NOAA Data Shows Arctic Ice At Its Lowest In 1500 Years

289fig4.1-perovich

We have been following the overwhelming evidence of drastic climate change, but few studies are as striking as the most report from NOAA’s Arctic research program.  The annual Arctic Report Card  that we have reached the highest loss of Arctic ice in 1500 years. Recently discussed the controversial statements of Administration officials like Energy Secretary Rick Perry on the U.S. offering a better future through fossil fuels.  These studies show a potentially catastrophic future as our climate continues to change exponentially.

Among the findings is that the average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2016 is by far the highest since 1900.  Look at this data:

201fig1.1-overland

Sea ice during this period is the second lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1979.

172fig4.2-perovich

NOAA is respected worldwide for its analysis and it has concluded that the changes being observed in the Arctic are unprecedented in human history.

The Arctic is now warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world.

NOAA

This, according to scientist Emily Osborne, is “the largest magnitude decline in sea ice, and the greatest sustained rate in sea ice decline in that 1,500-year record.”

508 thoughts on “NOAA Data Shows Arctic Ice At Its Lowest In 1500 Years

  1. Pollution is a direct ratio of population.
    ______________________________

    China – 1.4 billion

    India – 1.3 billion

    SE Asia – 1 billion

    Africa – 1.2 billion

    America – 240 million – 75 million illegals/invaders
    _______________________________________

    “Who gets in the lifeboat?”

  2. ɪ ɢᴇᴛ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ᴏᴠᴇʀ $80/ʜᴏᴜʀ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ Two ᴋɪᴅs ᴀᴛ ʜᴏᴍᴇ.I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 3k a WEEK doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.Check it out here… >> ExpertTrade4.Com

  3. Climate change-global warming-rising sea levels t-over population growth are a fact which is happening rite now. Period !

    • Over-population is a judgement – there is no known correct population. The population of the earth has doubled since “the population bomb” was written as has the standard of living.
      Poverty has decreased radically, and starvation only exists today as a consequence of politics, we have more than enough food.

      Every other malthusian progrognostication – on your list and from the left is the same.

      The sky is not falling.
      In fact in nearly every way life is getting better for all of us.

      But it gets better faster the freer we are.

      The last thing we need is elitists telling us they are taking over to prevent problems that will take care of themselves.

      Statists have been promising that forever. They have only delivered carnage and blood.

  4. @Tauzinger, earlier

    Currently, the problem with AGW or even plain old GW is that there is no good conceptual basis of how to measure it. I asked you earlier, what was the Earth’s average temperature on February 20, 2017. I do not believe there is an answer because nobody knows.

    But, if nobody knows NOW, then how can anyone predict the temperature is going to go up less than a degree 100 years from now. The current models are not Thermometer Based (if I am reading things right) but Physics Based, on the idea that freeing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will have X effect in the future. But there are simply too many variables. How much is uptook by plants, for example.

    Here is another way of looking at it, by analogy:

    Scientist: Squeeky, your temperature is going to go up by at least .7 degrees in the next month.

    Squeeky: Huh??? How do you know that? I call bullsh*t! What is my temperature now, Mr. Smarty Pants???

    Scientist: I don’t have to know your exact temperature now, to make that prediction. But FWIW, it’s somewhere 97 degrees and 99 degrees.

    Squeeky: Well, color me skeptical. You don’t know what my exact temperature is now, and you predict that it is going up .7 degrees, when .7 is LESS than your current 2 degree range??? I’m not stupid, you know!

    Scientist: Because of the Flu Epidemic! I know you don’t take Flu Shots, and therefore, there is a 35% greater chance you will get the flu, and your temperature will shoot up to 103 degrees on average. And 35% of that increase from the normal human range, plus several other factors I have modelled, is .7 degrees! That is how I know it! Simple mathematics! It’s settled science!

    That was three months ago, and I still ain’t got the flu.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporte

    • Squeaky, climate temperatures are AVERAGES pulled together across geography and across time. You’re asking a question that is picayune and irrelevant to a climate scientist — what is the geographic average on a specific date. I think it would be possible to aggregate the data this way from the thousands of marine and land-based weather stations, but to what purpose? What is special about Feb 20th 2017? Nobody is interested in one specific day…that’s weather, not climate.

      I don’t think your analogy based on a single person’s body temperature stands. Where is the massive aggregation of data to form an average? Are you familiar with the Law of Large Numbers?

      You’re right that there are problems with the simplistic model that the +2C goal was hatched upon. It wasn’t known back then (Al Gore days) how some excess heat gets scrubbed from the atmosphere and stored deep in the oceans. The implication is that the oceans may be fooling us into thinking the heat buildup on the surface isn’t all that bad. The real question is: What happens to the heat stored in the oceans? Will is change marine life? Will ocean currents change (for instance, turning UK into Norway)? Will pent up heat in the ocean spring back out into the atmosphere at some point, radically raising air temperatures in a short time? What is the goal to limit oceanic warming? Nobody is stating one.

      If anything, I’d conclude that the original AGW models understated the impacts of CO2 and methane pollution.

      • If you tell someone that “Earth’s” temperature is going to rise, at some future date, by a relatively small amount, don’t you think those people ought to be able to tell you what the temperature was on some relatively recent day???

        Was “Earth’s” average temperature 50 degrees F on February 20th, 2017. If so, and that same temperature is predicted to be 50.7 degrees F on February 20, 2087, then how do you get to the future temp, without the past temp??? How have they even figured out an “average” temperature???

        And, as far as a single person’s body temperature, I would remind you that Earth is a single planet. Don’t you feel that maybe something is missing from all the AGW stuff? Something like ACTUAL TEMPERATURES as measured by a thermometer???

        What we are getting is not actual temperatures but mathematically manipulated numbers where there are multiple factors, and we don’t even know how those factors are “factored” in. Plus, we don’t get conformance with the models? I am not saying “manipulated” in a bad sense, but just as what happens to the data.

        That is what that guys paper is about. That scientists are predicting an increase that is super small compared to the swings in temperature. Do you understand what he is talking about?

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        • Squeeky – Breitbart is reporting that NOAA has been fudging the numbers up for this winter in the NE to make things warmer.

          • I looked that article up! It was great! Here is part of it:

            Yet again, he has found that NOAA’s arbitrary adjustments tell a lie. They claim that January 2018 was warmer in the New York region than January 1943, when the raw data from local stations tells us this just isn’t true.

