Week in review – science and policy edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Nonlinear response of mid-latitude weather to changing Arctic [link]

The Blob is back: what warm ocean mass means for weather and wildlife [link]

The shortfalls of biodiversity [link]

Ancient coral colonies reveal prehistoric warming event occurred earlier than previously thought [link]

Arctic temps off the charts. Record slow sea ice recovery after Sept minimum. Details: [link]

Will global warming alter winter wx/climate statistics? Certainly. But when, where, and how not so easily discerned. [link] …

Geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols: what we don’t know after a decade of research [link]   …

Antarctica’s Ice Sheets Are Melting Faster — And From Beneath [link]

Atmospheric Water Balance and Variability in the MERRA-2 Reanalysis  [link]

New research explores how #climate helped ancient seafarers cross the Pacific: [link] …

Field study successfully tests a new tool for tracking ocean acidification [link]

Sea surface micro layer [link]

Advancing #Polar Prediction Capabilities on Daily to Seasonal Time Scales  [link]

Innovative graphical visualizations of climate change [link]

Polar vortex shifting due to climate change, extending winter, study finds: [link]

Have scientists solved the “methane riddle”? New data shows the rise in methane emissions is partly from microbes. [link]

Impact of decadal cloud variations on Earth’s energy budget. [link]

“Land’s complex role in climate change” [link] …

Cold snap chills northern China, areas experiencing lowest October temperatures on record [link]

Eurasian snow cover and the polar vortex: how it relates to US winter [link]

Climate change policy

The Stern Review of economics and climate change: 10 years on  [link]

UNEP: Urgent action needed within 3 years to meet 1.5 deg target set in Paris.  @CarbonBrief analysis #COP22 [link] …

12 reports to read before the COP22 UN climate summit [link]

Rational vs. “Feel-Good” Carbon Policy — Transferability, Subsidiarity, and Separation. [link]

AGU’s TEX Program to Lead Climate Effort Launched by White House [link]

About science and scientists

Blame bad incentives for bad science [link]

Signs science might be starting to focus less on journal impact factor and more on real-world impact? [link]

Walking on eggshells: how political correctness is changing the campus dynamic [link]

Academic freedom? Gone—And Good Riddance [link]

ThinkProgress Claims It Didn’t Try To Torpedo Climate Scientist’s Career [link]

Richard Epstein: Free speech and sexual harassment at Yale [link]

How heterodox is your university? [link]

See how the most influential science comes in waves [link]

73 responses to “Week in review – science and policy edition

  1. Pingback: Week in review – science and policy edition – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. At this rate it’s going to take decades for folk to understand that weak short term indirect solar causes the negative NAO/AO episodes that both drive the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the cold northeast US winter periods.

    • You should do a guest post explaining your hypothesis and presenting your evidence, instead of claiming it as an established fact. It is far from obviously true.

      • I don’t think anyone knows what is cause and what is effect. I do think the ‘response of weather to Arctic’ paper gets it wrong by assuming that “climate change” is the cause. Far too many papers make this mistake. I agree with Kevin Trenberth on “the lack of a clear physical cause and effect relationship”, but I think it applies to heaps of papers not just this one. Someday, the scientific community has to wake up to the fact that not everything is a feedback to climate change.

      • Unfortunately I cannot do a guest post while Judith is not responding to my email.

      • ulric, i don’t read things on my facebook wall (can’t find them, there are too many.) If you can email the text of what you would like me to read, i will take a look. thx.

      • As I said they are on my wall and all you have to do is to simply click on my name to see them there, the first few posts on my wall. Much as I’d like to show you how I do the weekly scale detail, I need you to look at the material on solely the Jovian factors first, which I cannot limit to just text. And I also suggest that you acquire an astronomy application to visualise the sunspot cycle and solar minima correlations that I have identified. I would enjoy writing a post as David suggests on declining solar being responsible for for the increase in negative NAO since the mid 1990’s that is driving the AMO and Arctic warming.

      • please email me the text for a blog post, and I will take a look

      • Ulric

        I would encourage you to write a blog post as your material is interesting and warrants discussion and comment from the wide range of skills represented by people on this blog.

        tonyb

      • Thank you kindly I’ll do that. Also here is a long list of sunspot cycle min/max dates:

  3. Some details re the Marrakech UNFCCC COP22: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03112016/cop-22-climate-talks-marrakech-morocco-paris-agreement-united-nations?utm_source=Inside+Climate+News&utm_campaign=31d287c3a1-Weekly_Newsletter_week_of_9_189_23_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-31d287c3a1-327531733

    Apparently the greens have been caught flat footed. But given the hundred billion dollars a year or more that the poorer countries hope to get out of this deal it is no wonder they acted quickly.

