a longone but hopefully other readers will find it useful.

    Regards
    Phil

  30. Jeffery says:

    Phil,

    I see. So your claim that the IPCC said there is no current warming is false. They wrote “The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012…” which is far different than saying there is no warming.

    Do you see the difference?

    OK. We’ve resolved that discrepancy, and we’ll assume you misspoke, misread or mistyped. The Earth continues to warm. All the datasets (even RSS) show significant warming over the past 30 years. And yes, you can carve out short periods where the rate is greater than or less than the 30 year trend. Between end 2013 and end 2014 the Earth warmed at a rate of over 1C per decade!

    Can you now supply your evidence that the Arctic sea ice is increasing?

    Thanks.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Little jeffery, you are a leftist fag with nothing to offer about any subject on this blog.
      Get help honey, maybe Obamacare will cover it.

  31. Jeffery says:

    blowingpuppies,

    How about you? Do you have any information on the supposed increase in Arctic ice?

    On most topics, but especially global warming, Deniers list dozens of objections but never support the claims with evidence.

    The IPCC said it is no longer warming.
    Arctic ice is increasing.
    Sea level is not increasing.

    and on and on.

    Yet, no one wants to discuss any one topic in depth, preferring to smother the discussion with a new list of objections.

    Two half-truths do not make a whole truth.

    The Deniers at Audit, Depot, Schtick and WUWT lie to you.

  32. Jeffery says:

    2008 noticed the world is no longer warming significantly and tried to hide it.
    The term changes from Global Warming to Climate Change.

    The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was formed in 1988, not 2008.

    The most important worldwide organization devoted to global warming has Climate Change in its title.

  33. Jeffery says:

    My question to you is what caused the slight blip (MWP)? Was it the same forces that are in play now? If the world warmed then on its own then, could it not be warming on it’s own now?

    The Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time of higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). It is likely that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic (recall that the MWP was primarily a North Atlantic phenomenon).

    Of course these natural phenomena COULD be causing the current rapid warming but they are not. The Sun has not been in a warm phase and we are not having low volcanic activity.

    Just an aside:

    “… study found warmth exceeding 1961–1990 levels in Southern Greenland and parts of North America during the Medieval climate anomaly (defined for this purpose as 950 to 1250) with warmth in some regions exceeding temperatures of the 1990–2010 period.” Who conducted this study? Professor Michael Mann. So deniers use Mann data to support the MWP and accuse him of fraud about the 20th Century. Do you think Mann was honest about the MWP but dishonest about the 20th and 21st century?

  34. Jeffery says:

    the medieval warm period has been “revised” so that now they are considered cooler than present.

    The problem with this is that wine making was big business in England during the medieval warm period. Grapes were being grown in England then. Something that can not be done today. Suggesting that it was warmer then than now. The revising of these temperatures smell more of politics than science.

    In science, more and better data supplant older data. It’s become clear that the MWP was largely restricted to the Northern Atlantic region, Greenland, Western Europe and the Eastern US, and was very, very warm, probably even warmer than now (thanks to Michael Mann for that data!).

    It’s understandable that the historical record notes these warm temperatures in Europe.

  35. Jeffery says:

    According to http://www.english-wine.com/history.html

    there were some 400 vineyards in England in the late 20th Century. There are vineyards and wine produced in Ireland too.

    Did you know that palm trees grow today in southern Ireland?

  36. Phil Taylor says:

    No the world is not warming. Temperature 1997 was 14.35C Temperature 2012 was 14.45C. End of story. Choose another year and it will be slightly cooler. IPCC did admit this now you must too. Otherwise there would be lots of references of them dening this claim instead of making excuses for it. Arctic ice growing evidence taken from the NASA website was also in my email expressed in sq kilometers.

    From Nasa’s website concerning Arctic ice.

    “One positive from the 2013-14 winter is that multiyear ice is more extensive. From February 2013 to February 2014, multiyear ice increased from 30 percent to 43 percent (2.25 to 3.17 million square kilometers) in the Arctic basin. The total is still below the multiyear ice total in 2007, when the recent series of shrinking ice extents started. “

    Now you have not supplied any evidence as clear as this. You have not supplied the names of the Climatolisgists you have hitched your wagon too nor the Scientists who wrote the final IPCC report. Now watch the video. Watch the testimony on the medievil warm period and the “admending of the data” that inconveniently condatdicts AGW. Otherwise I will conclude you are not sincere in these discussions. Your comments sound faith based like many religious people when confronted with logic. Watch the video or invest your efforts to other more worthwhile left wing causes such as increasing the minimum wage, workers rights, universal heathcare. Do not help the people trying to rob you.

  37. Jeffery says:

    Temperature 1997 was 14.35C Temperature 2012 was 14.45C.

    Isn’t 14.35C warmer than 14.45C or did you mistype? Even you admit the Earth is warming as you Deny that it’s warming!

    IPCC admitted no such thing. I’ve asked repeatedly for you to show me where the IPCC said that and you have yet to do it.