            So at the three sites of Ithaca, Auburn and Geneva, we find that January 2018 was colder than January 1943 by 1.0, 1.7 and 1.3F respectively.

            Yet NOAA say that the division was 2.1F warmer last month. NOAA’s figure makes last month at least 3.1F warmer in comparison with 1943 than the actual station data warrants.

            He concludes:

            Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenised and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data.

            And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the US is any better?

            Well indeed. The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary. Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data.

            One excuse NOAA’s apologists make is that weather stations are subject to changing environmental conditions. For example, when the station sited at Syracuse in 1929 was located at what was originally just a sparse aerodrome. Since then, however, as Homewood notes, it has grown into a large international airport with two runways servicing two million passengers a year. Its weather station readings therefore will certainly have been corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect: that is, its temperature readings will have been artificially elevated by the warmth from the surrounding development and aircraft engines.

            So you’d think, wouldn’t you, that to compensate for this NOAA would adjust the recent temperatures downwards. Instead, for no obvious reasons, it has adjusted them upwards.

            This is a scandal. NOAA’s climate gatekeepers are political activists not honest scientists and the U.S. taxpayer has no business funding their propaganda.

            http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            • I saw the same article linked at Drudge. To justify fudging of climate data because of nearby aircraft engines is like believing that lighting an occasional match inside an enclosed stadium will somehow alter the overall temperature of the air inside.

              Just more of the overall distraction campaign to derail conservative political power, which is gaining momentum in liberal hotspots throughout the world.

              • Or like it said in the article, if your station is now “hotter” because of the heat sink, then adjust it down. Or raise the old temps. But the way they did it, lowering the old temps, supports and promotes the “It Is Getting Hotter” Narrative.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                • Squeeky – the official temperature for Phoenix (which is the temperature for the entire Valley of the Sun) is taken at Sky Harbor Airport, which is a concrete heat sink. They have never adjusted the temperature. Where I live is at least 3 degrees cooler and since it is a huge valley, temperatures and weather vary depending on where you live.

      • Actually there are lots of serious problems with human measured temperature data.
        Does anyone really beleive that the weather stations in Siberia, or africa are as accurate as the US ?
        Further the US is incredibly well covered. There are more weather stations in most states than all of Africa the largest continent.

        There are myriads of methodological problems with the human measured record.

        But we have a satellite system that does nto have those problems.
        IT does have other problems, but we have a weather balloon and radiosonde system which allows us to validate the satellite system.

        The Satelite system does nto provide data prior to 1975.

        Still overall it provides two things confirmation that the human measured temperatures are loosely reliable.
        Confirmation that NOAA and HadCRUT are fudging.

  5. I can picture this exact same argument with Galileo. Some people look at the data and say its fudged we don’t need to study this further because we know he fudged his data. Others say, perhaps we need more data to confirm or deny his hypothesis.

    The same is happening now. The reasoning goes… I think someone at NOAA might have fudged some data so everyone in NOAA is complicit and all funding should be stopped. Let’s reject everything they have found and go on believing that all is well and we can continue to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere with no worry.

    So why should we burn up all the petroleum reserves the earth has accumulated in a 200 year period? Why not use technology to preserve this phenomenal resource for future generations? What is wrong with developing a transportation system that relies less on petroleum and more on renewable resources? Your grand kids might thank you for the switch. Even if it turns out our pumping enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere had no affect on climate.

    • Paul – my line ends with me. So, I am only concerned about the planet as it exists while I am on it. BTW, it was nice of you to admit to SOME people at NOAA fudging the data. However, that is all it takes. I do not want to put NOAA out of business, I just want them to be honest. Is that too much to ask?

      We will not really know where we are until we have HONEST scientists doing the monitoring. Right now we have a cabal of liars, if not doing the monitoring, at least inputting the data.

      • That is a dishonest allegation on your part. My respect for you continues to decline, rather like summer Arctic sea ice extent.

        • David Benson – NOAA is again charged with fudging temperatures upwards, in this case, 3.1 degrees in the NY area. David, you and Paul cannot admit that NOAA fudge climate figures upward regularly as does the IPCC. This, of course, puts the lie to climate warming, since we do not have solid facts. You have to face reality. I do not care how many books you have read if they are built on quicksand. I know intellectual dishonesty when I see it and so should you,

          We cannot do anything about climate art until we get reliable and accurate figures. Hence my stand.

        • The NOAA fudging is well established.
          We live in the internet era. it is impossible to alter the past without people being able to check.

    • Exactly. If you don’t like fossil fuel, come right out and say it. It’s fraudulent to push climate change to intimidate into going green, wasting billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars needlessly.

      Forest fires generate one heck of a lot of CO2. Going by the hoaxers’ arguments, forest fires would have to be outlawed, too, to prevent climate change.

      A critical mass of public opinon is no longer buying into the climate change narrative, a distraction campaign — like its sister, illegal immigration — to cover efforts to neutralize conservative political power in favor of liberal.

    • What we are talking about is falsifying the data on one of the core functions of the NOAA.

      Regardless NOAA is unnecessary. About 10 years ago an NOAA weather satellite over the Caribean was failing. There was no room on the space shuttle and no replacement satelite available.
      So NOAA said we will do without for a few years.

      The re-insurance industry was miffed as information on caribean huricanes is extremely important to reducing losses. So they put together a crash program had everything in place to loft their own satellite, and suddenly NOAA was able to get a replacement up in time – because they were afraid of losing their monopoly on weather satelites.

      Much of what government does that we presume only government can do, can be done better privately.

    • Oil Reserves are larger today than they have every been in history, and they increase each year faster than they are used.

      Nor does it matter. Oil is replaceable, just not economically right now.
      Economics is the science of allocating scarce resources. Inarguably the best means by far is free markets.

  6. The science-illiterate really know what’s going on. Billions of tons of carbon per year go poof, no effects. Rainforests and ecosystems are thriving from our pollution, well, not pollution — more like beneficial plastic contributions.

    Much like the Apollo 13 modules. A build-up of carbon-dioxide was a great help to the crew.

    • The fact that you would use Apollo 13 discredits all your “expertise”. But I guess the SoCal they teach the Earth is a s simple as a space capsule.