    Here is an alternative view on the Agreement, but the deal is done as far as the Coppers are concerned: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/paris-exercise-climate-rainmaking.

  4. Record slow sea ice recovery after Sept minimum

    https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2016/10/CvqdhPDVYAEmuKN.jpg&w=480

    what else would you expect with all this stuff on it?


    (click on the images to magnify)

  5. Where are the skeptics who were talking about the rapid recovery again?

    Cue up some goddard class conspiracies about ice data…quick.

    • Seems rapid enough. About average actually, certainly not slow.

    • Hi Steven
      Major Arctic research institutions must know about the deposits and origin. We need to know is this a man made stuff or it is of volcanic origin from Kamchatka which has been very active in the recent years, or from the nearby Icelandic volcanoes, there has been an up-tick in the activity (2001-2010 two eruptions, 2011-2016 four eruptions).
      What is your information, anthropogenic or natural ?

      • Are you sure that is arctic sea ice… to me it looks like a Greenland glacier.

      • Steven Mosher

        Vuk.. wrong Ice dude

      • JCH, Yes it is a Greenland glacier.
        Hold on Steven
        If it is on a glacier regardless of the origin, man made or volcanic, I can not see a good reason why it wouldn’t be on the see ice to?
        See ice that has melted in the summer has gone. The older see ice might have surface deposits, but I have no information one way or the other. It could be an important factor for reduction in the ice coverage area.
        Natural or anthropogenic, either way it is not CO2 or some kind of magic Arctic amplification. Get real !

      • Mosher,

        If you know the answer, whey don’t you just say it instead of being a continual pain in the backside and making snide remarks – you’ve become a troll.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Hold on Steven
        If it is on a glacier regardless of the origin, man made or volcanic, I can not see a good reason why it wouldn’t be on the see ice to?”

        Think harder
        Your fallacy is the argument from incrudulity

        Or

        GO LOOK AT MODIS SATILLITE DATA..

        you can pick any channel you like.. start with the Visual channel

      • It’s scrapings from the mountainsides as the glacier squeezes through the passes. After a substantial portion of the glacier is melted, a great deal of the dirt that was dispersed throughout its ice/snow as the glacier was formed ends up on the surface and is mixed in with the scrapings.

        There is a great black and white video of a Greenland glacier that was taken because of some dispute between huge menacing European superpowers over control of Greenland. Glacier look just as filthy. Maybe Holland and Denmark .

      • Steven
        can you imagine this cloud of volcanic ash or Chinese soot floating above the Arctic and decides it is best to play it safe, so it falls on the land and not on the sea ice.

        JCH
        Not likely, if it is as you say it would fall into ice crevices as well, but they are clear white, it is only on the top surface, i.e got there very recently.

        click on the image to see detail clearly

      • Those fissures do not open until close to the waterline.

      • There are several pictures of dirty sea ice here

        http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=698

        It is a well documented occurrence first noted by Scoresby in his 1820 expedition to the arctic organised by the royal society to investigate melting .

        The scientists of the time attributed it to American industrialisation. How much soot and dirt affects arctic ice melting is something that needs to be quantified, it may be significant or it may be of little relevance

        Tonyb

      • Alaska glacier

        Swiss Alps glacier

      • Suddenly, near the end of September 2016, the sea ice, which had been growing nicely, got dirty (but not dirty enough for the BBC, so they doctored the Greenland glacier ice photographs,) like Greenland glacier ice has for… centuries(?), and arctic sea ice growth leveled off.

        That it is hot as heck up there… beep beep beep (CE hive brain engaged reverse gear on the dump truck.)

      • JCH
        Thanks for the link.
        It is possible that BBC video has been doctored (it was recorded earlier in the year and transmitted few days ago) but that would be far more difficult than with still photographs.
        Below is Argentinean Perito Moreno Glacier, on the other side of the Andes are active Chilean volcanoes. The dark line is unlikely to be anything else but a volcanic deposit.

        double click to enlarge to high resolution
        Any other ideas for possible origin of the horizontal ‘dark line’ ?

      • Probably, but how long ago? It could also be from a prolonged warm period. Snow contains dirt.

        I still can’t find any 2016 pictures of arctic sea ice that indicate it is filthy.