    The Earth is warming less rapidly as measured over the past decade or so, compared to some earlier intervals, but it is STILL WARMING!

    Arctic Ice:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Please check figure 3, looking at Arctic sea ice extent (each January). You’re using a common trick of the so-called skeptic, celebrating a short term change in one aspect of global warming, rather than observing long term trends. Why? Because it suits your ideology. I had hoped you were different.

    A similar figure from NASA (for each September) of sea ice extent is found in Wikipedia and shows a similar decreasing trend in Arctic ice. It DOES more clearly show the increase in sea ice from 2012 to 2013, but in context of the overall trend we clearly see that Arctic ice is decreasing overall.

    Do you wish to discuss Arctic ice or not? Or are you sticking with your false claims, that I assume come from Easterbrook.

    Now, concerning whom I’ve hitched my wagon to. No one. It behooves each and every one of us to hitch our wagon to the data and evidence, not personalities. That said, I trust practicing climate scientists more than bloggers or blogger commenters.

    I will not watch Denier Don Easterbrook’s video. I will have to assume he will tell me no more than you have here – which is a mix of opinion and half-truths and outright lies.

    I don’t care if you think I’m sincere in these arguments. The evidence can handle itself. I don’t care if the regular commenters here agree with me. My goal is two fold: To get on the record that Mr. Teach misleads his readers and to give those readers who don’t comment here regularly, just a bit of truth.

    My comments ARE faith based. I have faith in humans, truth, science and evidence, but little faith in charlatans, religions, liars and swindlers.

    Climate scientists, based on evidence, clearly show that the Earth is warming still and that Arctic ice continues to decrease. You have offered no evidence to dissuade them from their conclusions. The facts don’t lie, although Deniers do.

  38. Jeffery says:

    Phil,

    You will be so proud of me. I clicked on the Easterbrook video, listened to his opening remarks and scrolled through slide by slide, without having to listen to him for an hour and a half.

    His very first slide was filled with bullet points of his opinions, Warming stopped in 1998. etc, after he said he would only show them data.

    I was familiar with many of the “data” slides. The dozen or more temperature reconstructions of the past 2000 years fail to detect the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period, and in fact don’t detect any periods warmer than now. Where did Easterbrook find his data?

    He showed his cooling data, but it was for North America, which makes up less than 5% of the Earth’s surface.

    It was a collection of Teach-type and Monckton-like claptrap. I felt sorry for him. Speaking to a nearly empty room.

    Dr. Easterbrook should publish his theory of the PDO causing warming and subject to rigorous peer review. (He talked about that at the end, stating that the AGU, Science and Nature won’t even look at manuscripts that stray from the party line. It’s a conspiracy!). I felt sorry for him.

    Did you really expect me to be persuaded by his presentation?

  39. Phil Taylor says:

    Yes 14.45 is warmer than 14.35 but statistically insignificant. Not the 2C to 4C plus that all climate models predicted. You are nit picking. I wish I could give you the temperature every year from 1998 till now but it is not easy to find because a great deal of effort has been made to hide the fact from the public that the temperature changes are miniscual. That is was what climategate was about. Maybe you can find them. Then deduct the temperature from that year from 1998 yourself. Show an increase greater than .5 degree celsius.
    I do not depend on Easterbrook. In fact I only found him recently and discovered that his explanation also held by many classic scientists made more sense to me and reflected more acurately what is actully occuring.
    The Arctic is freezing short term but has been overall melting longer term. Prehaps the ice is coming back! As I said and so did NASA, in my email, 2007 to 2012 melting. 2012 till present freezing. How can I be any more clear than that. Again prior to 1985 satellite technology ice extent was not as accutate. We did not have the ability to measure as presicely as we do now. There is evidence though or constant melting and freezing of Poles over time. Warmers are not forthright about this. The short term temperature trick was used by warmers greatly in the 1990’s when it suited them. They were not concerned with long term trends then. 18 years of stagnation is a long term trend if you ask me.
    >That said, I trust practicing climate scientists.
    Which ones?
    Mr. Teach runs a freedom of speech blog. However, many publications such as Popular Mechanics shut down their comment sections as skeptics kept their writers honest. If you want to keep skeptics honest here then you have to watch “denier” videos. I watched “An Inconvient Truth.” Imagine debating Christians without reading the Bible.
    >but little faith in charlatans, religions, liars and swindlers. Good. On this we can agree. What I telling you is that you are soon to be swindled like those countries that pay a carbon tax or those who paid to fix the millennium bug. That’s what happens when you are faith based.
    Unfortuneatley for this latest scheme of the unproductive trying to rob the productive, mother nature has been taunting them. It would have been great for them if the warm period of the 1990’s had continued and we would have had mild winters with no snow and greater drought but that did not happen. Warming slowed or stopped. It got colder and snowier. If warming causes this then why did it not happen then. I am a classic liberal. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I am a Canadian, not an American. My interest in this topic is not idealogical. However my experience is that warmers are the liars. This is now a matter of record. They also engage in a great deal of misinformation. Why does not Wiki tell you the temperature for every year for example? Should that not be basic information available to the public? Skeptics I found were much more trust worthy. Both sides have Idealogues that engage in propaganda. But on the whole, Skeptics ring for me the bell of truth and so far mother nature has bore them out. You may feel that Warmers ring the bell of truth to you but you need to hear both sides to know for sure.
    I started out claiming that IPCC solutions will not solve the problem but in doing so realized that there is no problem and to them the solution is more important. That is why they have the same carbon footprint as the rest of us. They just want you to pay for it.