    • Right, it almost killed them. What you mean is, the CO2 crisis on Apollo 13 made the rescue more dramatic, better for the book and the movie, right? It’s all about drama & entertainment.

    • The mass of the atmosphere is 5.8 × 10^15 tons Billions are tiny compared to that.
      Total atmospheric CO2 is about 400ppm – that is not new CO2, that is TOTAL CO2

      Human CO2 is a very large number – but miniscule compared to total atmospheric CO2 or Total new CO2/year

  7. Ludicrous how these people have turned the well-being of our only planet into another “our team, right or wrong” game. The absolute fear and hatred these people hold in their hearts for those who don’t look or believe like them is clearly displayed here in the anonymity of the internet. That fear and hatred causes them to reject common sense, objectively-verifiable evidence, common decency, and sell their very souls merely to remain on the team with the other like-minded fearful. Pathetic, and shameful. Exhibit A of people living as if there is no god.

      • Irrelevant. You should have recognized my term of art to be addressing the bald-faced hypocrisy exhibited by the “faithful.”

        this is to “oh, ya, now I see it” paulie – georgie

        • Marky Mark Mark – you wouldn’t know a term of art if it jumped up and bit you on the nose. You know a lot of terms, but not where to use them. How did you get through college?

    • Just the opposite. People live as if there is a god, which is why everything is totally fine and we humans couldn’t possibly affect the planet.

    • “The absolute fear and hatred these people hold in their hearts for those who don’t look or believe like them is clearly displayed here in the anonymity of the internet”. – today’s sermon from the Gospel of Mark the Anonymous

    • No, Mark, you base your claims on junk science. Few if any deny climate change. Climate has been changing over the millennia. The only question is whether or not humans are significantly altering the climate and whether or not what is presently being done is good or bad.

      You have turned even climate change into an ignorant type of hatred. “That fear and hatred…”

      The question of what is happening and what works or doesn’t work involves science, not politics and not Trump.

      I am waiting to hear what you believe and your scientific evidence.

  8. Climate change doesn’t scare me as much as what some politicians plan on doing to us in the name of global warming.

    • I think it was Wally Brocker who said that the climate is an angry beast. So it would be better not to provoke it. That is a highly conservative stance.

  9. David Benson – it is not your area of expertise. You are doing “A call to authority” to get people to agree with you, but it doesn’t work on this blog. They are now predicting that the poles may flip. What have you got for that, El Supremo? They have flipped several times before. BTW, NOAA is a bunch of Chicken Little alarmists. They only give you part of the story because they want more funding. If NOAA said it was a clear sky, I would go out and look before I made my judgment. Is NOAA going to stop the poles from flipping?

    • Those are the magnetic poles. ninny. About 41,000 years ago a similar diminution of the magnetic field occurred with no flip. Of course, this had no discernable effect on the climate of the time.

      NOAA/NCDC, NASA/GISS, Hadley Centre and the Japanese climatology effort all give about the same story. So does Potsdam. These scientists simply tell it like it is, as best as they can determine. Your demeaning attitude indicates how thoroughly anti-enlightenment you have been brainwashed into becoming.

      Spencer Weart has no axe to grind; go read his book before spouting off. The details are below.

      Finally, climatology is one of my specialties. Nobody posting here has a better understanding than I do. Just look at the books I cite below; I have studied all.

      You should do the same; for shame.

      • David Benson — science is not my specialty, although I majored in it in high school. I have 3 majors and 2 minors, science, and math are not one of them. However, I have read the Climategate emails and I can see collusion when it is shoved in my face. Michael Mann should have been stripped of his Ph.D. and put to picking up garbage someplace. He both hid and destroyed data, then manufactured conclusions based on his new data sets. He is currently hiding it as “proprietary.” The emails between the paleo-climatologists destroyed my faith in all climatologists.

        I know they cannot predict a weather model for the Valley of the Sun for more than 5 days in advance and even after 2 it is iffy. How are you going to predict a climate model based on bad data (Michael Mann)?

        • What a complete fool! First of all, so-called climategate was arranged to delude the masses. Second, that paper by Michael Mann and others has been confirmed again and again.

          WMO requires at least 30 years of weather data to establish climate. If you understood some geophysics and enough statistics you would understand that climate is predictable although long range weather is not, so much it turns out.

          Go study more and rather expose your ignorance less.

          • David Benson – you cannot confirm something if you do not have the data it is based on. Even you know that. I call BS.

            • What is confirmed. over and over and over again, is that Terra is warming faster than at any time throughout the Cenozoic Era.

              That
              Is
              Not
              Good.

      • David, your former comments demonstrate that though you think you are an expert you are only an expert in your own mind in part because you are unable to engage in in true debate. My understanding is that your training was in computer science. That is a long way off from climate change.

        Your attitude to the present has been to use snark, 3 words or less, or to engage in longer debate, but only where one side, your preferred side, of the debate is discussed. You fade away when legitimate controversy exists.

        Climate change which occurred before mankind ever roamed the planet should be a purely scientific and non-political discussion. Even the solutions should be scientific though the ultimate choice of the solution might be in the realm of politics.

        Let’s see if we can’t all do better and discuss all sides of the problem scientifically without engaging in political rhetoric.

    • ‘ BTW, NOAA is a bunch of Chicken Little alarmists.” And you know this because?

      I am a former NOAA employee. I never met a single chicken little alarmist in a 31 year career. And I’ve meet plenty of NOAA scientists. And I never met a single person in NOAA that would give out misleading information simply to get an extra buck next year. Knowledge is good. new information is gathered all the time, sometimes it conflicts with current scientific thoughts in which case new evidence is gathered and theories modified (or not), sometimes popular thought is what needs to be modified. The classic example of this was Galileo arguing that the earth was not the center of the universe. His theory wasn’t exactly correct either but it was far closer to reality than popular opinion. So go ahead, call people names, try to demean them so you can be comfortable in your little protected world. Sheesh.

      • I can not comment on NOAA as a whole but specifically with respect to climate they are one of the most alarmist bodies in the world and the most frequently caught fudging data – and there have been plenty of instances of whistle blowing on that – even from other warmists.

        The whole climate cabal has been gaming past temperatures constantly adjusting them down to maintain a positive slope for temperatures. But atleast in the past decade NOAA has been the worst.

        There are good reasons for adjustments. But the laws of probability dictate that on a global scale the sum of adjustments should be close to neutral and should certainly not show a trend.