      • Not every year volcanic ash gets blown by jet stream to the Arctic Ocean, it needs to reach 8-10Km height before the jet stream gets hold of it.
        This image is from 2014, but is it authentic?

        It is more likely to settle on the higher ground.

    • Mosher

      And the current conditions mean what in regards to the climate? Does it indicate that the US will be getting a more or less favorable climate over the coming decades?

      • Steven Mosher

        Rob? can I call you Rob, or Mr Starkey?

        Let’s stick with Rob, it’s more civil

        “And the current conditions mean what in regards to the climate?”

        Current conditions means what it usually means. Current, as in now,
        Conditions as in the “state of things”
        Glad I could help you with Englich. Brilliant question by the way, you
        show some serious science chops with that question..
        “in regards to the climate” This portion of you question is rather poorly put. Climate has two related meanings.. One is a rather local meaning
        “arctic climate” and the other is more global . So what do current conditions MEAN?? in regards to the climate? Well current conditions dont have meanings.. words have meanings. You can think of the climate as an average of past current conditions. That should help you out.

        ” Does it indicate that the US will be getting a more or less favorable climate over the coming decades?”

        Favorable for what? Favorable for whom? favorable by what measures?
        Coming decades? one? two? three? four?

        The simple answer is that regional projections are hard, decadal projections even harder. That said, the fact remains that we are geoengineering the atmosphere with no design spec, and no assurance that we will not eff things up in ways that are tough to fix.

      • Mr. Mosher, You can call him Dr Starkey.

      • Steven Mosher. You are a serial wiseass and have become pretty tiresome. You sound like Bill Clinton parsing every word of an honest question. Who needs you.

        BTW, a one meter slr will not happen overnight. Even assuming that estimate materializes, it will not be catastrophic because people will figure it out and adapt to it. Sure it will be expensive, but vulnerable spots are well know and will have lots of notice.

        Maybe you can grow up and treat others with respect. If you can’t then you aren’t of much value here or anywhere else.

      • Is Mosher serious???

    • Mosher,

      Where is the empirical evidence to support your belief that human caused climate damages are dangerous, or even that they will do more harm than good?

      Temperature change and ECS data do not make the case the GHG emissions are a threat. Alarmists (like you) need to show GHG emissions will have substantial negative impacts (i.e. that damages will significantly exceed benefits). Without a valid damage function you cannot show that. But you have been unable to point to a valid damage function and the empirical evidence to validate it. As even the IPCC AR5 admits, the evidence is sparse and there is little confidence in the damage functions (which are used for estimating SCC, damages, cost-benefits, optimal carbon tax rates, or the political 2C limit to avoid ‘dangerous’ human caused climate change).

      • Steven Mosher

        “Where is the empirical evidence to support your belief that human caused climate damages are dangerous, or even that they will do more harm than good?”

        Where is the evidence that damages are dangerous?
        too funny Peter perhaps you want a logic lesson this morning.

        The damages from Sea Level rise ( in the future where all the damage IS) for example, are easy to calculate– in a rough order magnitude manner.

        The benefits? havent seen one. can’t count what doesnt exist.

        yes yes,,, unicorns may outweigh damages.

        Here is your problem. The damage is in the future, There can be no empirical evidence now for the future.

        There is no emprical evidence that if I swing my boot up your butt that there will be any damage. It hasnot happened yet. What we do have have is evidence from the past ( other boots up other butts) and a belief that the laws that hold in the past will hold in the future,

        So a 1 meter rise in sea level will cause rough 400B in damage to the US (1990 dollars) Calculating that is pretty easy its the kind of evidence insurance companies use all the time.

        The real question is this: Is it worth 1% of GDP on a yearly basis to buy protection from potential harm?

        No what the real question is what emprical evidence do you have that there is gray matter in your skull? have you seen it?

      • Mosher dodges the issue and instead posts a pile of insults, as usual:

        Where is the evidence that damages are dangerous?
        too funny Peter perhaps you want a logic lesson this morning.

        The benefits? havent seen one. can’t count what doesnt exist.
        yes yes,,, unicorns may outweigh damages.

        Here is your problem. The damage is in the future, There can be no empirical evidence now for the future.

        There is no emprical evidence that if I swing my boot up your butt that there will be any damage. It hasnot happened yet. What we do have have is evidence from the past ( other boots up other butts) and a belief that the laws that hold in the past will hold in the future,

        No what the real question is what emprical evidence do you have that there is gray matter in your skull? have you seen it?

