Saturday, December 5, 2020
Home Left Column Meteorologists refute media claims that Arctic storm caused by humans: 'That's utter...

Meteorologists refute media claims that Arctic storm caused by humans: ‘That’s utter bullsh*t’ – ‘Who is feeding the media this crap?’

-

The Washington Post is hyping an Arctic storm ‘Frank’ for causing a spike in North Pole temperatures. See: “Freak storm pushes North Pole 50 degrees above normal to melting point”

But meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue is countering the media hype that the storm currently hitting the Arctic is caused by mankind.

‘That’s utter bullshit,” Maue declared on December 29, in a response to the Washington Post’s claim that the Arctic event “reeks of a human-forced warming of the Earth’s climate.”

 

Maue added: “Who is feeding the media this crap?”

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi also weighed in, calling media reports of a melting Arctic, the “lunatic fringe.” Bastardi noted that before this storm, “Arctic temperatures are way below freezing.”

Bastardi also noted that the “data buoy” measuring temperatures in the Arctic was “more than two degrees south of the North Pole and is not representative of true temperatures. He noted that the Danish Meteorological site’s data was “much better and it showed that the Arctic “has been much warmer” in the past.

“Long standing DMI records(back to 1958) indicate the Arctic has been warmer in 1984, 1985, 2000 and 2002 . The Washington Post owes it to readers to show BEST data source,” Bastardi added.

The blog RealClimateScience.com noted today that Arctic sea ice extent was at a 10-year high, despite the media hyped storm.

“Earlier today, sea ice extent was at a 10 year high. But experts say it all melted during one hour at -1C this afternoon,” wrote Tony Heller at RealClimateScience.com, with more than a hint of sarcasm.

Screenshot 2015-12-30 at 12.13.32 PM

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Heller also noted that “Arctic ice is screaming back towards 1990’s levels.”

Update Dec. 31, 2015: RealClimateScience.com noted:

“Experts say that a terrifying storm melted the North Pole yesterday”

2015-12-31-03-13-28

“This unprecedented melting event has caused Arctic ice to reach its highest December extent in over a decade.”

2015-12-31-03-13-43

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut  Note: DMI issued this this notice on above graph. “The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”

“One buoy 300 km from the pole reported temperatures just above freezing for an hour yesterday. Another buoy a mile away did not report any above freezing temperatures.”

2015-12-31-04-25-33

 

The current warm spike is not unprecedented. Arctic temperature data shows three cases of North Pole temperatures exceeding freezing since 1948.

 

 

RealClimateScience.com also noted: “A 1964 Arctic Temperature Spike Was Larger Than 2015 – And occurred during era of concern over ‘Global Cooling’

2015’s temperature spike in the Arctic was “at -20C was smaller than the 1964 ‘global cooling’ spike.”

2015-12-31-15-36-29

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Update: Journalistic Fraud: North Pole Region Saw Similar Warm Spikes Before…OVER 70 TIMES In Last 58 Years!

Despite the data, the media is continuing to hype the alleged “unprecedented” weather.

The Washington Post featured Weather Underground’s Jeff Masters explaining: “It’s really hard to scientifically say that’s what’s going on.” Masters added: “This isn’t the climate I grew up with,” he said. “We didn’t see this kind of weather in the 20th century.”

But the data clearly reveals that “extreme weather” has not increased, counter to Masters’ claim. See: PROF. ROGER PIELKE JR: TESTIMONY ON THE CURRENT STATE OF WEATHER EXTREMES: ‘It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally’

Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com, mocked Masters claim: “It wasn’t the weather Jeff Masters grew up with? Well, isn’t weather always different by definition? And then, since he’s so into ‘climate change,’ why would he expect weather to be the same in a climate that is constantly changing? Besides… the Arctic has been this warm before… and sea ice is at a 10-year high.”

Unusual warmth at during the holidays is not unusual. Even in 1940, Santa had to deal with Christmas warmth. See:

Flashback 1940: NY Times: ‘Santa Claus ran into some of the strangest weather of his career’ as he flies through ‘all-time record high’ temps – From NYTimes, Dec. 25, 1940: Santa finds ‘strangest weather of his career’

 

Meanwhile, the Washington Post also attempted to link the UK floods to some sort of unprecedented weather. The Washing Post noted: “The U.K. Met office said that December has been a record-breaking month for rainfall in parts of the United Kingdom. A Christmas weekend storm brought up to 8 inches of addition rainfall on saturated soil.”