        Termperature adjustments are more than 90% positive and show a strong trend to make the past cooler.

        Regardless, like Enron and MCI Worldcom this kind of gimicery only works for a short term/

        We know from the climategate Emails that HadCRUT was making improper and politically driven adjustments, We do not have that kind of inside information on NOAA.
        But we do know that NOAA’s adjustments are warmer than the known garbage of HardCRUT.

        Finally do not discount that good people are often involved in bad things.
        Quite often knowingly, but without understanding that what they are doing is bad.
        That is part of what is wrong with the post modern lefts pollution of our education system over the past 40 years.

        We are destroying morality, ethics and principles and substituting beleifs.

        Any society where those with power are not able to say NO to doing something that they “believe” is right but infringes on the rights of others, without considering at all that they are infringing.

  10. During World War II six P-38 Lightnings and two B-17 bombers were forced to land on the Greenland Ice Sheet. While all crew members of the Lost Squadron were rescued, the eight downed aircraft were abandoned because it wasn’t feasible to recover any from the glacier.

    Fifty years later a salvage team recovered one of the aircraft, a P-38 Lightning, Glacier Girl, after burrowing through 268 feet of solid ice that had accumulated since the Forties, eventually restoring and returning her to the air again.

    Today there is more effort to recover additional aircraft from the Lost Squadron by burrowing through the glacier again.

    I think of the Lost Squadron every time I hear or read about climate change, always wondering why global warming hasn’t melted enough of the Sheet away so aviation archaeologists can be spared all the trouble and expense of burrowing through all that ice.

    Sure, there are parts of the Arctic that are melting, while other parts, such as in Greenland, are actually growing. Weather can be extremely focal from year to year, such as in the Arizona desert where they barely noticed winter at all this season, while most of the US has been buried in snow with people freezing butts off.

    Seriously, you can’t willy-nilly claim there’s global warming just because a few isolated areas of the earth are melting, anymore then you can claim there’s global cooling just because most of the U.S. is in a mini ice age this winter.

    I’m pretty sure the only reason there’s global warming is because there’s a global agenda against fossil fuel. I have no problem with people being against fossil fuel. I do have a problem with people using bogus climate warming to outlaw internal combustion engines so they can use us as a market to enrich themselves in green industries.

    Finally, trees absorb CO2 and synthesize oxygen. If you cut down trees and eliminate the rain forests, of course, CO2 levels will rise from mammals giving off CO2.

    The question is: Has CO2 risen more from loss of trees or more from fossel fuel burning?

    Put another way: If you restore all the deforestation that has been lost since Lewis & Clark braved the Missouri River, would climate change even be an issue, in spite of two-centuries of fossil fuel burning?

    Mammals absorb oxygen and give off CO2! Without rain forests, of course, oxygen levels will fall.

    Excessive mammalian activity, either by way of deforestation or fossil fuel burning, reduces atmospheric oxygen, which reduction, by extension, translates to a reduction of mammalian populations — and eventual reduction of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

    All this occurs at the same time as plants, thriving now from increased CO2, take back the lost glory that mammals had hijacked.

    In other words, the earth has a natural thermostat, nature balancing the animal and plant kingdoms using the oxygen-CO2 servo mechanism. Thus, no matter what man does, either by going green or by going fossil, there will always be nature’s servo making his effort useless, never able to upset the earth’s predefined average temperature setting.

    • That is, in essence, wrong. In various comments below I have suggested various books by which one can get it right. But just one fact here; the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting, not growing. Well, another. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which causes global warming. The readings I suggest to you, all of you, in comments below explain more.

          • David Benson – what makes you think that Weart is correct? We know that Michael Mann fudged data. NOAA fudged data. So, who is correct? Right now I am not putting my money on a standard college textbook.

            • Weart is not a “standard college textbook” but a complete exposition available online from the American Institute of Physics.

              Michael Mann did not “fudge data” but rather the forces of Kockian evil have deluded you.

              Now you can either repeat all the experiments and observations which have led to the current synthesis of climate or you can read about it. I have given several suggestions of what to read in comments below. As it is, you come across as an ignoramus. Sorry about that.

              • David Benson – you cannot repeat Mann’s experiments because he either destroyed (he admitted to this) or has hidden the data.

                  • David Benson – I would believe them as much as I believe Michael Mann. It was an incestuous group approving each other’s papers and keeping others out. How bad is the science? You can only imagine. But then, you went to CalTech, so you cannot imagine. If you could imagine you would have become an architect.

      • You can suggest whatever books you want. Facts, logic, reason are what matters,

        Science is about proof, not concensus. Science is inherently skeptical.

        The most significant FACT is that we are currently running more than 2 std dev’s below the Global Climate Model predictions after 20 years.

        In real science that large a deviation is called falsification.
        CAGW is science that can not be falsified. Things that can not be falsified have another name – they are called religion.

        Lets address some other simple FACTS.

        Since the 21st century we have had significantly improved ability to treat the earth as a black box and determine energy flows from space. These do not balance in a way that complies with the GCM’s.
        This is the cause for Trendberth and others rushing about trying to find the “missing heat” in the oceans.
        A stupid excercise because we do not need bouys etc to calculate the heat change of the ocean.

        Rising sea levels are almost entirely the consequence of thermal expansion – not ice melting.
        You will not get a single credible climate scientist to disagree with that.

        That also means that changes in sea level are a measure of increases in energy in the oceans.
        SLR has been very nearly linear for almost 200 years. The energy in the ocean is increasing linearly.
        While this absolutely confirms global warming. The Arrenhius equation, Stephan-Boltzman, and Plank as well as the basic physics they rest on says that linear increases in temperature require EXPONENTIAL increases in energy.

        Linear increases in energy will result in rapidly diminishing temperature increases – what we have seen.

        Tipping points and positive feedback are extremely unlikely in natural systems – otherwise they are highly unstable, which would make life impossible.

        Lots of the “statistics” on Global Warming are hysteria wrapped arround the fallacy of large numbers.

        Antartica is losing 300giga tons of ice each year – approximately 80 from a single glacier.
        Sounds catastrophic. But take know antartic precipitation times the surface area of the continent and it is gaining more than 500GT per year. As a consequence antartica is actually sinking into the mantle.
        Further the tiniest bit of knowledge of glaciers would tell you that a receding glacier produces ever LESS water and ice, not more. The glacier ejectect 80GT of ice per year is doing so because the mass backed behind it has INCREASED.

        Greenland is on net melting – slowly. At current rates it will take 200,000 years to be ice free.
        But global total land ice is increasing not decreasing.

        Sea Ice has no effect on sea levels. regardless, artic and antartic sea ice levels have mirrored each other as long as we have studied them if the arctic is decreasing – the antartic is increasing.

        At this particular moment Arctic Sea Ice is INCREASING – just slightly behind the interdecile norm.
        The entire Arctic is frozen solid, but the seasonal expansion into the pacific and atlantic is slightly below norms. And as noted before when the artic lags the antarctic leads.

        What is true is the earth is warming – it has been for over 200 years. the long term trend is near linear, but the last quarter of the 20rh century was faster than the 200 year trend and the last 20 years have been much slower – a reversion back to the mean.

        Absent a significant deviation from the 200 year trend, it is highly unlikely to be a problem or to have a significant human component.

        • I will just point out that no, an exponential trend is not required. Other than that, below I have suggested various books you ought to read before commenting.

      • This does not help your credibility:

        NOAA Climate.gov › news-features

        Greenland Ice Sheet’s 2017 weigh-in suggests a small increase in ice mass. Author: Rebecca Lindsey. September 14, 2017.

      • I’ll give you that fossil-fuel burning increases CO2. No argument there.

        However, let’s see if I can give you the ability to work with hypotheticals.

        Let’s suppose that the increased CO2 is absorbed by the plant kingdom. In other words, if there’s no net increase in CO2, how do you get global warming?

      • “I have suggested various books by which one can get it right.”

        David, stop with the library referrals and use your own words along with quotes if you wish. When you refer to a library without a satisfactory explanation it means you do not understand your subject matter well enough.

        Pointing out two potential variables and then referring one to the library doesn’t demonstrate any expertise in the subject matter what so ever.

        • David Benson – one of the reasons I didn’t get a Ph.D was because I was going to have to take two statistics courses. 🙂

        • David Benson – you are starting to get a little testy. More coffee will help. I didn’t get a Ph.D because I would have to pass to statistics courses. 🙂 We all should know our limits.

            • David Benson – if I thought your knowledge was superior, I would back off. However, the field is so contaminated that no one has superior knowledge. You read three books. I read the Climategate emails. I think we are at a standoff. 😉 I know that NOAA has been caught fudging data before. They do not have clean hands. The IPCC fudged data big time, they are at the criminal level. I will accept your word on mechanical engineering, but not climate art (it is not a science). This is not personal, I would not accept anyone.

    • The Klown Kar is certainly full today. On the bright side, once Pravda Faux News flips to acknowledging reality, these lemmings will be swearing that climate change concern was on their to-do list.

  11. To David Benson

    Starting over, tonite I found a guy who puts mathematics to some my own conclusions about the conceptual difficulties of even measuring average temperatures. Here are the two papers:

    Should We Worry About the Earth’s Calculated Warming at 0.7OC Over Last the Last 100 Years When the Observed Daily Variations Over the Last 161 Years Can Be as High as 24OC?

    http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/1941-3955_4_2-3_19-db-paper.pdf

    and

    New Algorithim To Measure Coldest Winters 1844-2004

    http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/2015-new-algorithm-db.pdf

    Since you say you understand math pretty well, can you explain where this guy is conceptually wrong in the first paper?

    Next, what was the average temperature of the Earth on February 20,2017???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    PS: I just bookmarked his website, and I notice he has a 2015 paper on Arctic Ice. Give me a few minutes to read it!

    • First of all, the average temperature of Terra is a convenient abstraction of all the temperatures at all the places on the surface of the globe. So naturally it doesn’t vary by much. The size of the changes is less important than the fact that there is a general progression towards warmer.

      Having said that, the size does matter. When Terra has been warmer than now there have been various effects. Some of these can be deduced from the geological records. Mark Lynas has summarized in his book “Six Degrees”. An abstracted version can be found online at a Guardian website.

      I am not going to bother with the pdf you link, partly because it is hard on this mobile device and partly because during the Cenozoic Era the global temperature was never more than 6 K warmer or cooler than now, so the paper fails on some substantive ground that would take unnecessary trouble to find just whether the author doesn’t know statistics or geology.

      You would do far better to study Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” to obtain a grip on a difficult subject; there are no shortcuts.

      • Please, spare me.

        “The size of the changes is less important than the fact that there is a general progression towards warmer.”
        This is a naked unsupported assertion.

        Beyond that I have not bothered to read the works you are commenting on, but your response is nothing more than I like my authorities better than yours.

        Further you have not provided any good reason to read any of the books you have suggested.

        There is an enormous amount of actual data available. Contrary to the assertions of the high priests of warmendom the most salient aspects of it are cognizable by anyone capable of understanding statistical significance.

        There is no significant modern deviation in statistical trends.

        There is great argument about the past – which is to be expected direct measurement of global temperatures has rapidly increasing error bars going back to the 1600’s when we get our first data and the error bars are enormous.

        All temperatures prior to that are from proxies. Every proxy in existance – assuming it is meaningful, which is an entirely different problem, measures trends not absolute temperatures, the further back we go the longer the trend period is. the larger the error bar is. We have no seasonal temperatures from 100.000 years ago, we do not even have decadal temperatures from 100000 years ago.

        Some of this is evident in the frequent significant disagreement between skeptical scientists and warmists over past reconstructions. Both are right – or better both are making claims that are inside the error bars.
        But the error bars are huge.
        Even projections going back 2000 years – warmists and skeptics constantly fight over whether various periods in the recent past were warmer. The answer is “we do not know”

        Anyway, I am not interested in a bunch of books that tell me what to think.
        Frankly I am not much interested in anyone still arguing CAGW.
        That ship has SUNK. There is no statistical support for that anymore
        We are rapidly approaching the point were the error bar for protections to 2100 includes the possibility the planet will be significantly cooler. That does not mean we are not in a warming trend, only that the strength of the trend is so weak the probability of cooling is getting much closer to the probability of warming.

        We have been fighting over this for more than 30 years, The sky was supposed to have fallen long ago.
        It has not.
        Anything unfalsifiable is not science.

        • That is simply filled with falsehood.

          However, if you are too lazy to actually study climatology there is little I can do to relieve your ignorance.

          The world will unfold as it will. We can influence that if we study how it works. Anyway, it is of interest to know how it actually does work.

      • “You would do far better to study Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” to obtain a grip on a difficult subject; there are no shortcuts.”

        David, it appears you have found a shortcut to all argument that disagrees with what you wish to believe and that is known as sending disagreement to the library. It is likely you have a poor understanding of what you have read. Unfortunately when you actually read the conclusions of many of the scientists one finds substantial disagreement over a lot of the data and the scientific methods used.

  12. Coming from an alarmist constitutional law scholar. However, many scientists agree that smoking is not harmful to our health … wrong slide … that climate change is not man-made.

    • It does not take billions of dollars to note that there has been a .5C change since 1979.
      That almost all of that occured in 5 years in the late 90’s, that current temps are lower than 1998.

      Further NOAA has an absymal reputation, they have spent the past decade jiggering the historical temperature record to try to lower past temperatures to make it appear that the current low rate of warming is higher than it is.

      That is a stupid form of fraud that can not be continued long.

        • I could have written the same paper, but I didn’t because it doesn’t mean anything. It’s like saying we don’t need a rain forecast since there are spots where raindrops fall and others where they don’t. The way science works is you take repeatable measurements, build a model, and the model that explains the greatest percentage of the variability of the data is the best model. Until there is a better one. Very simple, and we’ve come a long way as societies using this process. If you think you can make meaningful statements using daily ranges, then that’s what you measure. If you think a moving average over the whole globe over a year gives you better mileage then you use that. There is no “science police” that tells you you HAVE to do things one way or the other, as long as things are reproducible and verifiable.

          • 1. What was Earth’s average temperature on February 20, 2017?

            2. The Models do not predict very well, to wit:

            A Princeton physicist has shared an inconvenient truth of his own–climate change models are based on an alternate reality. “And I know they don’t work,” Princeton University physicist William Happer says in a video produced by Prager U. “They haven’t worked in the past.”

            “They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future.”

            “In the video, Happer argues that even supercomputers used to predict the weather and forecast future global warming aren’t strong enough to capture the complexity of Earth’s atmosphere, including cloud cover and natural ocean cycles,” Michael Batasch, who wrote about the video in The Daily Caller, writes.

            “That’s why, over the last 30 years, one climate prediction after another — based on computer models — has been wrong,” Happer says. “They’re wrong because even the most powerful computers can’t solve all the equations needed to accurately describe climate.”

            As Batasch recounts, Happer’s are not the only observations within the scientific community that break with current wisdom: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models,” Myles Allen, a geosystem scientist at the University of Oxford, stated in 2017. “We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

            https://www.academia.org/princeton-physicist-deconstructs-climate-change-models/

            3. Why do you personally think that AGW proponents can predict a .7 degree (C???) in a hundred years or so???

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            • Predictions are difficult, said Yogi Berra, especially when they concern the future. So you critique that some models are bad, outright wrong. That’s what science is about. You HAVE to build a model and make a prediction with the data available in order to see whether the model holds, or else you can never improve it. Sitting on the fence is for pussies, put your stake in the ground and sink or swim with it.

              I got a chuckle out of the Princeton physicist who said the models don’t work, have never worked, and – get this – will never work in the future. What model – pray tell – is he using to predict that future models will always be wrong? Does he have a crystal ball? If he accepts that he can predict the quality of future models, what makes him so doubtful that it would be possible, in principle, future temperatures as a function of the levels of CO2? I’d like to get some stock tips from him.

            • You asked the average temperature on February 20 2017. Average with respect to what? 24 hours? All available measurements on the globe at noon that day (which time zone?). I’m not sure that data is available for 1 day. What I have seen are anomalies with respect to previous averages for the month of February. Temperatures may be reported from different stations at different periods. That doesn’t mean a 1-day average doesn’t exist, I just haven’t seen it yet.

          • Squeeky, Happer has “gone emeritus” as we politely say…

            Do go study some elementary climatology. Maybe you can work up to “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumbert. That would be great. But just the online Weart book would be a big step!

            • “Maybe you can work up to “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumbert. ”

              Another library referral by David.

              I suggest David that you build a bridge to truth using your own words and make sure the bridge actually goes from one side to the other.

      • Ad hominem not argument.

        The last election should demonstrate the ineffectiveness of insulting those you disagree with as a means of persuasion.

      • Do you need help with the math on the link I gave you??? I am not great at it, but considering that I independently came to some of those same opinions, I may be able to help you!

        Do you have any training in statistics??? Do you know what a Standard Deviation is? If not, I will try to find something online to copy and paste for you!

        Plus, here is a second paper he did, but I have not finished reading it yet:

        http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/2015-new-algorithm-db.pdf

        Plus, do you know what “precision” is in a measurement? That if your ruler only measures 1/32 inch increments, that you can not measure 1/64s without guessing?

        Plus, did you actually read the first paper I shot you?

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        • Squeeky, my PhD is in Engineering Science and Mathematics from the California Institute of Technology, often referred to as CalTech.

          Regarding statistical inference I am a proponent of using the Bayes factor together with the Aikike Information Criterion.

          Regarding climate. do go read Weart. The fuller citation is found below.

      • Try the Arrhenius equation (or SB or Plank).
        For linear increases in temperature you need exponential increases in energy.
        These are not happening. SLR which is the primary component of stored energy is very close to linear.
        This is perfectly consistent with the substantial slowing of warming since 1998.
        It is also loosely consistent with atmospheric CO2 – also at best increasing linearly, and therefore at best you will get ever slower warming.

        Take any graphing calculator, and graph Arrhenius with linerarly increasing CO2 and you will get a parabola on its side.

        This is why warmists posit either runaway positive feedbacks or exponential increases in CO2 – neither of which has any evidence in reality.

        “you need to learn the most basic parts of physics. As it is you just expose your ignorance.”

      • “Squeeky, you need to learn the most basic parts of physics. As it is you just expose your ignorance.”

        But David, you haven’t expressed your own understanding of physics. All you have done is refer people to libraries.

  13. And there is this, which shows that this article’s starting date of 1979, is part of an attempt to make the issue more scary.

    https://realclimatescience.com/government-arctic-sea-ice-fraud/

    And how in the world do they know anything about the ice coverage from 1500 years ago??? There is no satellite data. Most of the ice cap, is just a few feet of ice over a bunch of water. How do you measure that from 1500 years ago with any degree of accuracy??? Now if the ice was on land, maybe there would be a way to measure it, but over water??? C’mon.

    Just another scary article put out for who knows what reason.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      • More ad homimen.

        I have no idea about the credibility of squeeky’s sources, nor do I have any about yours.

        I know that outside the chapter for policy makers the IPCC AR5 does not actually support “catastrophic global warming” There are good reasons to believe that the AR5 runs hot, regardless, it is the most credible warmist source and it does not support the fear mongering of the warmist media.

        • Ignore IPCC. Instead look to the professional literature.

          You will find that no papers use the word “catastrophic”. It is only used by the Kockians.

          • Interesting David “no papers use the word “catastrophic”. ”

            Al Gore wishes to make us believe otherwise. I guess that means you believe Al Gore (not a scientist and not even an intellect of note) is promoting junk science. That is the first thing you have said that moves the discussion forward.

            I am becoming more interested in your opinion. What is your opinion on man-made climate change and what portion of climate change is influenced by man? Then perhaps you can provide a perspective as to when man-made climate change will become catastrophic.

            • I note David that you didn’t pick up on a point of agreement. “no papers use the word “catastrophic”.” I guess that didn’t involve sending anyone to the library.

    • Your guess is wrong and you have chosen a denialist web site. Read what Weart has to say.

      Those arctic oceanographers are quite clever; cleverer than you. Read first, then post so not to expose your ignorance.

      • And can you prove it is not your ignorance? I think not.

        So simple solution we force the Chinese who are operating the most coal fired electrical production plants of any nation and building several hundreds more to just shut them down. Along with the other two most populated areas sub Asian India and Indonesia. to name just a few.

        And perhaps we should continue to igjore the effect of volcanic issue in the recent string of eruptions Japan, Taiwan, Philipines, Indo nesia . and blame it all on one single energy source while we of all people shut down anthracite production and continue to burn bituminous which is less energy efficient and more a pollutant… and then trace that back to a cerftain Vice President who arranged for that contribution to the worlds problems. Or closer to home the annual forest fires which must have added something to the atmosphere.

        And I don’t suppose anyone has factored in the weather cycles?

        Mother Nature will take care of herself even if it means killing off a minor infestation which seeks to change nature to suit itself rather than living within the boundaries and means provided by nature. Chie example in the USA is Southern Coastal California a desert region with water sufficient for 300,000 yet it has a population of 24 million with 10 million in Los Angeles county.

        It is now finishing up two large tunnels to divert water from the Sacramento and Imperialwatershed our of San Pablo and San Francisco Bay to the ten moocher counties for their swimming pools and golf courses a the rate of 500 gallons per man, woman and child per day. because they let it all evaporate but not a penny offered for other purposes such as fire fighting

        But next let’s cast stones at the opponents of the NEVER RATIFIED Paris Accord whose cost could bankrupt us even faster than an Obama Budget.

        Or solve the problem with carbon credits which have yet to solve a single problem except enriching some including a former vice president.

        Meanwhile the solutions to having power and not polluting lie at our finger tips and are ignored while others seek to shut down, tear down, rip out what production we do have.

        Electrical is by far the cleanest least polluting form of energy preceded only by weatherizing houses and buildings to be more energy efficient. Did I see that in the infrastructure rebuild or the stringing of transmission wrires from electrical production plants adjacent to the source or the use of filtration or even jet engine temperatures to render harmless the toxic chemicals?

        Not a whisper.

        If you can’t offer a solution and at least catch up to me better to say nothing at all. Solar and wind provide the bulk of my power needs.

        I don’t need three non green mansions to equal the accomplishments of Mr. Al Bore. who spearheaded locking up anthracite favor of bituminous.

        I don’t need big brother to tell me to put on a jacket when it’s cold and nor to stay in the shade when it’s hot. or to move when needed.

        And I really don’t need those who have always eventally admit they fudge the figures to get more research grant money.

        The answer is blowing in the wind compliments of Mother Nature but for me the answers offered are to use sa legal term cui bono.

        • I assure you that I am the most knowledgeable person about climatology commenting here. I have, in various comments, suggested three books you might read about the subject. I recommend starting with the Ruddiman text.

          • I assure you that you are not.

            But let me ask you a related question.

            Please identify a single malthusian prediction – since malthus that has ever proven true – ONE ?

            If you were as smart as you claim you would reject CAGW absent incontrovertible proof of quality we are not anywhere near.

            Malthus’s error – which is related to the one warmists make is presuming that mathematics derived from observations of a trend are an accurate reflection of the entirety of reality.

            Malthusian predictions of disaster always fail because the underlying mathematics or both humans and nature are far far far more complex that we know.

            We can currently predict global temperatures by combining 6 fourier series an order of magnitude better than the GCM’s That “model” is typically rejected because only some of the equations inarguably match known natural phenomena. I beleive Dr. Spensor of UAH has an excel spreadsheet what has routinely outperformed the GCM’s.

            Since you are into Reading – Paul Romer wrote an excellent and relatively accessible paper on the problems with economic models. The gist of which is that with enough coeficients you can produce a model that will near perfectly match whatever you are looking to match. But those models never prove predictive – because getting the coeficients to match the past is not the same as getting them correct, and very tiny subconscious biases guarantee you will tilt the model to your hypothesis.

            Romer’s analysis applies to ALL MODELLING, and Climate is much more complex than economics.
            Though the GCM’s are not more complex than economic models – they can not be. We do not (and likely never will) have the computational power to forward run climate models that are not oversimplifications at faster than real time – put simply – it is not possible to determine the correct coeficients for climate models, and if it were it is not possible to run the actual models rather than significant simplifications into the future.

            • Blather. Malthus’ prediction was demonstrated on an Arctic island on which a large grazer, I forget which, was introduced without a preditor. Starved to death, eventually.

          • “I assure you that I am the most knowledgeable person about climatology commenting here. ” “suggested three books you might read about the subject.”

            I get it. David is a snake oil salesman. He isn’t selling medicine to cure. No, he is selling libraries.:-)

      • so your argument is my appeal to authority is better than yours ?

        All data on Sea Ice prior to 1977 is from observation, most post 79 is from satellites. We have issues like this all the time. Even the satellite observations have issues – coverage has not been uniform. Instruments have failed.
        Though there are known problems with the data – both observed and satellite – not meaning the data is bad, but meaning what it tells us is not what we really want to know.

        The data that we have – with all its problems does not support CAGW. But it is still wise to note that god is not whispering in our ear. We have the data we have, it is what it is. it can not tell us what it does not know.

        Any comparisons of arctic sea ice data from prior to the late 70’s to recent data is inherently an apples to oranges comparison. The probability that Squeeky’s source is correct is low – AS IS ANY OTHER.

        Large portions of the warmist religion rely on pretending that past error bars are low and that past data is far far better than it is, and that you should only trust warmists in their pronunciations regarding the past.

          • This is not argument. This is the same fallacious garbage that comes from warmists all the time.
            This is not logic or reason. This is not science.
            This is the way religious fanatics argue, not the way rational people argue about legitimate questions of science.

            There is no such thing as “too many errors to refute”.

            There is no limit to the number of errors that can be refuted – regardless, you start one at a time.

            Further though there are myriads of solid arguments against CAGW I have only made a few.
            My arguments are quite simple. If wrong they would be trivial to refute.

            Your “author” is not “the literature”. I doubt you have read “the literature”.
            I have read quite alot of it. Real scientific papers – some by warmists, some by lukewarmists, such as curry and some by actual skeptics.

            Have you actually ever read any scientific paper on climate ? Or is all your knowledge from “the history of climate” or some other such 3 level removed popular pablum ?

      • “Read what Weart has to say.”

        David, another library referral? It sounds like you read the title of a bunch of books and wrote down the names of the authors so you wouldn’t forget. You haven’t demonstrated that your read, much less understand, any of these books.

  14. This is a normal cycle of climate change and competent scientist have been talking about it for years. Our world is in the very early stages of a ice age and as predicted over coming centuries the southern hemisphere will get colder from south to north, eventually Greenland once again becoming green. I suppose you’ve read that the Antarctica ice cap is growing exponentially.

    • Wrong. I recommend reading a good introductory climatology text such as “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future” by W.F. Ruddiman or the online “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart, the sturdier read by far.

      • Being raised in the country most of this was first hand knowledge growing up so I skipped reading about it and did something about it.

      • And I recommend you take a cursory look at real world data – without spin from either side,
        Then grasp some basic physics.

        Some things to start. It requires exponentially increasing energy to raise temperatures linearly – SB/Plank.
        Linear increases in CO2 at best result in linear increases in energy (and logarithmic increases in temperature)

        Those are high school science. And from those you can trivially determine that even the IPCC AR5 requires either exponential increases in CO2 or non-existant positive feedbacks to get linear temperature increases.

        Past that I would strongly suggest looking into the research on the earth’s energy budget.
        Even the most prominent warmists have admitted for a long time – that the GCM’s require stored energy that we currently have no evidence of. More recently many prominent warmists have admitted that the models are running hot, and have to be adjusted.

        Work by Curry, Lewis and Otto demonstrates that the maximum value for ECS is 2.2C/doubling – and that is if all recent warming is due to human CO2. runs near linearly to an ECS of 0 is none is due to human CO2. If 70% is due to humans ECS is 1.3. The IPCC value used by the GCM’s is 3.4C/doubling.

        Remember that warming is a logrithmic curve. The difference between 3.4 and 2.2 would add centuries to reach the IPCC projections for 2100. Reducing to 1.3 means we have more to fear from a catastrophic asteroid.

        • Wow, is that wrong.

          The climate of the mid-Pliocene is a good analogy for what is to come. You might care to learn enough to understand why.

          • The mid-Pliocene was about 4M years ago. There is no proxy for that time period that has a granularity of much less than 50K years – that is almost half of human existance. That long enough for a complete total ice age and complete recovery.

            It is entirely possible that the mid pliocene is similar to today.
            But that is almost meaningless because it tells us nothing about the climate for periods smaller than about 50 milenia.
            Loehe 2007 has temperatures for about 1/2 of the past 2000 years as high or higher than today.

      • “Wrong. I recommend reading a good introductory climatology text such as “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future” by W.F. Ruddiman or the online “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart, the sturdier read by far.”

        More library referrals by David.

    • Ahh yes the balance of nature as I suggested. That’s what the Nino/Nina effect is all about it’s the temperature regulator for the world. But.. siimple solution I purchased an abode which does some miraculous things It is powered by wind and produced power by wind and solar panels.

      In the absolute worst time of the winter i have gloves and jackets and use sweat suit socks etc to stay warm at night. In the very hottest time I cash in my carbon credits for six to eight weeks of the smallest most efficient cooling system I coud find – another reason for the size of my floating abode And if I need to i can head out to other areas just up the mountain range to the east.

      Easy for me to say? Sure is but I planned it that way

      What i didn’t plan for was the likes of Al Bore trying to rip off what’s left of my retirement income by devaluing the worth of the dollar but unlike most of you I can do something about it. So this last year I sewed up a sun shade something any competent sailor can easily do.

      And spend the time reading a book.

      .

      • Well, you are wrong about ENSO as the El Nino quasicycle is standardly called. You could learn some climatology. I have suggested three books so far on this thread.

        • Climatology. Voodoo.

          Or he could try science. Physics to start.

          It would be hard for him to be wrong about El Nino/La Nina as he said very little beyond that they exist.

          Here are some books/papers for you:
          Silent Spring.
          The population Bomb
          Peak Oil

          They share the same fallacy as the books you are selling.

          • No, the ones I suggest begin from geophysics.

            Which you would know if you had bothered to look rather than just spout off.

            • Actual paleoclimate from real geophysicists runs completely counter to the garbage reconstructions from “paleoclimatologists” who are really bad botanists and the like not geophyscists.

              Regardless, geophysics is a sub specialty of physics not a separate science.
              You can not elide problems with fundimental physics by refering to geophysics.

  15. We are our own worst enemy.

    Government will not always help, moneyed interests will not always help, we’re left to our own devices to effect change.

    Voting No, boycotting, refusing, and changing our own personal habits work better than passively waiting for pols/companies to get their heads out of their asses and remove pollution from the earth.

    Isaiah 24:5 “The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant.”

    –New International Version

    Don’t defile the Earth.

    • We can only hope government does not help us.

      The earth is a better place today for humans and most other animals than it was a century ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.