        No, just stupid responses by Mosher – a sure sign he’s feeling the pressure as he sees his life-long belief losing credibility and falling apart.

        You mentioned one factor: sea level rise and gave:

        So a 1 meter rise in sea level will cause rough 400B in damage to the US (1990 dollars)

        You gave no source (as usual) and no explanation of the basis of estimate – over what period, whether adaptation is included in the estimate, etc.

        However, I am asking for the NET-benefits/damages for the world cumulative to 2100? I am not asking for just a few cherry-picked examples plus innuendo for scaremongering purposes.

        Tol’s Figure 3 (free access version here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf ) shows that net damages from sea level rise (with adaptation) are a small item up to about 4C GMST increase. And the net-benefits of agriculture and health are much greater than the total of all negative impacts, other than energy (which I suspect is overestimated).

        I recognize Tol’s paper was criticized and he admitted some errors. However, I have not seen a revised version of this figure and I do not know the total effect of the errors; i.e. how much would the figure change if the errors were corrected.

        I see here that FUND is clearly the most sophisticated of the IAMs: http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/climate_change/IACC_DamageFunctions_FINAL_1.pdf .

      • Steven Mosher

        Peter

        “You gave no source (as usual) and no explanation of the basis of estimate – over what period, whether adaptation is included in the estimate, etc.”

        You keep wanting people to do your homework for you. ISNT GOING TO HAPPEN.

        Second, you keep thinking that people OWE YOU AN ARGUMENT… they dont.

        Third.. You Already LOST THIS FIGHT.. you didnt show up for the debate about costs, benefits, damages… any of that..

        So. You missed the final exam, you now want others to do your homework, and frankly nobody here cares about the questions that a whiny nobody has.

        You can find illustrations and estimates of all the costs and damages you want.. but YOU have to look. Nobody here owes you an education especially when you are too old to learn.

        So.. self study mate.. its basically what all us old guys have to do, Not being able to feed yourself is a terrible future.. Perhaps you should pay for help

      • I’ve given sources. You haven’t. You’ver got no case. You can’t present a case. There is no valid evidence to show GHG emissions will do substantially more harm than good. You’ve lost. Because you can’t present a case you’ve resorted to trolling.

        If you believe you are correct you’d be able to present a case and support it.

      • I’d just note in passing that the damages are in the future, and are the consequence of a gradual incremental change (and specifically are not random in time). Estimates of the pdf and expected value of sea level rise into the future are increasingly unclear as we look into the future, and this makes assessment difficult. But to estimate the damages (and risks) we need to factor in how property owners will behave as those consequences materialise e.g. if improvements are at risk they won’t be repaired or replaced. The risks are going to get managed over time and this will naturally reduce the damage.

        So be wary of estimates of damages based on what’s there today. It might not be a great outcome, but spare a thought for those that live in seismically active zones.

      • HAS,

        I agree, but of course the arguments about temperature and emisisons projections are about the future too. So the arguments apply equally to all the stuff Mosher keeps trying to defend about their models. ECS has to be calibrated, as does projections of futre GHG emissions and the reservoir uptake, etc.

        Furthermore, the unbiased damage estimates for sea-level rise do take into account our ability to adapt – for example: Anthroff, Nichols and Tol (2010): The economic impact of substantial sea-level rise
        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11027-010-9220-7

      • Peter

        Yes the pdf of future SLR needs to be incorporated, noting that its distribution gets skewed in the popular literature through use of RCP scenarios.

        The point I was making isn’t quite what Tol et al do. They assume coastal land keeps pace in value with the rest of the economy for their base line. Any investment undertaken between now and sea level reaching the property occurs with the SLR risk in mind. Tol therefore overestimates the damage.

      • HAS,

        Good point. Thank you. There are thousands of such issues in the damage studies that have been done so far. The work by Professor Ross Garnaut to try to justify the Australian Carbon tax was a complete joke. I could say more on this, but it is just one of many problems with the studies that have been done so far. Nordhaus’s DICE uses a 6000 Gt C as upper limit of C that could eventually be burnt (~20 Gt CO2). PA and others have often stated this is way too high. I haven’t checked. It’s just one of the many issues that are not widely discussed and, I believe, remain unresolved.

        I remain hopeful Judith will turn her attention to posting some threads on the Damage Function and the empirical evidence calibrate them – and the uncertainties.

        Please Unleash the Uncertainty Monster on the Damage Function

  6. Judith, I suspect it took a while (two weeks or more) for NewsDeeply to post that article about The Blob, because it disappeared in late October. The most-recent (November 5, 2016) sea surface temperature anomaly map from the CMC shows negative anomalies existing/encroaching on where The Blob used to be:

    I discussed the decay of The Blob in the Oct 27th post here:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/the-blob-has-dissipated/
    Started with this animation:

    Cheers.

  7. Ancient corals warming. This is neither new science nor new news. The first coral Sr/Ca to SST paper was in 1992, corals from Vanuatu. The first GBR porites coral paper was 1997. In 2015 USGS published on porites from the Fort Lauderdale reef; it cites 7 papers published since 2007. It points out that the accuracy is about 0.5C, and that calibration curves vary by location because of local growth conditions other than SST. The measurements can even detect seasonal differences in water temperature as at Ft. Lauderdale.

    Been known since 1992 that Pacific SST during the Holocene optimum were some 2-3C colder than today. Simple explanation is the enormous ocean thermal inertia.

  8. Academic freedom. Great post by Briggs with further references. Have stopped all contributions to my 3x alma mater. This was one of two core reasons. The other was Oreskes. They are related.

    • Briggs post is a mish mash.. You’ve done better

    • Mosher, I can take you completely statistically apart on this re Briggs. No mish mash as you assert. Promised from a Ph.D level Harvard econometrician way back when. A promise, not just a threat.
      So, how about you go first with your specifics as offerred with papers refuting Briggs post. Then I will go second with my referenced specifics. And, will also provide denizens with non math theorem explanations of the math ideas yiu might propose. Cause if they/you cannot grasp the basic ideas, the elegant math details do not matter. Kapitsch?

  9. It seems, the impacts of GHG emissions are the most important factor needed for good climate policy analysis. Policy analysts need to be able to compare estimates of the costs and benefits of the policies they are assessing. For this they need to know the costs of the policies and the benefits the policies are likely to deliver. To estimate the benefits of proposed mitigation policies, they need to be able to estimate the impacts the policy is likely to mitigate. Quantitative estimates of impacts and the probabilities of them being avoided by the policy are essential for this analysis.

    The estimates of impacts are outputs of IAMs. The IAMs require a damage function as an input. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence from which to derive or calibrate the damage functions. As IPCC AR5 WG3 Chapter 3 says: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter3.pdf says:

    • “Damage functions in existing Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are of low reliability (high confidence).” [3.9, 3.12]”

    • “Our general conclusion is that the reliability of damage functions in current IAMs is low.” [p247]

    • “As discussed in Section 3.9, the aggregate damage functions used in many IAMs are generated from a remarkable paucity of data and are thus of low reliability.”

    It seems, the belief that GHG emissions will be damaging is based on dogma, innuendo and assumptions.

    • “It seems, the impacts of GHG emissions are the most important factor needed for good climate policy analysis. Policy analysts need to be able to compare estimates of the costs and benefits of the policies they are assessing. ”

      No they dont.

      • Yes they do.

      • ‘Policy analysts’…
        now there’s a profession for tales of glory around the mead bench.
        I am fortunate.
        My neighbor is a plumber.

      • Steven Mosher

        Peter,

        They can do whatever they damn well please and use whatever method they see fit. Its their job, not yours.

        The best example is the decision to make 2C a threshhold value.

        You may wish the world otherwise, but in fact 2C was decided without anyone answering your question.

        Why?

        Because your opinion doesnt matter. we share that predicament.

        The difference is I accept the political realities and you want to fight a war that was never going to be fought.

        Here read the crap on 1.5C..

        http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/2c.html

        clue.. windmills.. dont tilt at them

      • Steven Mosher,

        You really are talking just irrelevant rubbish. You have no understanding of policy analysis. You keep harping on about temperatures, but as you said long ago and many times since, “so what? It is only the impacts that are relevant”. When asked want are the impacts you couldn’t answer than and still can’t. You think the fact that politicians have temporarily accepted that 2 C is damaging is going to solve the issues. Well I have news for you. The rational negotiators will not commit to disadvantage their people just to please ideologues like yourself. That’s the reality. The policy analysts that control the public purses will do the rational anlalyses and they show the costs of mitigation cannot be justified.

      • SM, you make several mistakes in your riposte. For example, the 2C threshold, admittedly invented by Schnellnhuber of infamous Potsdam out of whole cloth. Lets you enumerate some others. Silence means I will, with references. Go for it.

  10. Achilles heel of the climate alarmist’s beliefs/agenda

    focus should be maintained on the key issue that is the Achilles heel of the climate alarmist’s agenda. That is, there is no valid evidence that GHG emissions will do more harm than good. The focus needs to be on the ‘damage function’ not on temperature trends, temperature changes, climate sensitivity, or emissions rates. If the damage function shows damages will be negligible, zero or negative (i.e. net beneficial), there is no reason for concern. And no valid justification for mitigation policies or funding the ‘climate industry’.

    Empirical evidence to derive of calibrate the damage functions is lacking IPCC AR5 WG3 Chapter 3 says: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter3.pdf says:

    Social cost of carbon should be set at zero” according to “Assessing the Social Costs and Benefits of Regulating Carbon Emissionshttp://reason.org/files/social_costs_of_regulating_carbon.pdf

    Richard Tol, one of the foremost authorities on estimating the economic cost of climate change, published Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf which I interpret as warming would be net-beneficial to around 4C (if we ignore for now the energy cost item; I suspect the cost of energy attributable to AGW is overestimated).

    • On so many topics, Lang just continues to exhibit something called the Dunning-Kruger effect — defined where:

      Incompetent people cannot recognize just how incompetent they are. In cases like Lang’s, they refuse to recognize their short-comings (e.g, grid engineering economics) and instead exhibit inappropriate confidence by something that feels to them like knowledge.

      Lang’s MO is to constantly cherry-pick something and then to create a long and drawn out straw-man where discussion of a subject must be in the context of Lang’s straw-man.

      Lang’s latest effort is to cherry-pick Richard Tol and then to construct here at CE what Tol must believe (as Lang does this all the time such as with Andy Boston, who finally just had to walk away from Lang’s unending birage).

      The below link is to an extenive interview with Richard Tol — who supports a carbon tax and says some things similar to Steven Mosher’s comments:

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-conversation-roger-harrabin-and-richard-tol

      Since Dr. Tol does follow CE, he should come to this thread and let Lang “correct him on his conclusions” — as only Lang unerstands policy.

  11. NOAA PDO
    2016 05 1.40
    2016 06 0.76
    2016 07 0.12
    2016 08 -0.90
    2016 09 -1.09
    2016 10 -0.87

    JISAO PDO
    May 2.62
    Jun 2.35
    Jul 2.03
    Aug 1.25
    Sep 0.52
    Oct 0.45

    Is it going negative?

    • Doesn’t look like it, but even it does, it’s too late. 2016 is finishing hot. Look at NCEP November… holy smoke.

      • Arctic sst is heating up big. It will probably burp that heat up to be radiated away this winter and spring. Or it could ice over, first and stick around for next summer.

  12. Steven Mosher. Scientist. Not. Symptomatic of delusional psychosis? Maybe.

    Cheers.

  13. After showing resilience in Sept., Arctic ice growth faltered in Oct. The reasons have nothing to do with CO2 or soot.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/october-arctic-ice-report-and-outlook/

  14. How come none of these myriads of models never predict ‘cooling’ only warming and resultant catastrophes thereof? Just wondering…

  15. Here we are, coming upon the end of the year:

    OIL 44.78
    BRENT 46.16
    NAT GAS 2.823
    RBOB GAS 1.3657

  16. May President Trump now publicly ask the one question that will forever change this country’s policy on science, “NASA, IS THE SUN A PULSAR?”

  17. From the article:

    The two record-breaking attacks, reaching 623 Gbps and 555 Gbps, were directed at security blogger Brian Krebs. The attacks succeeded in taking down Krebs’ website until Jigsaw, a unit of Google’s parent company Alphabet GOOG 3.04% , deployed its Project Shield service to deflect the attack.

    The reason for this recent surge in mega attacks is tied to security defects in the “Internet of things.” This involves hackers taking over millions of everyday devices connected to the Internet—especially DVRs, security cameras and home routers—and conscripting them to be part of a bot-net army, known as Mirai.

    Mirai gained widespread notoriety in October, after hackers briefly used it to obstruct consumers’ access to popular sites like Amazon and Twitter, and many of the devices under its control are still compromised. As Akamai suggests, the Internet of Things problem may just be beginning.

    http://fortune.com/2016/11/15/akamai-ddos-report/

  18. JISAO PDO:
    May 2.35
    Jun 2.03
    July 1.25
    Aug 0.52
    Sep 0.45
    Oct 0.56
    NOAA PDO:
    2016 05 1.40
    2016 06 0.76
    2016 07 0.12
    2016 08 -0.90
    2016 09 -1.09
    2016 10 -0.88

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s