But the media has failed to note that the current floods in the UK are nothing unusual in the historical record. See: Historic Weather Records Rubbish UK PM Cameron’s Attempts To Blame Floods On ‘Global Warming’

Related Links: 

PROF. ROGER PIELKE JR: TESTIMONY ON THE CURRENT STATE OF WEATHER EXTREMES: ‘It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally’ – Link to full testimony of Roger Pielke Jr. to Congress: ‘It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases’

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. slams NOAA For Claims of Increasing Extreme Weather: ‘In the US on climate time scales there is no evidence for more hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, drought. Happy to debate this topic with data’ – Pielke Jr. : ‘How can a NOAA spokesdude get away with telling USA Today that droughts are increasing when USGCRP, IPCC and peer reviewed research sez no?’

353 COMMENTS

  1. There is a sickness going around that blames almost all natural events on human activity. Witch doctors have done this since antiquity so it is depressing how low the collective IQ of the world has sunk – In many quarters “Idiocracy” has arrived, and it will only get worse.

  2. Liberal Journalists are just Trolling America…..

    3% of Americans care about Alarmist Fearmongering……

    Liberal Journalists are very arrogant, stubborn, insecure, and neurotic…..

    They know most Americans don’t suffer from their Climate OCD Neuroses……

    But, they just can’t let it go……

    It’s a Compulsion…..

    Ha!!

    They are forced to Troll…..

  3. All large Atlantic depressions are capable of pushing warm air into the Arctic Circle via Spitzbergen in just such a way. All that has happened is that we now have pretty graphics to display it on big TVs. The strongest Atlantic depressions are during colder spells such as the Little Ice Age as 17th century ships logs make entirely clear. Just because it is unfamiliar to the author does not make it unprecedented or even unusual, silly boy 🙂

    • ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day with extra open doors & weekly paychecks. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      bk..
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

    • ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      4exr……
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsHot/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

        • It’s not an error; it’s just another valid calculated stat! It just shows a coastal masked sea-ice cover stat you might not want to acknowledge. In that stat, 2015 ice is materially higher than the previous 10 years. Calling it an “error” betrays your warming bias, and a gotcha prejudice.

          • It was not presented as such here. There are a lot of ups and downs in any climate data set. But the overall trend for northern sea ice extent and volume is in decline. And notice the note under the newer plot:

            “The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”

            • Of course I saw the note (& saved the page); it was factored into my question. Even with “a lot of ups and downs of any climate data set,” (thank you for acknowledging that often unacknowledged fact), and even with “… headline grabbing catastrophic results? I for one am shocked that in DEC’15, the massive area of NH
              non-coastal sea ice extent isn’t at some sort of minimum — aren’t you?” After all, DEC’15 is materially higher than the last 10 years for that stat?

              • And I suppose you are shocked that coastal ice is low, no? Lot’s of factors influence sea ice extent, for example wind and ocean currents. Ocean temps probably play a bigger role than air temps. But it is clear that NH sea and land ice, in extent and volume, have been declining for several decades.

                    • Should it be concerning for a globe in an interglacial period coming out of a little ice age? What should the globe be doing differently?

                    • Of course I am! I have a ridiculous fantasy where everytime I ask someone a direct question, I get a direct answer.

                    • Maybe if you bother to look at the ENTIRE Holocene, you will quickly realize your faux concern is absurd.

                      There have been various times in the inter-glacial that there was little to NO summer ice in the region.

                      The current ice cap is larger than average for the inter-glacial.

                    • It is difficult to know ice cover extent in past centuries. However, proxy study evidence supports the conclusion that the Arctic Ocean has had continual ice cover for the last 5000 or 6000 years.

                      http://www.livescience.com/10678-arctic-sea-ice-lowest-point-thousands-years.html

                      Before that, 6000 to 10000 years ago, there were some periods with ice free summers. These have been attributed to natural changes in Earths orbit.

                      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y

                      The current warming can only be explained by the increase in greenhouse gases.

                    • The Holocene period started 11,500+ years ago, and continues up to today.

                      Thus ALL of the things you just said are covered by the “ENTIRE Holocene”.

                      Thus your citations prove that you agree with Thomas Peterson’s comment that there been times in this current inter-glacial period (known as the Holocene) in which the Arctic has experienced “little to NO summer ice”.

                      How is what may or may not be causing the current warming relevant to what caused the past warming, other than there was warming?

                    • I’m sure I also made up your earlier request for citations (or context) from Thomas Pearson since it no longer exists.