  40. Phil Taylor says:

    I AM proud of you! I wish I was prouder if you had watched the whoe thing. You missed a lot by skipping over it. Why the reluctance? Is it so threatening for you to sit down and watch it?
    >rigorous peer review.
    Most climate claims are not peer reviewed. That is the skeptics biggest complaint. That is what climategate revealed.

    >Did you really expect me to be persuaded by his presentation?

    No not at all! I just wanted you to hear the other side. Your questions of the past made me aware that you were not aware of many concerns they had.
    Please now watch the video completely. Then you tell me what his biggest claim is! You missed it. After that we can agree to disagree. If you want to keep the bloggers here honest, good for you. Then ask yourself why your fellow believers deny the same privilage to the other side.
    If the King has no clothes you do not want someone running around telling everyone. Especially if they are expected to pay for the clothes.

  41. Jeffery says:

    Not the 2C to 4C plus that all climate models predicted.

    All the climate models predicted a 2C to 4C increase from 1997 to 2012? That’s just not true. In most of Easterbrook’s presentations he chose the least accurate model run and only used a model that ignored forcings other than CO2. Poor form. In his 2012 Heartland talk he predicts a 1C cooling by 2020. Hope he’s right.

    And why choose 1997 to 2012 for your comparison? Why not 2000 to 2014? GISTEMP shows a greater than 0.2C increase over that interval. In fact, over that interval all the land-ocean thermometer datasets show a 0.2C increase or slightly more. The UAH satellite model dataset shows that as well. Only the RSS satellite model dataset shows less than 0.2C increase, but still shows greater than 0.1C increase.

    Does it seem amazing to you that there was “no warming” from 1997 to 2012 but 0.2C warming from 2000 to 2014?

  42. Phil Taylor says:

    What was the temperature in 2000. What was it in 2013? Forget 2014 for now untill all the data is in.
    Show a link with an actual temperature. No graphs please.

    0.2c is still miniscue.

  43. Jeffery says:

    Why forget 2014? Oh, because it showed more warming. (What data are you waiting for? UAH and RSS have reported). January 2015 was pretty warm too.

    O.2C over an interval of 15 years is a miniscule increase in the mean global surface temperature? Hardly. The entire temperature excursion for the Holocene from warmest (until now) to lowest is only 0.6C. Since the so-called Little Ice Age the mean surface temperature has shot up at least 0.6C. So 0.2C over a 15 yr span would be not miniscule.

    And who the f@ck are you to tell me what to do? No graphs, my ass. Show a link, my ass.

  44. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Jeffrey:

    >And who the f@ck are you to tell me what to do? No graphs, my ass. Show a link, my ass.
    Someone with the stronger arument.

    Ok give me the temperature of 2014 as well as 2013. You can’t can you?

    And every year this century. The reason for no graphs is because they are intentionally misleading . They show 0 as the baseline for normal but do not tell you what normal is. Therefore you can not verify the graph by simply taking today’s temperature and subtract the temperature from a past year to determine for yourself the rate or lack of warming.

    It would be nice to have a chart like 2000 14c / 2001 14.1/ 2002/14.2 etc…
    I can’t find one can you?

    Also, what is the temperature of the Arctic now and before so again we can see how it has doubled. Please quote the source and name of the scientists.

    From time to time ships have made it through the north west passage when weather permitted. They can’t currently so it stands to reason that the Arctic from time to time melts and refreezes.

    I did not tell you what to do. I asked you. Like you have asked me on many occasions to provide you with information. I have complied but you have not why? If you asked someone to read a book and they come back to you and say “I looked at the chapter heading and glanced at the back. The book is crap.” What would you think?. I suspect you would not take the person seriously.

    As I stated many times before I am concerned why the earth temperature expressed in numbers is so difficult to find. I claim it is because there has been a concerted effort to conceal from the public the slow rate of warming compared to the predicted rate.

    How many press releases have no study or scientist name and no way to independently verify. This is propaganda no science.

    I am disappointed in your language. I have talked to you with respect. Though disappointed, I have seen this with religious and other faith based people when their world view it threatened by reason. The history of science is one of theories constantly being scrutinized and accepted or abandoned. More theories are abandoned than accepted. This exercise cannot be thwarted otherwise we will return to the dark ages.

    If your overall objective is to thwart conservatism like your other emails implies. Choose universal health care. Your efforts would be much better served.

    Regards
    Phil

Bad Behavior has blocked 7235 access attempts in the last 7 days.