                    • request for citations…from Thomas Pearson since it no longer exists..

                      Nothing has been deleted. It is still there. You made that up too.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • There have been various times in the inter-glacial that there was little to NO summer ice in the region.

                      [citation needed]

                      Best,

                      D

                    • ROFL!!! Disqus allows you to completely remove a prior comment without a trace of any kind, by simply editing it into nothingness. And Climate Depot doesn’t indicate “comment removed” or “comment deleted” unless Climate Depot is responsible for the removal or deletion. SO…poof….you removed a prior comment, without a trace, from it’s former chronological position here on Climate Depot.

                      But alas, Disqus WILL NOT allow you to remove a post, without a trace, and then put it BACK in it’s former chronological order, later. Poor baby!
                      You tried to make me look like I “made something up” by removing the post I was referring to. Had I been forced to try to prove that, at most, all I could have used to support my conclusion that you did it because you are an evil liar, would have been my own personal assumptions and opinion. But when I pointed out that your comment had disappeared, instead of just being a an evil liar and saying “see…you made it up”….YOU did something that no only proves to everyone here that are ARE in fact, an evil liar, but it also PROVES that you are a STUPID, as well as evil, liar.

                      You claimed that “Nothing has been deleted. You made that up too.”

                      Bravo Dano2! You gave me the best belated Christmas Gift ever….EVIDENCE that proves you are a stupid, evil liar so I no longer have to rely on flimsy premises like my personal opinion and assumptions when I put forward that conclusion. Best!

                    • Keep going liar. The little caption beside your name and who it’s to, indicates it that you just re-posted a comment that you CLAIM still exists on this thread. But the re-post is the ONLY time that comment actually appears here. You can never put that comment BACK into the chronology where it was. So claiming it’s still there can always be disproven by anyone who glances up at the time frame that matches the time stamp on it.

                      Or are you trying to insinuate that you CAN still see it up there….so it must still appear to be up there to everyone else? Because it’s not up there anymore….to anyone else. Literally, there is NO POST addressed to Thomas Pearson from you “two days ago” anywhere in this thread EXCEPT where you posted it UNDER a comment I made ONE day ago.

                  • You might say “Do you consider it unusual that the area in which the concentration of Arctic sea ice is over 30% is higher than it has been in relation to the area in which sea ice concentration is less than 30% for the last ten years?”

                • Of area around the coast, the ice concentration is between 15 and 30%. Areas off the coast, the ice concentration is roughly 30% and above. Does that mean that ocean temps are lower off shore and warmer on shore? Does that mean that air temps offshore are colder than onshore? What can we, and can’t we, logically assume about the differences between the shore ice and the offshore ice without comparing all of the variables involved?

            • The first (Danish) chart-the one with the mask- shows 2015-2016 levels at 10.25 km2.

              The second (Danish) chart-the one without the mask shows 2015-2016 levels at 13.75 km2

              (link-http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php)

              The one you posted from NSIDC shows the 2015-2016 total at -12.25 km2.

              None of the charts are “wrong”, and the first two charts are of different measurements of the same area-one with a mask applied, and one without that mask applied.

              The first Danish chart (with the mask) actually showed the past ten years on it-from 2005-2015, and the way that chart was presented here was under the joking caption of “This unprecedented melting event has caused Arctic ice to reach its highest December extent in over a decade.” Since neither the updated, unmasked chart, nor the one Mike435 posted, show all of the past ten years, Mike has yet to prove that how the first graph was presented here is “wrong”.

              • The caption given here does not mention that coastal data was excluded. The caption says: “Sea ice extent in recent years (in million km2) for the northern hemisphere, as a function of date.” Marc Morano left out the next line that says: “Please notice, that the sea ice extent in this plot is calculated with the coastal zones masked out. To see the absolute extent, go to this page.” This may well be an honest error. Perhaps Morano will post a correction when he recovers from New Year’s Eve. 😉

                • It’s not Marc’s caption. The caption is from the danish site. It is not Marc’s fault that the coastal data on that chart was excluded. Marc is also not responsible for the red lettering or arrow. He linked to a chart from realclimatescience.com Marc ALSO included a link to the actual chart on the danish site AND anyone who checks the chart will see the “new” chart. Note that the authors of both charts says- “This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated.” That the coastal mask IMPLIED that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated DOES NOT EQUATE with the previous ice extent estimates WERE WRONG.

                  All this means that the chart itself was CORRECT. BOTH TIMES. That the coastal zones were masked out has ZERO affect on the fact that the chart shows that the concentration of sea ice (higher than 30% in the Arctic) was higher at the end of 2015 than it has been in the past ten years.

                  Its not Marc’s chart, or his error, or his problem.

                  • Morano is responsible for what he posts on his blog. Perhaps the Danish site added the correction after Morano posted this. Nonetheless, the chart with the caption given is incorrect. I merely pointed this out.

                    • Maybe I should be more direct.
                      Before the charts in question, Marc introduces the fact that hes reporting on what Tony Heller posted on his blog at realclimatescience.com

                      Marc uses QUOTATION MARKS to indicate when he’s quoting what Tony said. (Meaning its not Marc’s caption) You must have MISSED the fact that the caption you are NOW complaining about has quotation marks around it. Those little marks indicated that TONY is the one responsible for the caption that claims-
                      “This unprecedented melting event has caused Arctic ice to reach its highest December extent in over a decade.”

                      The one beneath the graph was placed there by the Danish researchers and unless you want to attempt to prove that they mislabeled their own chart, I’m going with the assumption that they labeled it exactly as they wanted to, and as it is written, it doesn’t make “the chart with this caption” wrong or incorrect in any way. Again, the chart is correct., How they created the chart is correct. If you personally assumed that the chart in question DID measure and cover “absolute sea ice extent” or “15% and up sea ice extent” in the Arctic, then based on the details that have always existed on the Danish website AS WELL AS the “please see” note on the Danish website, YOU ARE WRONG.

                      PLEASE NOTE- neither Tony nor Marc added the word “absolute” to the chart, nor did they add anything about 15% and up, and the link THEY FREELY POSTED demonstrates that the makers of the chart never even meant to IMPLY that their chart represented “absolute sea ice extent” or “sea ice extent 15% and above”.

                      SO, based on the actual physical evidence (facts), your conclusions aren’t based on solid premises. The only question left is-did you INTEND to reach those mistaken conclusions when you started or did that happen by mistake?

                    • He’s under no obligation to babysit readers to make sure they understand exactly what was posted, why it was posted, and what his motives were when he posted it.

                      YOU are responsible for what YOU posted here.

                    • I do not require babysitting. I just pointed out a mistake. It is you who have gotten your panties in a knot. Do some breathing exercises and try to relax.

                    • And? It proves the man isn’t a lying cherry picker right? He left the chart there, and it’s still a correct chart. The note doesn’t change that.

                • Are you really that ignorant of trend analysis or are you just trolling? If the chart measures the same thing over 10 years, it doesn’t really matter what is blanked out since it will blank out the exact same thing on every single year. So as a measurement of the trend of coverage, how it is being used in the post, it would be perfectly valid even if it overestimates or underestimates the actual coverage. It is a Measure of Performance, it doesn’t actually directly measure anything, but is does show trends. To paraphrase a former US president, “It’s the trend, Stupid!”

        • The 1st chart showed JUST the areas in which the “ice concentration is higher than 30%”. The “new” chart shows all areas in which the ice concentration is higher than 15%.

          Are areas in which there is only 15% ice equal to areas in which there is 30%? Of course not. Drawing a bigger circle that measures “absolute ice extent” does not make the amount of ice in each area equal.

  4. If they followed the cold as much as they followed the heat, we wouldn’t be talking about climate change. That cold air that was displaced went somewhere – why don’t they go chase that for a change?

  5. The Paris Climate Agreement abolishes all forms of climate change, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels for now and for all time. It is a done deal and we here in the USA do not have to pay anything for it because we are a poor nation with a large national debt, trade deficit, and unfunded liabilities. Climate change no longer exists so it should be of no concern to us any more. Human caused climate change cannot possible be the cause of anything because human caused climate change has been abolished for now and for all time.

  6. The Washington Compost owned and operated by man-child Jeff Bezos, idiot savant, indoctrinated Marxist Harvard graduate. He’s destroying the very country that allowed him his fortune, and now his actions weaken and will eventually destroy the country and its native people.

    He got this virus from the long line of Jews and their sickness to destroy societies, take them over so they can own and control everything.

    Good job, Jeff. When it all collapses, you will not be spared.

  7. Oopsie!

    ‘That’s utter bullshit,” meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue declared on December 29, in a response to the Washington Post’s claim that the Arctic event “reeks of a human-forced warming of the Earth’s climate.” Maue added: “Who is feeding the media this crap?”

    Morano made that up. WaPo didn’t state that.

    Caught fibbin!

    Best,

    D

  8. Liberal Alarmists in the Media……
    …are no different than 6 Day Creationists or Intelligent Designers……

    You could explain all the Science to them that is contrary to their Climate Religious Beliefs…..
    …and they won’t be swayed….

    Their Climate Beliefs aren’t really based in Science….

    If 95% of the Climate Scientists came out tomorrow and said: “There is no reason for Alarm…..Emissions aren’t Bad……They’re Good……
    ….Stop Worrying……No need for CO2 Regulations”….

    Would the WashPost, NYTimes, Eric Holthaus, and the rest of the Climate Cult admit they were wrong and stop pushing their Propaganda?

    NOPE…..of course not…..

    In fact…….close to 50% of Climate Scientists……ARE NOT…..Alarmists……

    You wouldn’t know that by reading or watching the Liberal Media…..

    The Liberal Media are Insecure, Childish, and Arrogant Narcissists……

    They’ll never admit they’re wrong……

    Especially not regarding their Highly Sacred Climate Religion…..

    They always need to hold something over the Heads of the ‘Illiterate’ Masses……so they can Teach us and Enlighten Us…..

    Ha!!

    How did they get so Enlightened?

    Their Parents from the Suburbs paid for them to go to a Liberal University…….and Major in Journalism…..

    After 4 Years……they all automatically attain Buddhahood……upon Graduation……..enabling them…….

    ….to bring the Truth of Reality to us Lowly Illiterates…..

    Ha!!!!

    No Thanks…..I have 3 Degrees in Science…….MUCH Superior to Journalism…..

    I didn’t learn the Art of Telling Stories…….I learned how to Decipher and Understand the Natural World and its Natural Processes……

    What’s Real and What’s not Real………..is not up to a Poll……

  9. Since we are talking about how the Washington Post is covering climate change, here are two recent editorials to consider.

    2015: A year of progress and buffoonery on climate change
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015-a-year-of-progress-and-buffoonery-on-climate-change/2016/01/02/9ad6955c-af33-11e5-9ab0-884d1cc4b33e_story.html

    Even ExxonMobil says climate change is real. So why won’t the GOP?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html

  10. Dear Magic Gasser. Please bear testimony of your church’s teachings about how the frigid, refrigerated, turbulent fluid bath blocking 17% available energy to the planet,

    became a MIGHTY, MIGHTY HEATER in the SKY!

    Go on to explain how,

    many times through history,
    pressurized
    frigid
    turbulent
    refrigerated gas baths
    blocking light to the

    light warmed rocks immersed in them

    have been used to heat the rocks such that they were warmer
    AFTER the frigid refrigerated turbulent fluid bath
    than
    when there was more light arriving on the light warmed rock,
    and there WAS no

    frigid refrigerated turbulent gas bath.

    Make the profoundly thundering thermodynamic truths ring like somebody put on a production of Othello.

    Pause at really important points, and add in little piquant anecdotes of a humorous nature, & whatnot.

  11. DECEMBER 22, 2015 – JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR DOCUMENTS WITHHELD FROM CONGRESS IN NEW CLIMATE DATA SCANDAL

    (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)).

    http://jwatch.us/JFrUD6

  12. Climate Change is Unfaslifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

    Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.

    https://youtu.be/huKY5DzrcLI

    • Flashing a bunch of newspaper headlines is not science. The warming continues. The melting continues. Sea level rise continues. Ocean pH is dropping. The impacts on weather are complex and not as well understood.

      • Nah, you’re just thermodynamically incompetent.

        Phil Jones the world’s # 1 climatologist admitted in 2 0 0 5 ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8. OKAY IT HAS but it isn’t but seven years of data
        and it isn’t statistically significant.”

        Flash forward to 2010. JONES has been CAUGHT LYING and in exchange for NOT GOING TO JAIL he AGREES to REVEAL the REAL GLOBAL TEMP.

        feb 2010 BBC INTERVIEW with PHIL JONES:

        BBC: Isn’t it true there has been NO WARMING since 1 9 9 5 and that since 2 0 0 2 there has been slight WARMING?

        JONES: YES. I did the calculations and find that SINCE 1 9 9 5 there has been NO WARMING and that there has in fact, since 2 0 0 2, been some SLIGHT but not STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT,
        C O O L I N G.

        Look around AGAIN: WHAT data set showed in 2 0 0 5, NO MORE WARMING since about 95-98 and SLIGHT, but NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

        C O O L I N G?

        The RAW DATA PLACED that way online by LAW to stop – ADJUSTMENTS SCAMS.

        When the WORLD’S #1 CLIMATOLOGIST is caught with FOUR OTHER METEOROLOGICAL HEADS
        PLOTTING to ISSUE PRESS RELEASES that IT HAS KEPT WARMING when they are ARGUING about how it HASN’T and THEY don’t KNOW what to DO,

        Then admits under pain of going to JAIL, that ”I”ve been FAKING ALL THIS WARMING since 1 9 9 5/98.

        then that DATA is FAKE.

        Your CLAIM is FAKE.

        Sea level still rises identically to the way it’s been for FIVE THOUSAND YEARS from about 2 to maybe 4 mm a YEAR.

        Ocean pH is NOT dropping, there isn’t even STANDARDIZED pH MANAGEMENT. Not ANYWHERE in the world.

        In other words your story’s wrong because you got it from M S M who weren’t really interesting in finding out Al Gore’s movie about ”using the fire will make the sky get hot” is a hoax.

          • Look up the word ”thermometer”

            Then burst out in song about how the sun warmed rock was HEATED through BLOCKING LIGHT to it

            and scrubbing it with a FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH.

            And it needs to be so clear we think you had Al Gore lay hands on your head and set you aside as a special messenger, of magic gais and frigid baths that heat up rocks to the point they’re WARMER than when they weren’t in a frigid bath.

          • Look up the word ”And That’s How The Frigid, Light Blocking Bath Of Refrigerants, Made The Sun-Warmed Rock, HOTTER Than When It Wasn’t In The Frigid, Light Blocking Refrigerant Bath.”

            Let us all know in whatever fascinating hand wavings you put together, so it doesn’t sound like you’re high,

            when you say that sounds real.

        • The quote on http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php is “Total sea ice extent on the northern hemisphere since 2005. The ice extent values are calculated from the ice type data from the Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF), where areas with ice concentration higher than 30% are classified as ice.” So it’s true, the 30% NH sea Ice area (not same as sea ice extent which includes 15%) is clearly at a 10 year high and materially so…

          But you and others continue to feed a TROLL! As I posted many days ago he has “little/no phy-sci background, NO THERMODYNAMICS study at all! A train-wreck of tired-old bad info epoxied together in dogma, w/ years of posts in evidence of same.”

          By his own post, “I was a weatherman in the USAF and studied bioclimatology before switching to the plant side,” Like I said, he is is little/no phy-sci (iow, life-sci dominant, phy-sci ignorant), NO THERMODYNAMICS “plant”… a vegetable… “best” description might be a mushroom, rooted in the dark of his own bs!

          This thread is a representative capsule of years of evidence of his mental um acuity? The thread itself is prima facie evidence of my earlier assertion! For more that a full decade, he has dogmatically posted such trails of evidence, the same as this thread.

          IRONIC ISN’T IT; his phy-sci & thermodynamic vacuous posts are in evidence about as long as the 10 year NH 30% or more ice areas, that were materially surpassed in DEC’15 and continues here in early JAN’16. The difference between these two of course is that the NH 30% ice will eventually drop back into the 10 year plots – the other will like never exhibit any evidence of acuity in phy-sci or thermodynamics.

          At this point, perhaps it’s “best” if I conclude with, “please don’t feed the troll!”

  13. All too often, the pro AGW argument is based on the notion that those of us that question their logic are “anti-science”. Anything in the world can be proven if one accepts an anecdote – or a singularity as proof. Modern science is based on statistical data, in which a single event; be that a tornado, a hurricane, or a temperature spike; must be analyzed in conjunction with the universe of other data in order to look for trends. If a signal is discovered, it requires an explanation. Noise never requires an explanation, as it is just noise. Drawing conclusions from noise is the purview of politicians – not scientists.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Antarctica might go green say scientists (only 2km of ice and 50C of warming to go)

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/antarctica-might-go-green-say-scientists-only-2km-of-ice-and-50c-of-warming-to-go/ More great journalism from The Guardian: Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers Or maybe it isn’t. Check out the brave actual prediction:...

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s talks in Prague

By Dr. Lubos Motl Richard Lindzen's talk in Prague Richard Lindzen, prof emeritus at MIT, is the most famous atmospheric physicist among the climate skeptics. I...

Study: Earth is becoming GREENER, not BROWNER due to climate change

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol...