Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Attributing high impact extreme events across timescales — a case study of four different events. [link]

Increasing coupling of Pacific dynamics leads to prolonged marine heat waves [link]

Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extreme [link]

Heatwaves in Northern Europe as much as ‘five times’ as likely due to climate change, scientists say [link]

Contiguous US summer maximum temperature and heat stress trends [link]

Behind the veil of extreme event attribution [link]

New paper on climate sensitivity suggests that changing patterns of future warming raise Otto-et-al-style instrumentally-based sensitivity estimates from 1.9C to 3.2C: [link]

Extratropical atmospheric predictability from the Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation in subseasonal forecast models [link

Impact of arctic oscillation on Indian winter monsoon [link]

“Science insurgents plot a climate model driven by artificial intelligence”  [link

he Arctic is getting warmer but Siberia is getting colder. The stratosphere may be to blame. [link]

Recent poleward shift of tropical cyclone formation linked to Hadley cell expansion [link]

Distinct mechanisms govern ocean heat transport into the Arctic under internal variability and climate change. AMOC–ocean heat transport relationship depends on whether variability is internal or forced [link]

New research on Caribbean lizards suggests that hurricanes Maria and Irma could have driven natural selection:  

Importance of stratosphere-troposphere coupling for Barents-Kara sea ice loss forcing the cold anomaly over Siberia. [link

54% Of ‘Vulnerable’ SW Pacific Islands Studied Had Shorelines That EXPANDED From 2005-2015 [link]

Greenhouse gases are warming the world—but chilling Antarctica. Here’s why [link]

How Predictable Are the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations? [link

High ocean temperatures in the western tropical Pacific Ocean played a central role to establish and maintain the US in 2015 [link]

Improved Teleconnection‐Based Dynamical Seasonal Predictions of Boreal Winter [link]

“What the fuck is the Meghalayan?”   on divisions among geologists over the Anthropocene [link]

Human “fingerprints” in planet’s changing seasons. [link]

Trends and drivers of normalized continental US damage [link]

Sluggish Atlantic circulation could cause global temperatures to surge. [link]

120,000 year record of sea ice in the North Atlantic

The paradigm shift in Antarctic ice sheet modeling [link]

Volcanic eruptions interact with El Nino events, affecting sustained megadrought [link]


249 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Often neglected in seasonal change is CO2 improves seed quality allowing plants to take more risk in early germination. In general, seeds are able to germinate both earlier and more successfully with higher CO2. Availability of water, and reduced loss, are probably also neglected by studies the primarily look at temperature and growing season.

  2. Climate change is warming the Arctic and melting sea ice, yet Siberia has experienced significantly colder and harsher winters for the past few decades.

    Duh, when the Arctic is warmer, more thawed water provides more moisture and energy for causing more snowfall and harsher winters. This is how natural climate stuff works. It snows more when oceans are warmer and more thawed and that causes colder. It snows less when oceans are cold and frozen and that causes warmer. It is the natural cycles and we do not cause them.

    • “Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserved to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science.”

      Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pg 91

      The Radiative Greenhouse Effect Theory

      Premise 1:
      The earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. (288 K – 255 K = 33 C)
      So, just how does that work?

      Premise 2:
      There is an up/down/”back” CO2/GHG LWIR energy loop between the surface and the atmosphere that “traps” and recirculates energy through molecular level QED processes warming both the atmosphere and the surface.
      And what powers that energy loop?

      Premise 3:
      The surface radiates as a 288 K ideal black body with an emission of 390 W/m^2. (K-T 289 K & 396 W/m^2)

      Premises 1, 2 & 3 are demonstrably false.

      No 33 C warmer + No up/down/”back” GHG LWIR energy loop + No ideal BB surface radiation = Mankind’s carbon dioxide plays ZERO role in the behavior of the climate.

      Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE

      Premise 1:

      Premise 2:

      Premise 3:

      • nickreality65: Premises 1, 2 & 3 are demonstrably false.

        Sometimes I wonder what you really mean.

        1. The mechanisms involved have been explained. Are you telling us that the global mean surface temperature of Earth would be 288K even without an atmosphere inclusive of H2O?

        2. The sun powers the energy loop.

        3. If not 390 W.m^2, then what? 500? 300? … 0?

      • nickreality65


        1) RGHE theory says the surface w/o atmosphere would be 255 K. (ACS climate change tool kit.) My simple observations, Nikolov & Kramm speculate that w/o atmos earth would be much like the moon, approaching 390 K max on the lit side, about 100 K dark side. Barren, no water, ice, snow, vegetation – exposed to full 394 K solar energy – .15 or so albedo. Most certainly NOT 255 K or 33 C. Atmosphere/albedo “cools” earth by reflecting away 30% of solar energy.

        2) Sun is the source of energy to the earth (geo is minor) ave. 1,368 W/m^2 discular, /4=342 spherical, 240 net after 30% albedo, 160 net/net to surface. The 396 ideal BB that RGHE calculates for upwelling from surface and that powers the 333 GHG perpetual loop exceeds all net incoming sources creating energy out of thin air & violating conservation of energy.

        3) Heat, energy in motion, leaves the surface: 17 convection, 80 latent. 63 LWIR w/ emissivity of 0.16 at 289 K. actual 63/ideal 396 = emissivity by definition. 333 appears out of nowhere. Theoretical – not-real calculated 396 – 333 = 63.

        4) 396 BB radiation from surface is not possible, 333 GHG loop does not really exist, RGHE does not exist.

        CAGW, RGHE and climate change by carbon dioxide does – not – exist.

        Hope that helps with your forthcoming science based 1) 2) 3) 4) rebuttal/defense of RGHE/CAGW.

        Power flux balance source: (TFK_bams09)

      • nickreality65: My simple observations, Nikolov & Kramm speculate that w/o atmos earth would be much like the moon, approaching 390 K max on the lit side, about 100 K dark side. Barren, no water, ice, snow, vegetation – exposed to full 394 K solar energy – .15 or so albedo. Most certainly NOT 255 K or 33 C. Atmosphere/albedo “cools” earth by reflecting away 30% of solar energy.

        The moon would be a more informative analogy if 3/4 of its surface were covered in water. On Earth, cloud cover from evaporating water does not reflect light unless the surface is sufficiently warm to produce and maintain the cloud cover. Imagining a counterfactual Earth surface that is 3/4 covered in water but lacks water vapor, and then estimating the joint effects of increased absorption by water vapor and albedo effects of clouds makes more sense than imagining a counterfactual Earth surface without any water. Even though you can’t have confidence in a result that claims two significant figures of accuracy.

        You can’t realistically start with an assumption that the Earth with that much water is like the moon without any water.

        Premise 3:
        The surface radiates as a 288 K ideal black body with an emission of 390 W/m^2. (K-T 289 K & 396 W/m^2)

        I think you avoided answering my question about that, which is of course your right. At 288 mean global surface temperature, what is the (mean) energy radiated from the surface? Over the range of Earth surface temperatures, what is the error associated with using the S-B approximation instead of the actual values?

      • nickreality65

        No earth atmosphere means no earth water!!!!! No clouds! No snow! No ice! No vegetation! None! Nada! Not at 394K, 121 C, 250 F.

        Per source referenced: ideal theoretical not real 1.0 emissivity 396 W/m^2 at 289K. Actual per same source: 0.16 emissivity 63 W/m^2 at 289K.

      • nickreality65: No earth atmosphere means no earth water!!!!! No clouds! No snow! No ice! No vegetation! None! Nada! Not at 394K, 121 C, 250 F.

        No water means no similarity to moon. You have a choice of counterfactuals to work from, but no close analogy.

      • nickreality65

        What? There’s water on the moon?

        It’s pretty clear you haven’t read my links or the referenced paper.

        Do the homework assignments and get back to me.

      • nickreality65: 3) Heat, energy in motion, leaves the surface: 17 convection, 80 latent. 63 LWIR w/ emissivity of 0.16 at 289 K.

        That is more interesting. If the surface transfers energy to the atmosphere at about 240 W/m^2, and the atmosphere radiates energy to space at the rate of 240 W/m^2 (with reference to subtended surface area) avoiding continuous warming, what are the mean emissivity and mean effective radiative temperature of the atmosphere?

        These topics are presented in Maarten Ambaum’s “Thermal Physics of the ATmosphere” sections 9.2 and 9.3.

      • nickreality65

        “If the surface transfers energy to the atmosphere at about 240 W/m^2,…”
        Uh, wrong!!
        The surface gets only 160 W/m^2 to return to the atmos. 80 are absorbed in atmos. The two get back together at ToA.
        See the Trenberth paper cited above.
        Molecules get 17 & 80 of it, radiation handles the difference of 63.
        That adds up to 160. The 333 loop appears out of nowhere.

        BTW this earth evenly heated in a bucket of warm poo model is garbage.


      • nickreality65: What? There’s water on the moon?

        Oops, I meant to say that “no water on Earth” is a counterfactual assumption, meaning simply that isn’t true of the Earth. It is the water on the Earth that breaks the similarity to the moon.

      • nickreality65

        “It is the water on the Earth that breaks the similarity to the moon.”

        Well, DUHHHH!!!

      • Nick, what Nikolov and Kramm did not consider was that the earth spins 30 times faster than the moon, so the temperature would be more evened out, when you stop and think about it, and would average 255 K without an atmosphere with an albedo of 0.3. So how is it 288 K, you ask? Greenhouse gases insulate the surface against radiative loss to space. Glad to help.

      • nickreality65

        Jim D.

        Kramm considered rotation: figures 4 & 5, temperature over time plots. Earth peaks over 375 K lit side and falls to 100 K dark side. 237.5 K ave, 275 C range.

        Without an atmosphere the albedo would no longer be 0.3. More moon like at 0.15 +/-.
        albedo: 0 = 394 K, 0.15 = 378 K, 0.30 = 360 K.
        Net solar wind hitting earth is 34 C cooler with atmos.

        What does the atmosphere do? Lit side 308 K, dark side 268 K, range 40 C, average 288 K. Habitable thanks to atmospheric molecules moderating the day/night fluctuations and Q = U A dT just like the walls of a house.

        What does the no atmosphere don’t? Lit side 388 K, dark side 188 K, range 200 C, average still 288 K. Both earth and moon uninhabitable thanks to no atmospheric molecules moderating fluctuations and no Q = U A dT.

        1) RGHE’s 255 K w/o atmos complete rubbish.
        2) GHG loop egregious thermodynamic violations.
        3) BB from surface not possible.

        1+2+3 = ZERO warming or climate change due to carbon dioxide.

        You’re up, bring science.

      • If the moon had a mostly water surface like the earth it would be a different story. There is no comparison. The thermal inertia is different. How much does the ocean surface heat in the day? Not much. So apart from rotation, that’s another big difference from the moon.
        255 K comes from energy in = energy out. First law of thermodynamics. You match net solar input using 0.3 albedo with net IR output and that is what you get. It’s a one line calculation.

      • nickreality65

        Is that w/o an atmosphere the earth would no longer have water!!! Same as the moon – NO WATER!!! No 30% albedo!!! No 255 K!!

        255 K is the S-B 1.0 emissivity theoretical temperature at 240 W/m^2 after the 30% albedo. 342*.7. This is WITH an atmosphere!!

        Yeah, if it all changed it would be different.

        That would NOT be the temperature w/o an atmosphere!!!

      • 255 K is the equilibrium temperature of any object at earth’s distance from the sun with an albedo of 0.3 and an emissivity of 1. No atmosphere required. Do you need help to understand this?

      • nickreality65

        “255 K is the equilibrium temperature of any object at earth’s distance from the sun with an albedo of 0.3 and an emissivity of 1.”
        Uhh, wrong & no.

        How many times do I need to say that w/o an atmosphere there would be no 0.3 albedo.

        Average solar: 1,368 W/m^2, S-B T = 394 K.
        0.3 albedo: 1,368 * .7 = 957.6 = S-B T = 360 K.
        Any object at earth radius with 0.3 albedo would see an S-B 1.0 emissivity equilibrium temp of 360 K.

        255 K & 240 w/m^2 exist only in the ever so popular but completely dumb ass earth evenly heated in a bucket of warm poo model.

        Here’s some homework where I have already plowed this ground.

        Premise 1:

        Premise 2:

        Premise 3:

      • Yes, 255 K is for a 0.3 albedo. That’s what I said. It doesn’t have to be the earth. It can be anything with that albedo, a painted rock for example. This is a fundamental calculation.
        The importance of this 255 K number is that it corresponds to 240 W/m2 which the earth has to radiate from the top of atmosphere to give an energy balance.
        The earth’s surface is at 288 K, and it radiates to space at 255 K. See the difference? It’s the effect of GHGs that insulate the surface from the cold of space like a blanket.

      • nickreality65

        RGHE claims 255 K is without an atmosphere.
        That obviously is not correct.
        The N2, O2, Ar, H2O insulating blanket follows Q = U A dT NOT S-B.
        GHGs at 400 ppm do exactly squat.

      • It is earth’s effective radiating value to space. You can call it “without an atmosphere” if you want, but I think you only confuse yourself that way. It is 255 K at the top of the atmosphere, 288 K at the bottom. GHGs make the 33 K difference.

      • nickreality65

        I don’t call it that, RGHE theory calls it that – incorrectly.
        If you look at balloon radiosondes ToA, around 32 km, is around -40 C or 233 K.
        288 K is pulled out of WMO’s consensual butt.
        255 K is a theoretical model calculation with no connection to reality.

      • The earth radiates at 240 W/m2 which is effectively 255 K. It has to for the energy balance. Have you not understood why 255 K is pertinent to today’s earth? This is not hypothetical. It is real. And 288 K is the earth’s average surface temperature. We have thermometers. We know this.

      • 333 W/m2 means the atmosphere radiates down at an equivalent temperature of 276 K.

      • nickreality65

        The troposphere is -60, -40, 213K, 233 K.
        333 W/m^2 radiating down from 276 K, 3 C is NON-possible!!!
        1) 276 K cold to 288 K warm w/o work violates thermo.
        2) the 396 upwelling that supplied the 333 downwelling is a bogus calculation that does not actually exist.

      • The main GHG is water vapor which is mostly at warmer temperatures, so it is no surprise that the atmosphere radiates at 276 K. The values would be larger in the tropics, more like 370 W/m2 (284 K) from MODTRAN. Clouds also add to it, of course.

      • nickreality65: “It is the water on the Earth that breaks the similarity to the moon.”

        Well, DUHHHH!!!

        So the moon analogy is worthless.

        What about my other comment: from you 3) Heat, energy in motion, leaves the surface: 17 convection, 80 latent. 63 LWIR w/ emissivity of 0.16 at 289 K. actual 63/ideal 396 = emissivity by definition. 333 appears out of nowhere. Theoretical – not-real calculated 396 – 333 = 63.

        from me:That is more interesting. If the surface transfers energy to the atmosphere at about 240 W/m^2, and the atmosphere radiates energy to space at the rate of 240 W/m^2 (with reference to subtended surface area) avoiding continuous warming, what are the mean emissivity and mean effective radiative temperature of the atmosphere?

        from you: “If the surface transfers energy to the atmosphere at about 240 W/m^2,…”
        Uh, wrong!!

        Is that a contradiction of what you wrote before, about energy leaving the surface?

        The surface gets only 160 W/m^2 to return to the atmos. 80 are absorbed in atmos. The two get back together at ToA.

        Two “what” “get back together”, and how?

      • nickreality65

        The 160 surface + 80 atmos = 240 ToA
        Comparing two celestial objects both without atmospheres is helpful since it refutes the 33 C warmer earth w/ atmos.

      • nickreality65: The surface gets only 160 W/m^2 to return to the atmos.

        Why only 160? If 80 is absorbed in the atmosphere, does the atmosphere warm up and radiate some of it upward and downward?

        BTW this earth evenly heated in a bucket of warm poo model is garbage.

        Well, yes. Working with the spatio-temporal averages is a necessary simplicity that at best can only yield approximate answers.

        So far I am not seeing your work as an improvement over Ambaum, cited above.

      • nickreality65: Comparing two celestial objects both without atmospheres is helpful since it refutes the 33 C warmer earth w/ atmos.

        One has 3/4 of surface covered in water, and the other doesn’t. You think it makes good sense to ignore the water, and I do not. I think we are at an impasse.

      • nickreality65

        The entire premise of RGHE and the 33 C is comparing earth w/ atmosphere 288 to earth w/o atmosphere 255.
        W/o atmosphere earth would have NO water and be much like the moon.

  3. Scientists previously have observed that Siberia experiences colder winters when the Barents and Kara Seas, two sub-Arctic seas off the northern Eurasian coast, exhibit greater sea ice loss in the preceding autumn months. Zhang’s team modeled the cascading effects of that regional sea ice loss to see what factors may lead to a colder Siberia.

    Again, DUH, it snows more when the ocean is more thawed!
    Why use models that don’t work to see what is, or should be, easy to see and understand.

    • Early snow from Polar Moisture, causes ice on land that causes cold and promotes jet stream changes and more snowfall later from moisture that comes from oceans beyond the Polar region.

      Judah Cohen has written multiple papers about this.

  4. “54% Of ‘Vulnerable’ SW Pacific Islands Studied Had Shorelines That EXPANDED From 2005-2015”
    I think blogs by Kenneth Richard have no place in a science review. He just goes through picking out phrases with no regard for context or what the paper is actually about, spice with rearranged graphs. Here are a group of real scientists responding to a notrickszone characterisation of their papers. In this case, KR has taken a paper which is actually about sand movements in just one atoll (Funafuti) and turned it into a headline about 54% of vulnerable islands etc.

    In fact, the islands of the atoll overall lost area, but that was probably coincidence. Much of the erosion was due to Cyclone Pam in 2015.

    • The statement taken from the paper is correct Nick. 15 out of 28 islands close together increased in surface area.
      Conclusion the sea level locally has gone down slightly.

      • Conclusion the sea level locally has gone down slightly

        Then why did 13 of 28 islands in this atoll decrease in area?

        It has nothing to do with sea level, and the paper doesn’t say so. It is all about drift of sand. And it is in no way “54% of SW Pacific Islands”. Here is what is spun into a story of sea level fall. From the abstract:
        “Funafuti Atoll, Tuvalu is located in the southwestern Pacific Ocean, which has experienced some of the highest rates of global sea-level rise over the past 60 years. Atoll islands are low-lying accumulations of reef-derived sediment that provide the only habitable land in Tuvalu, and are considered vulnerable to the myriad possible impacts of climate change, especially sea-level rise. This study examines the shoreline change of twenty-eight islands in Funafuti Atoll between 2005 and 2015 using 0.65 m QuickBird, 0.46 m WorldView-2, and 0.31 m WorldView-3 imagery using an image segmentation and decision tree classification. Shoreline change estimates are compared to previous study that used a visual interpretation approach. The feasibility of estimating island area with Landsat-8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) data is explored using CLASlite software. Results indicate a 0.13% (0.35 ha) decrease in net island area over the study time period, with 13 islands decreasing in area and 15 islands increasing in area. Substantial decreases in island area occurred on the islands of Fuagea, Tefala and Vasafua, which coincides with the timing of Cyclone Pam in March, 2015. “

      • “And it is in no way “54% of SW Pacific Islands”.

        Nick, you really should read harder and quote correctly.
        “ 54% Of ‘Vulnerable’ SW Pacific Islands Studied Had Shorelines That EXPANDED From 2005-2015”
        He never, ever, ever said your statement. You deliberately missed out the words vulnerable and studied.
        A subset of all SW Pacific Islands.
        The quote referred to the 54% Of ‘Vulnerable’ SW Pacific Islands Studied.
        If I could set that Nick Stokes fellow on you, I would. He knows when people are pulling a swifty (or shifty) by omitting the whole quote. He would set you straight very quickly, I bet.

      • This helps increase the percentage Nick
        It might be higher than 54% if anyone can do them all and add them up.
        Strange that you would not mention this study when you decided to attack. I know you do like doing your research and should have been aware of it but chose not to share it.
        Joining the ranks of the fake news reporters
        “A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.
        It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.
        Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.”

      • Nick Stokes | August 3, 2018 at 8:11 pm |
        “Conclusion the sea level locally has gone down slightly”
        Then why did 13 of 28 islands in this atoll decrease in area? It has nothing to do with sea level, and the paper doesn’t say so. It is all about drift of sand. “

        I think the paper mentioned a cyclone as a possible cause . Yes Category 5 A’s the cause of at least some of the islands losing mass and hence area, Nick.
        You must have seen this as you do imply, above, you read it. Why omit this and throw in a fake narrative?
        As for sea level the paper claims the sea level had been rapidly rising locally, at odds with the fact that a majority of the islands had been increasing in area, which could only happen with a local sea level fall.
        You do understand that local sea level rise must accord with local land area?
        Whether there is sand drift, volcanic uplift or meteorite impact local means local.
        The message here, once again is to use multiple lines of evidence. There is a great concern when assumed honest measuring records get things so wrong.

    • Nick

      “He just goes through picking out phrases with no regard for context or what the paper is actually about, spice with rearranged graphs.”

      Much like our hysterical MSM then.

  5. 120,000 year record of sea ice in the North Atlantic [link]

    Although it has been demonstrated that the speed and magnitude of recent Arctic sea ice decline is unprecedented for the past 1,450 years, few records are available to provide a paleoclimate context for Arctic sea ice extent.

    China mapped the Arctic and the Vikings moved to Greenland, I believe the Arctic sea ice decline was unprecedented in the Medieval Warm Period, more than now. Arctic sea ice decline was as unprecedented in multiple warm times over the recent ten thousand years. This is what happens in natural warm times. This modern warm time is natural and not manmade. Arctic sea ice decline, now, is unprecedented, AGAIN, not for the first time. These are natural cycles and we did not suddenly take over from what has been happening for ever and ever.

  6. I assume when the researchers looked at heat waves in Europe they took into consideration the history of heat waves in Europe as outlined in this 1852 article. When rivers dry up that is some kind of drought and heat. I’m sure a full documentation of extreme weather in Europe would fill volumes…..and probably has.

    • Imagine of we got our science from newspaper clippings.

      • “Imagine of we got our science from newspaper clippings.”

        Historical clippings are surely more enlightening than blogs; at minimum anecdotally more interesting than your musings, Steven.

        Does not todays press, and also sycophantical acolytes promoting CAGW, not portray contemporary times in desperate terms; it’s really, really bad, ya know? We’re destroying the planet; it’s truly unprecedented, it really is, apparently.

        There’s no record days of heat in the previous 300 years during heat waves, or even much further back, compared to today? But wait, yes, there are. What? You say the records of the past are too cryptic, with too much broken data to draw conclusions from?

        If we hypothetically had todays technology to measure high density granular measurements of data, on daily basis, going back several thousand years, what would that tell us about today? Do you really think you know how such data would compare to today? Tonyb, and others, have done some interesting work comparing climatic events and trends of the past several hundred years to today, using what evidence is available. You should take it more seriously. Further, the publication Science has demonstrated more granular climate data refuting previous claims about the LIA, data only a couple years old, as being profoundly obsolete. You can recognize this science from a recent Science “clipping”.

        Maybe historic newspaper clippings hold more relevant information than you care to entertain? Or maybe you consider historical science beneath you, Steven. You and others know better.

      • M

        Real people are monitoring these events not proxies. If a river dried up, it dried up. I suspect many of these, on the ground, real time observations are far superior to anything you have created for that period.

      • More science with a slight twist

      • And now those lousy press clippings

      • Just more lousy press clippings

      • And press clippings on the world stage.

        Funny how science and press clippings have melded and they confirm each other.

        How does that happen.

      • You can look at individual summers and 1934 stands out as a 2 C anomaly.

        1936 also for the US.

        I looked at all the years since 2000 and the central US had no equivalents. Texas had a 2 C anomaly in 2011 but the area was smaller, and the west coast had a couple of recent years with 2 C summers anomalies. Globally these have increased in frequency with Europe having a few notable ones in the last two decades and Russia had a big one in 2010. I am sure I could find news clippings if needed. The point is that these have increased in frequency globally and the central/eastern US has not had an equivalent to the European heatwaves in the 21st century. Perhaps they have lucked out so far.

      • Globally there is a strong correlation between 2 C summer anomalies and screaming heatwave headlines FWIW. Various parts of Europe have been hit by these in 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017. Probably 2018 will make the cut too. Apparently 1 C doesn’t make headlines. Expect these more often going forwards.

      • Steve

        How do you think historical accounts of our economy have been prepared? Pre Federal Reserve, pre National Bureau of Economic Research, pre Bureau of Labor Statistics, pre US Statistical Abstract, pre IRS, pre elaborate analysis of incomes by the Census Bureau, how do they reconstruct the information of economic activity and recessions and trade and jobs in the late 1700s and most of the 1800s?

        Answer: They go with the best information they can obtain, which often times involve press clippings and other anecdotal evidence that in today’s world would not be considered scientific by some. It may not meet the rigorous test of how data is retrieved and prepared by modern methods but they work with what is available. Imagine that, low brows like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and their contemporaries might have actually known how to think like scientists and use reason and logic and the scientific method in keeping records and leaving real time accounts of their economic activity. Hard to believe. But they did have some pretty good thinkers preceding them, like Kant, Locke, Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, etc. I don’t know how they did it without their Texas Instruments hand helds. I’m not sure if adjustments had come into vogue though. So they did have their limitations.

    • According to this, 1131, 1134, 1135, and 1137:

      • In fact if you read the 1120’s and the 1140’s too, and bear in mind that those three decades were during a centennial solar minimum.

    • Ceresco kid

      Further to your very interesting observer piece I thought you might be interested in these records from England I have collected over the years.

      Incidentally I pointed to 1538, 39, 40 and 41 as probably the hottest consecutive year in CET which I reconstructed to 1538 in ‘The long slow thaw’

      —- ——-

      “The current very hot and dry spell we are experiencing is by no means unique.

      These anecdotal snippets, from a wide variety of observers, are derived from the start of my detailed weather date base in the 13th Century- when reports became more numerous and reliable- show many references to hot dry summers and severe drought, even in this 50 year segment.

      The 13th century is generally thought to be at the start of a long and irregular decline to the intermittent Little Ice Age. The few hundred years preceding it are often known as the Medieval warm period.

      1238 Great floods in many parts during December. Cloudy and rainy in beginning until Spring had passed, then the drought and heat were beyond measure and custom in two or more of the summer months. Great deluge of rain in the autumn that straw and grain became rotten and an unnatural autumn which is held to be a cold and dry season gave rise to various fatal diseases.

      1241 Drought from March 25 to Oct 28 and intolerable heat. Pastures withered, herds pined away from hunger and thirst.

      1252 Very hot and dry summer, very wet autumn. Heat of the sun so great that all the earth became dry, no fruit grew on trees. At end of harvest there was great flooding breaking bridges, mills and houses adjoining the rivers.

      Matthew Paris (a chronicler) notes that ‘In most of March and the whole of the months of April and May, the ground was burnt up by the sun, the wind continuing from South, West, North or East. The sun rose up to its solstitial culmination and its immoderate and intolerable heat so burned up the earths surface and multiplied its warmth that the herbage withered away. Moreover the heat continued into the night and generated flies flea and other injurious pests”.

      He also writes ‘ in April, May, June and July, heat and drought prevailed intolerably, without beneficial sprinkling of rain or dew. Meadows were stripped of their grass, plant foliage withered.” According to John de Taxter ‘this year many died from the excessive heat of the summer. There was much thunderstorms.’ Robert of Gloucester noted (in 1270) ‘in the year of grace 1252 the summer was so dry and hot that even until this day there has been none hotter .”

      1253 Dry summer and wet autumn and in spring and summer a prolonged drought. Flooding in autumn which ‘dried up after the feast of St Michael . happened in spring (drought) contrary to the nature of the season, for at the time of the equinox with the whole weather moderate there is customarily peace in the elements.’

      Brooks and Glasspole believe 1252 and 1253 to be the driest consecutive years of which we have any historical account; (see Meteorological magazine 63 1928, page 4.)

      1260 Great and prolonged summer drought so that barley and oats remained hidden in the ground even until autumn . However, showers then caused germination but they didn’t ripen due to lack of warmth. Great thunderstorm on June 23.

      Matthew Parish noted: “In this summer great and enormous portents happened in the air so that some people said the last judgement was near. So many continuous thunderstorms that hardly anyone was bold enough to leave his house. (the London annals confirms these storms)

      “During the Christmas period there was such continued fine weather and serenity of the air that one would have said that it was pleasant summer time rather than winter.”

      1262 Hot summer

      1263 Hot summer in Ireland with a great drought and also in England, “in which year the earth by the fierce heat of summer was so dried up there was no fruit and at the end of autumn there was so much rain there was flooding. Aurora noted on July 29th in London.”

      1285 Neither snow nor ice were seen in Oxford to persist for the space of half a day during the winter. Other commenters noted this was such a very mild winter such that one aged man had never seen its like. Such a great summer drought and heat that men perished.

      1288 Such a hot dry summer such as has not occurred during many years before and many men died. Others date this from beginning of July ‘ there began an intolerable heat and an increasing great drought which endured continually for 5 weeks with no rain at all. ‘

      (Generally) Very warm, dry, settled summers from 1284 to 1311 according to Hubert Lambs’ “Climate History and the Modern World”

      There are numerous examples of very severe weather throughout my many centuries of records, whether very hot and dry, or cold and snowy. These are frequently topped or tailed by the opposite condition. Severe Flooding appears to be a common condition before and after a drought.”

      Those that dismiss the records as irrelevant want to deny the existence of periods of considerable climatic variability in the past (hot and cold) for reasons best known to themselves


      • In furtherance to my reply to Nick below about my journey.

        You and Judith are prime reasons why I feel as I do. You have done a massive amount of research and based on reading years of your comments I can tell you are a true professional with the best instincts for scientific inquiry. That is a quality everyone should aspire to. Thanks for your work.

      • You just described the majority of my summers growing up in the Dakotas. Only two years hit 120 F, 1936 and 2011. And the 1936 number likely includes the rural heat island effect.

      • I can identify heliocentric Jovian analogues of 1252-53, peaking in 1430, 1610+1614, and 1790+1793. The hotter years occur when Saturn is opposite Neptune, and when Jupiter is square to Neptune.
        These are the two body rules, which indicate why the 1361 and 1539-41 configuration type was so hot, and why the 1686, 1727, 1934, 1949, 1976, and 2003 type was so hot. Due to the apparent logic, 3 body peak cold events and peak hot events occur on tee-squares.

        Jupiter opposite Neptune = cold.
        Jupiter square Neptune = hot.
        Saturn opposite Neptune = hot.
        Saturn square Neptune = cold.
        Jupiter opposite Uranus = hot.
        Jupiter square Uranus = cold.
        Saturn opposite Uranus = cold.
        Saturn square Uranus = hot.
        Uranus opposite Neptune = hot.
        Uranus square Neptune = cold.
        Saturn opposite Jupiter = cold.
        Saturn square Jupiter = hot.


      • There is also a very good analogue of the 1540 Saturn opposite Neptune and square to Saturn, in 1757:

        ‘A very significant heat wave occurred in Europe in July 1757. The heat wave may have been the second hottest summer in Europe in the past 500 years’

      • typo; square to *Jupiter*

      • But as we can see for Central England, July 2006 was the hottest month in the series to date, and also occurred on a Saturn opposite Neptune and square to Jupiter configuration.

        July 2006 screen shot.

      • All I can offer for suggestions of mechanisms for the above, is an interaction of the magnetic connections from the Sun to each body, with the quadrupole magnetic moment of the Sun around its equator (ordered N S N S), most strongly at syzygies and quadratures of the four gas giants. But no suggestion of why the bodies display the polarities that they do.

      • Tony, 1251 summer was also hot. That occurred on the configuration of Uranus inferior conjunct Jupiter in quadrature with Saturn. From the Earth-Venus positions I can identify that late March through April 1251 would have been very warm, cooler and wetter briefly in June (pictured below), and hot through July and August. (see WUWT link above)
        1252 was with Jupiter square to Neptune, 1253 is picking up on Saturn opposite Neptune, before Jupiter goes square to Uranus in 1254, ending the hot episodes.

      • Ceresco Kid in reply to Tony Brown:
        “You and Judith are prime reasons why I feel as I do. You have done a massive amount of research and based on reading years of your comments I can tell you are a true professional with the best instincts for scientific inquiry. That is a quality everyone should aspire to. Thanks for your work.”

        Collating weather chronicles is clerical work. I have done the scientific research on the cause of these events. But strangely neither Tony or Judith seem at all interested in the findings. Even Piers Corbyn cannot find the time to comment. I guess I need to teach children about it before they grow up.

      • Ulric

        I have provided a great deal of information to you over the years. Collecting data such as weather records is only one small part of the process as the material gathered must be put into context and sufficient evidence put forward so as to provide a case that supports the argument and enable others to query the assumptions.

        I have suggested to you several times that you need to write a detailed article that argues your case cogently and provides sufficient material so that those with detailed knowledge of the subject can query your case and help to move it forward.

        As far as I am aware there is no completed article available. If there is I would certainly like to read the latest version and would be pleased to make comments on my area of expertise-the actual weather being experienced during the years/decades named that might suggest there is a close relationship to the planetary observations you have made


      • tb writes:
        “I have suggested to you several times that you need to write a detailed article that argues your case cogently and provides sufficient material so that those with detailed knowledge of the subject can query your case and help to move it forward.”

        That’s the first time I have heard that suggestion from you. No previous knowledge is required, most of the syzygy and quadrature rules are above. Anyone can confirm hundreds of events with this:
        and this:

        Help from others in verifying my unique findings is what would help move it forward.

      • tb writes:
        “I have provided a great deal of information to you over the years. Collecting data such as weather records is only one small part of the process as the material gathered must be put into context and sufficient evidence put forward so as to provide a case that supports the argument and enable others to query the assumptions.”

        You mailed me two or three compilations of weather chronicles in 2014. There is no case or argument being made with a list of weather events. Though when I mailed you very recently asking for comment on my Jovian configuration findings, you wrote a long reply arguing that you had no knowledge of the summer of 1251 being hot, despite the fact that I had already linked the reference here. And made no comment on my findings, which can identify the hot and cold events that no one has records of, down to seasonal resolution.

      • Ulric

        I understand you are getting frustrated by what you see as a lack of movement on your work. I mailed to you far more than ‘2 or 3’ weather compilations through 2014 and 2015 as I note up to some 50 personal email exchanges following our meeting and other exchanges through various blogs.

        I also put you in touch with Astro physicist Dr Lucie Green and Dr Kate Willetts at the Met office. I have also suggested that you write an article so your thoughts and arguments are put down in a manner that can be examined and challenged by those with appropriate knowledge of your subject matter.

        You said;

        “Though when I mailed you very recently asking for comment on my Jovian configuration findings, you wrote a long reply arguing that you had no knowledge of the summer of 1251 being hot, despite the fact that I had already linked the reference here. ”

        I think you have missed the point. The two (very knowledgeable but limited) references I had of 1251 did not support your hypothesis. I took a considerable amount of time to research it further and said to you that I thought YOU were right and they were wrong about 1251. Ascertaining the correct information about the pre instrumental past, preferably from a variety of unrelated sources ( many are dubious) is surely a first step in constructing any credible narrative?

        If you want to move your research on, as I have suggested I think this can best be done by writing an article. This may either be for here with Judith’s prior permission or for WUWT with Anthony Watts prior permission. Both may have topics they are not interested in covering. There may be other more relevant blogs more directly related to your interests, where the denizens will have more direct knowledge of the subject matter and can respond accordingly.

        You are perfectly capable of constructing an article using your own research and the pre instrumental weather information I and others have supplied you with. This can usefully be augmented by a section of the more readily verifiable instrumental age information and related observations that you will also have.

        Any article has a number of components. You will have your own ideas on the subject which you should follow, but if I were a reader I would want the following from any article on this hypothesis;

        1) A summary of what you were hoping to achieve in the article. Are these global findings or restricted to certain areas?

        2) The interrogation of a meaningful number of pre instrumental and instrumental records that can be shown to support your hypothesis. I would say 10 and 10 although you might not think this a sufficiently large number to provide robust results.

        3) You set out and demonstrate the calculations in detail that planetary alignments can have caused either extremely hot or extremely cold weather or perhaps a severe event of some description in those specified years. Only the extremely committed are going to have knowledge of syzygy and quadrature rules. You will have to do the work for your readership.

        4) You then need to clarify the cause and effect of how the specific weather conditions of the cited years have been caused by the alignments you have calculated. Does this result in more or less sunspots that indirectly affect weather on earth or is there a more direct impact by affecting wind patterns or creating more cloud etc? Just saying a year or a season was extremely hot or cold is not sufficient. You have to relate the detailed observations to your calculations.

        5) You then need to set out some conclusions, and to subsequently deal with subsequent criticism and comment as people discuss your points. For example there will presumably be some years where the alignments do not seem to have had an effect, or there were effects without the alignments. In other words are the alignments you note always responsible for the weather conditions or only sometimes, if so, why?

        In this section I would like to see some short term forecasts of what we can expect in the next few years.

        My own pre instrumental records begin in 1200 and go up to 1659 with a big gap in the 1400’s.They are very predominately related to CET or wider England and UK. I have very limited information on European records.

        As a preliminary move and If you want some assistance with this-although you must already have a great deal of the information that Ii and others have sent to you or you have researched yourself- I would suggest that I select 10 (or more) remarkable years from the most detailed pre instrumental records I have and give them to you in this public forum.

        You can if you wish then privately give me your results. If they tally with my information that will then form a good basis for that part of your article which you can augment with the 10 (or more) instrumental records.

        If they don’t tally it will give you the opportunity to revisit your calculations (or for me to revisit my records).

        I suggest this way round as the more sceptical –and there will be many-will otherwise believe you have adjusted your results to suit the records provided. With an interesting hypothesis such as yours it would be unfortunate if unnecessary question marks surrounded its conclusions. More people will likely want to shoot you down than support you, so your hypothesis needs to be robust.

        If there is some other completely different way in which you feel I can help you please suggest it, but i do not have the knowledge of jovian or other alignments to properly comment on your findings and hypothesis. I really do feel that if you want to advance it further it needs to be set out in a detailed and structured manner.


      • 2 weather compilations, one from the MetO, and Merles diary. You did not put me in touch with Lucie Green, you wrote ‘I have heard before that Lucie is not very contactable’, and I never heard back from her.

        “Just saying a year or a season was extremely hot or cold is not sufficient.”

        Who knows how the solar wind made 1976 and 2003 hot? nobody it seems. In fact having extensive enough hindcasts is sufficient.

        “I suggest this way round as the more sceptical –and there will be many-will otherwise believe you have adjusted your results to suit the records provided.”

        That’s is insulting, but also irrational as I can’t adjust anything.

        “Only the extremely committed are going to have knowledge of syzygy and quadrature rules.”

        It’s very simple logic, anyone can apply it. For example extreme cold events regularly occur at the tee-squares of 1) Jupiter opposite Neptune and square to Saturn or Uranus, 2) Saturn opposite Uranus and square to Jupiter or Neptune. The most frequent two body cold event is Jupiter opposite Neptune, the fastest and the slowest bodies.

        Jupiter opposite Neptune = cold.
        Jupiter square Neptune = hot.
        Saturn opposite Neptune = hot.
        Saturn square Neptune = cold.
        Jupiter opposite Uranus = hot.
        Jupiter square Uranus = cold.
        Saturn opposite Uranus = cold.
        Saturn square Uranus = hot.
        Uranus opposite Neptune = hot.
        Uranus square Neptune = cold.
        Saturn opposite Jupiter = cold.
        Saturn square Jupiter = hot.

        I don’t need help in systematic and thorough testing. I was hoping that you may explore what I am showing you through interest in the cause of historic weather extremes. But unfortunately you seem more intent on making me jump through hoops.

      • Ulric

        I really do not know what to suggest. I have spent a lot of time over the last few days in what I thought were helpful ways.

        Nobody is insulting you or trying to make you jump through hoops.

        If you want to introduce your ideas to a wider world I had thought an article was the best way of doing so and suggested what I thought was a useful way of approaching it.

        I am interested in the cause of historic weather extremes. I am also interested that others should be made aware of them in a manner that is convincing to them.

        I really don’t know how you will get your ideas out to a wider audience -if that is what you want-if not by way of an article. Perhaps you would like to suggest an alternative route?


      • You don’t need a published article to explore and verify my findings. Talking about the wider audience is talking around you addressing my work. But maybe you see my findings as a threat to your CET reconstruction, as you are very ‘precious’ about your conclusions. For example where I have a definitive measure of warmth in 1614 and 1615, you argued against it on the basis of very fragmented, exaggerated, and contradictory snippets of weather chronicles, and an invalid excuse of volcanic aerosols causing a cold winter. Yet your reconstruction is still cold in those years. In fact I just had a scan through your CET reconstruction, and spotted tens of annual temp’s that you clearly have wildly out. You’re sticking to your narrative, I’m sticking to my science.

      • Tony, I am not actually ready to write a full article, there is another stage of work to done on the inferior conjunctions. What I am sharing here, is a work in progress set of testable results which define the logic, and express a large proportion of the most extreme cold and hot seasonal anomalies in the mid latitudes, typically in Europe.
        The primary reason for a very cold NW Europe winter not occurring during a ‘cold’ Jovian tee-square or opposition, is the relative positions of Earth and Venus timing the monthly to seasonal scale anomalies. As I discussed above with the 1251 AD summer example. Another reason could be regional blocking, like in Jan-Feb 2014, in which case another region gets the cold hit.

  7. The articles about the warming hole in US Midwest, cooling in Antarctica, colder in Siberia and long term cooling of Southern Ocean SST and other areas with an absence of warming, makes me wonder why there is so much criticism of the purported Medieval Warm Period since it supposedly was not world wide and lacked synchronization. It sounds as if the current warm period should be in line for the same kind of criticism.

    • If you go back and add up all the Medieval Warm Period thermometers and find the globe is warmer there won’t be any criticisms.

      • If, as many believe, CO2 has a role in current warming, then it’s impact can be additive to what a repeat of the MWP would have been absent any CO2 influence. These are not incompatible or mutually exclusive theories. If it’s a 50/50 proposition then for the MWP to have existed, it’s quite logical that the MWP would be lower than current temperatures.

        I might point out that 10 years ago the establishment line was that the MWP never existed because it wasn’t global, warming wasn’t synchronous, and the amplitude didn’t match today’s temperatures. As new evidence has come in to refute the first two objections, all the marbles are being placed on the last claim. Tick tock, tick tock. As time marches on and science does what it’s supposed to do, who knows how long before the amplitude issue is resolved. Of course, if it’s still a thorn in the side of the establishment, the Climategate emails can be resurrected, and by fiat the MWP can just be made to disappear.

        The MWP issue reminds me of the geothermal impact on SLR from Antarctica and Greenland. First, there was no such thing as geothermal activity. Then when it was discovered, it had questionable and minimal impact. Then it had a marginal impact. But now as more studies have been made it appears the geothermal heat flux is greater than thought and might be contributing to SLR through accelerated basal melting and other ancillary effects. The simple narrative of everything resting on the back of CO2 just doesn’t cut it anymore. Discerning people know this.

      • that the MWP never existed because it wasn’t global,

        Nonsense. Just abject nonsense.

      • Just a bunch of sidewinder drivel.

        There is not one single study that has even begum to establish that the MWP was warmer than present.

      • The MWP 1000 years ago was a blip in the long-term descent from the Holocene Optimum.

        Why are the skeptics so focused on that? What is its importance?

      • “I might point out that 10 years ago the establishment line was that the MWP never existed”
        Just dumb nonsense. The AR4 from 11 years ago had a complete 2 page box (6.4) specifically devoted to the MWP.

      • Revisionist history. It’s being denied every day. You guys can’t even agree among yourselves. Get your stories straight.

        JCH. My point is that if one wants to attribute 50% of current warming to NV and 50% to CO2 then there is no need to show the MWP was warmer than now. CO2 warming is just on top of what son of MWP would have been.

      • cerscokid, why is the MWP more important to you than the Holocene Optimum? I have always wondered about that obsession with a blip in a cooling trend. My graph was from the most recent and most global datasets available (PAGES2k). You should check into it for a view of the current state. Here it is from a 2017 article. Spot the MWP.


      • Ask the author of the infamous Climategate email “have to get rid of the MWP”. What ever period one chooses, the whole point of getting “rid of” anything is to develop the narrative of the current warming being unprecedented. If it’s unprecedented then that counters the skeptic’s view that the climate is always changing. The further back in time you go the less confidence you should have in the temperatures, especially to only to tenths of a degree.

        My own journey for the last 10 years was this. Totally accepting of AGW in the 1980s when I was working, I had no reason to think anything else. Then 10 years ago, since I’m a jerk and I was retired, I wanted to pick on the Left on HP. So I began to look into every catastrophic story about global warming to counter what was being said on HP. I wasn’t really expecting to find anything of substance to what the warmists were saying. But little piece of evidence by little piece of evidence the entire story didn’t add up. From previous warming in the Arctic to subsidence in every single location where the media showed impacts of SLR to West Antarctica being inherently unstable, there was always an alternative explanation for the causes of the supposed effects of CO2. In every case there was natural variability lurking around. I have book marked hundreds of studies and articles that, at a minimum should make a reasonable person stop and think about the catastrophic outcomes portrayed by the MSM and some scientists. I was going to list some of the questions in the previous post but it became overwhelming and too much for one comment. Some of the horror stories in the press are just too much to take, especially when major publications like the NYT and Washington Post don’t take the time to explain the uncertainties and the actual science. That happens on a regular basis on the Antarctica story of meters of SLR. Yes, maybe, in thousands of years. Now, no one is able to even explain Sydney, or Brest or any number of locations that have sub 2 mm/yr rates.
        I’m agnostic about climate sensitivity and accept an impact of CO2, and am a 51/49% skeptic. I could flip very easily, but have found no compelling reason to do so.
        If the top scientists were as professional and as seemingly circumspect as Judith is, I probably never would have questioned the establishment. But some have engaged in reprehensible, juvenile behavior ,not fitting for a top tier leader in their profession. Use of the word denier constantly by publications that are supposed to have some dignity and class doesn’t engender confidence. It’s my nature to rebel against that stuff regardless of the science.
        For now, I will go on collecting bits of information that cumulatively just beg for more questions.

      • “Ask the author of the infamous Climategate email “have to get rid of the MWP”.”
        And who was that?

      • Deal a mortal blow Overpeck Jan 13 2005.

        Nitpicking at the edges.

      • “Deal a mortal blow Overpeck Jan 13 2005”

        Citation please.

      • No, look it up yourself, like I did.

      • They also forget about glacial melt 1800-1950. Latent heat implies a lot of natural warming.

      • “Period of relative warmth in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere in comparison with the subsequent several centuries.”


        The rest of the explanation is somewhat of an admission, but not too much, and certainly not as much as the skeptics say. What the fact that there was a some lukewarm kind of thing then, doesn’t mean much of anything. And the skeptics tell lies.

      • cerescokid, as you imply, the skeptics were talking about the MWP in 2005, but that was 13 years ago, and since then it has gone away with more global data like PAGES2k. If the skeptics got more up to date they would do themselves a service of not using talking points from a decade ago. Your MWP comment earlier was a throwback to those days. Next it will be UHI making a comeback. These were their main themes when I got interested prior to 2010, along with not trusting the global temperature records or that the last century has been warming more than in the last thousand years.

      • Perhaps McIntyre offers balance:

        “The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.”


        The MWP is based on proxies mostly and I suppose the CET. I’d say we are in the small sample size area with this, on top of relying on proxies. Proxies are used to argue all kinds of alarming things. Why not for the MWP?

        “…and with the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming.”

        Changing history and societies. Lasting centuries. And this knowledge is because of what? I don’t recall a lot of CMIP runs matching up with the last 1500 years. And this was in about 2005.

        The only that make it all work is CO2. That was nice. Do 1500 years then.

        Tacit knowledge (knowing-how): knowledge embedded in the human mind through experience and jobs. Know-how and learning embedded within the minds of people. Personal wisdom and experience, context-specific, more difficult to extract and codify. Tacit knowledge Includes insights, intuitions.

        Explicit knowledge (knowing-that): knowledge codified and digitized in books, documents, reports, memos, etc. Documented information that can facilitate action. Knowledge what is easily identified, articulated, shared and employed.

        So, the AR4 or whatever is what we control. Tacit knowledge is that darn human nature thing. Our codified and endorsed thing must beat human nature that knows things vary. Our documentation must show CO2 is kicking variability’s butt.

        Knowing-how: We see what nature does.
        Knowing-that: We claim, we are right, you suck. We went to college and got college jobs and most of us have tenure. You are a bunch of deplorables.

        Knowing-that CO2 blah blah blah means we Know-how. Name any thing in for any time scale of climate. Know that CO2, blah, blah, blah. Knowing-how is replaced by one variable. It’s God’s will.

      • Thanks to the CA link from Ragnaar we see that “dealing a mortal blow” refers not to the MWP itself, but the misuse of it as some kind of analog for the present warming. That analog wishfully supposes that rising CO2 has no dominant role in the current warming. But the point is moot now because the MWP is not as significant in more recent reconstructions.

      • jimd

        I suggest you re read the link from Ragnaar as you have misconstrued it

        It is clear the author wants to downplay the importance of MWP and any similar warm periods should be portrayed ‘dismissively.’

        “So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to mention the others in the same dismissive effort. ”


      • “No, look it up yourself, like I did.”

        I did!
        That’s why I asked you – to catch you out.
        There is nothing definitive.
        Just a blurred memory of someone saying something to someone on an email …


        In short a classic Denier’s myth.

      • tonyb, it is obvious from reading it that he is not dismissing the MWP’s existence or that of other warm periods, only its use by “sceptics” in analogs to the present warming. The sentence on sceptics quoted by Ragnaar is very clear on that. There was a lot of that use as an analog going on at the time, so he was referring to that. This is an example of words being twisted and taken out of context again. Anyway, the MWP died a natural death when more data came along. The Holocene Optimum far exceeds it and the MWP is now left as a blip in the decline from that maximum.

      • A very long time ago Mann and some other climate scientists assembled with the stated intent to “constrain” the Medieval Warm Period, which the ignorant apparently assumed meant “to erase it.” Bloomin’ bone-in-nose boneheads.

      • ” the stated intent to “constrain” the Medieval Warm Period”
        Yes, it was bone-headed. But the word was “contain”. Numskulls got excited about the fact that Mann, having analysed the millennium starting 1000 AD, noted that the MWP started before that date, and so wanted to do a 2000 year period which would contain the MWP.

      • This is a groupthink trick. Claim that the group intrinsic climate change denier dynamic identified does not exist because no one in science had definitively denied the MWP – ignoring the clamoring arena – while calling everyone else a bonehead.

      • Jimd

        ‘The mwp died a natural death’


        As I have written a number of times, Dr Mann did believe in the mwp. He also believed that it was in places and at times, warmer than today


        He believed this was restricted to Britain, the north Atlantic and northern Europe. He was also unsure as to how synchronous it was. The records available for the areas above are far better in quality and number than the novel proxies he used to determine temperatures elsewhere.

        CET is considered a reasonable proxy for a very much wider area as observed by the British and Dutch met offices amongst others.

        The hockey stick observed in figure 1 of the linked paper is as dramatic as the one constructed in the modern era using the methods written about numerous times


      • tonyb, yes it was an northern hemisphere, not global, phenomenon. This means you can account for it with something like ocean circulation changes, rather than a global energy balance change. Internal versus external variability. Big difference because internal variability self cancels in a global average.

      • Jimd

        The areas noted not only have good records but are a very useful proxy for a much wider area, the northern hemisphere.

        It is reasonable to assume that under those circumstances they likely offer a better proxy than the novel and, it is said, flawed proxies, used in certain reconstructions.


      • The PAGES2k reconstruction uses about 700 proxies globally. It also shows the MWP as an NH phenomenon. It didn’t disappear entirely but became less significant when the SH and tropical areas were added in.

      • Jimd

        There are tens of thousands of robust northern hemisphere proxies. I think we are in agreement that it was at times warmer than today

        Perhaps you would like to Iink to the small number of novel proxies for the SH.


      • The CET series is not a proxy for the earth. The claim that was being made was that the MWP was as warm as today, and perhaps warmer.

        Based upon this:

      • JimD

        Based on your Pages 2K graph how much warmer is it today than the peak of the MWP? Also, of the warming that began ~1800, how much occurred pre 1950. In tenths of a degree.

      • cerescokid, from the thermometers, the 30-year temperature is 0.8 C warmer in 2000 than in 1900, so you can imagine what that looks like on that graph. PAGES2k does not resolve the very recent warming as well as thermometers, so I go with the thermometers. By this measure 75% of the warming in the last 200 years has occurred since 1950.

      • jimd

        thanks for demonstrating the paucity of reliable proxies for the southern hemisphere. they don’t begin to compare in robustness and numbers to those available from the NH. From that we know the warmth during the mwp.


      • The southern hemisphere is mostly oceans, so they look at corals. There are trees there too in S. America, S. Africa and Australia, so they look at those. You decided not to believe it. Fine. Those are paleoclimate scientists telling you that your precious MWP was not robust globally and all that is left is a blip. What was it to you anyway? Why do you feel you need it? Move on. It’s gone.

      • Just eyeballing it I see no more than .3 from 1900 to 2000. Is there something wrong with the Y axis labeling?

      • The thermometers say 0.8 (1900-2000) or 0.5 if you go 1900-1985 which is the midpoint of the 1970-2000. I don’t know what years the last point represents, but it is very sensitive to that as you can imagine with it changing nearly 0.2 C per decade. It’s 0.5 C in just 30 years, so it is quite steep recently.

      • Steven Mosher


        “There are tens of thousands of robust northern hemisphere proxies”
        1. point to the top 1000 &
        2. the actual data.&
        3. the test you did to settle the science about their robustness.

        oh.please make 700 of those SST proxies.

        actual data please.

      • Jim

        You routinely dismiss observations out of hand, whether recorded in press clippings, diaries or old science papers.

        Yet you accept without question tree rings and corals. Why is that?

        Depending on their location and type (and some are much better as samples than others) trees grow in summer, with strongest growth during the early part, they adhere to their circadian processes at night and consequently suspend or curtail growth. They are highly susceptible to micro climates, so a tree in dense forest is likely to show different ring characteristics (because of moisture, sunshine, temperature, growth rates, etc) to one on the outskirts of the forest.

        They also by their very presence create their own micro climate so if they were not there in the first place the local climate would be different.

        Yet you take such unpromising and very limited material that records inconsistent ‘data’ for a fraction of the year and believe it can give worthwhile and scientifically valid temperature readings, such that it outscores the observations given by people who actually experienced the weather and its impact on their lives. .

        Please clarify why, bearing in mind their highly variable and limited growth rates and micro climate impacts, why you believe tree rings are the highly valuable and scientifically robust climate indicators you believe them to be? Thanks.


      • Hi Tony

        I’m afraid the human mind is susceptible to fooling itself (hmmm, who said that) a little too easily and graphs become reality and paleo reconstruction becomes more certain than is possible. I applaud all the work done by the scientists in developing these data but there are limitations on what we can glean from them. On the ground, personal, real time observations still are the most reliable. There are innumerable uncertainties and estimates each step of the way in collecting the samples and inferring temperatures and weather from the characteristics of the samples and deducing the significance of the representation of their findings. I’ve noticed on many estimates for SLR and glaciers that error bars are multiples of the base estimates. I have to chuckle each time I see that about their usefulness, but they are probably more representative of reality than some of findings that are hyped up as facts.

        In this science there seems to be a paucity of humility, unlike anything I’ve seen. But if one is on an urgent mission to save mankind, maybe it’s understandable. I’m not sure they should be given a pass, though.

      • tonyb, my position is to consistently to trust the experts. Yes, paleoclimate scientists have to deal with the things you are mentioning, and believe me it is not new to them. By having 700 different proxies they get a sense of what is microclimate and what is global. The whole reason for having so many different types of proxies is to cancel these things out and look for a general signal. What proof leads you to believe the that MWP was global? It was warmer in the Arctic region and proxies as well as records show that. Proxies don’t support a warm SH at the same time. Perhaps before or after, but not in the same centuries. They can resolve centuries as warm and cold.

      • cerescokid, skeptics have always been against proxies. It goes back to Mann. There is nothing new there. The proxies are not telling them anything they like, so they have to dismiss them all. They barely accept thermometers, and only like some satellite products. It’s a results driven bias. Don’t like the result – shoot the messenger.

      • jimd

        Thanks for your answer. Now would you like to put your sceptical hat on and answer my question instead of indulging in blind trust that every branch of science has all the answers.

        Here it is again:

        “Please clarify why, bearing in mind their highly variable and limited growth rates and micro climate impacts, you believe tree rings are the highly valuable and scientifically robust climate indicators you believe them to be? Thanks.”


      • tonyb, I will just send you to the first site I found and you can tell me in your expert opinion on using tree rings why they are wrong.

      • Ceresco kid

        Your first sentence in your reply to me exactly matches the great wisdom and conceit of Humpty Dumpty in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

        “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

        “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

        “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

        Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper some of them- particularly verbs: they’re the proudest- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

        Impenetrability indeed!


      • jimd

        I am well aware of the literature, have been on two short courses and spoken to those dating the beams in our local cathedral. which is why I am sceptical.

        firstly it is only certain trees that can be used. They respond better at certain altitudes and latitudes with either of those factors making a difference to results. ( a thermometer at 2 metres above the ground and at an altitude of 20 metres responding vastly differently to one at 30 metres and an altitude of 500 metres)

        The Trees responds to the whole package of elements it experiences from , temperature, sunshine, rain, drought, wind, sunshine, whether it has been ravaged by fire, chopped with an axe. had animal damage, been knocked back by insects, whether it has been under a canopy at the centre of a forest and got little rain or sun or at times has been on the outside edge when it received all the sun and rain and wind going, then back in the middle again.

        It responds to the number of growing days which will vary each year.it also responds only in summer and the growing period varies according to location, altitude and latitude and is invariably greater towards the start of the growth period than at the end. It also slows down or stops at night so nothing is being recorded.

        So at the very best if everything worked according to best theory, you might get an extremely vague temperature response that covers a fraction of the year, but in reality is an unscientific proxy as the variables are very large and unknown year by year., .


      • tonyb, I think you are saying that tree rings can tell you nothing about climate trends at all even when you have a lot of them from different parts of the world and other independent types of proxies to back them up and they have also calibrated them against thermometer data. Is that your gist?

      • Anyway, if you have any interest at all in finding out more, this is a good summary of the PAGES2k project.

      • jimd

        I think they have little value as a ‘scientific’ measure of temperature as there are so many variables. They have been way over promoted in importance. Why not use boreholes which show a different temperature profile to the version given by tree rings?.

        Can tree rings give us an indicator that things were drier or wetter in a specific area? They may have some use for that, but again we don’t know the variables. Was the tree shaded from receiving rain or did it get the full amount going or something in between? None of us can know what happened on a daily basis during the life of a long lived tree..

        I am very well aware of the Pages project thank you. What on earth did you find to support your views before it came along?


      • tonyb, boreholes can only give a very diffuse version of older climates because of the nature of thermal diffusion on which they operate. The further back, the more diffuse and averaged out the signal becomes. It is the skeptics who promote the importance of the MWP and paleo data supports that in the NH. Paleo data also supports the Holocene Optimum and Ice Ages and changes of climate in the last billion years. These have been part of climate science for a century. Maybe there are some skeptics who dismiss it as art or they just don’t trust the scientists who work on it to be objective. They have a picture of what paleoclimate global temperatures should look like in their mind, and what they see from PAGES2k just doesn’t fit that, so they have to dismiss it.

      • I didn’t say I didn’t like proxies. I said a little more humility would add to the credibility of climate scientists. There is too much absolutism in the field. Other professions are only too eager to admit how much more they need to know. Not some of the opinion makers who get carried away with their perceived knowledge and self importance. Including some denizens who have reduced an incredibly complex issue to a game of Go Fish.

      • cerescokid, if by “humility” you mean ignoring the story the proxies are telling you, that is not how science operates. It puts out that story and the data that supports it. Then its up to other people to check or refute it with that data or some more of their own. Every published scientific statement is provisional, some more certain than others, but always with evidence to support it.

      • I’m fully aware of that. And they all are performing their roles to the best their abilities. It’s the deductive inferences drawn from their work that sometimes go beyond the capabilities of humans to gain the sought out perfect knowledge. The institution of climate science needs to take a deep breath and become more public about the inherent uncertainties. When I see leaders of the establishment calling out, in the most public forum possible, the unwarranted horror stories by the large MSM outlets and explaining the uncertainties and the totality of what’s known and all the challenges confronting scientists in those areas, then and only then will they have earned my confidence.

        Exaggerations about the collapse of the Antarctica Ice Sheet is an example. While that may happen, the fact that some studies conclude it as a possibility in a millennium, that time frame is either omitted totally or buried deep in the story. News organizations have a mission of showing a profit. That requires eyeballs and that means extravagant headlines to get those eyeballs. The establishment and media are in a mutual admiration society knowing they further each other’s goals.

      • cerescokid, you would be advised to just read the scientific papers, press reports on them, and summary reports by the scientists themselves rather than whatever source you are using. The IPCC report is very downplayed, similarly national summaries by their scientists, but policymakers saw enough there to enact policies to reduce emissions. A key aspect is the cost of changes that are several times larger than we have already seen and that would result from no emissions policies. Do we want 600 or 700 ppm which accelerates glacier loss and increases heatwaves, fires, floods, diseases, storms, droughts, famines? Most would say no, the climate is just fine as it is and we should try to keep it that way if possible.

      • What in the world do you think I’ve been reading for years. The actual papers and then remembering them and then comparing what the scientists said with the language referencing time frames and uncertainties and then reading the press coverage, conveniently leaving out the science part. Why do you think I brought it up. It was only because I witnessed it first hand that I noticed an obvious trend. You need to get out into the real world and read fewer propaganda pieces so you have one foot in the same universe the rest of us inhabit.

      • cerescokid, your concerns seem to be based on your reading too much about collapsing Antarctic ice sheets as though they affect policy. Policymakers look at threats and risks. Risks coming from climate change include sea-levels rising faster, droughts, floods, storms, famines, diseases, heatwaves. Once they realized that there is a threat from business as usual, they decided to do something about it. You have not reached the point of saying 600-700 ppm, and still rising, at 2100 is a threat yet, but you won’t find any credible scientists saying that these levels are fine. Most people would want to stabilize the climate well before 2100, preferably below 500 ppm, and that is why we have Paris.

      • I chose one example out of dozens and dozens that I’ve read over the last decade because I’d rather spend time with my grandkids on our lake vacation than list all the references and I think Antarctica is the most interesting issue. If I had nothing better to do I could go through my hundreds of bookmarks and provide more. But I would just have to read more of your drivel.

        I have taken your comments with a grain of salt ever since a few years ago when we went round and round about whether the AR5 said Antarctica was contributing only .27mm/yr to GMSLR. I said it did which was obvious from the table. You kept saying no. Of course, I was proven right subsequently based on countless other citations for the number from other sources.

      • cerescokid, that sounds about right for Antarctica. Greenland is contributing up to three times as much, so between them the total is 1 mm/yr mostly rising to that level from almost zero in the last 20 years and accounting for the sea-level acceleration over the same period. I think sea-level rise acceleration is a big issue that the IPCC typically is criticized for being too conservative about in their projections.

      • Jim D; “The MWP 1000 years ago was a blip in the long-term descent from the Holocene Optimum.

        Why are the skeptics so focused on that? What is its importance?”

        The Holocene Optima is only 10,000 years long

        Why are the Catastrophes so focused on that? What is it’s importance?

      • ordvic, I am not focused on the Holocene Optimum because it is understood why it was warm. What I am asking is why is the MWP blip such a key point for the skeptics and I notice you did not have a response but tried to sidetrack instead.

      • Jim D, It’s obviously important to them as It was as nearly as warm or warmer than today. It also is said by them that the Holocene optima was close to the same as today

      • ordvic, the Holocene Optimum was warm because the Milankovitch precession cycle favored a warm Arctic. Now the precession cycle favors a cold Arctic but it became warm again, with the trend being especially anomalous after the LIA. This warming is a headscratcher for the CO2 skeptics who believe Milankovitch should dominate.

  8. Dr. Curry, Your readers may be interested in this link:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/30/climatologys-startling-error-an-update/

  9. Here is a Global Warming Contour Map, which shows the warming rate for the Stratosphere, since 1960. Notice the “slowdown”, which started about 1995.

    You can see contour maps for the Upper and Lower Troposphere at my website:
    The Stratosphere, Upper Troposphere, and Lower Troposphere, each have very different warming rates.
    Check out the Robot-Train Contour Maps, to see how contour maps work. Also, see the Legend for Global Warming Contour Maps.

  10. Geoff Sherrington

    Re paper “Attributing high impact extreme events across timescales — a case study of four different events”. [link]
    Reading it here coincided with an essay by Patrick Moore at WUWT:

    Be that as it may, the authors model 4 events, each being in a different country, 3.1 Thailand floods in 2010, 3.2 Cold wave in Peru in 2013 and more. One would imaging that there are event areas that have more observational data than these do.
    For example, as an Australian, we hear each summer about heat waves and sometimes bush fires that sometimes happen at similar times. Australians are conditioned by the Establishment to believe that heat waves are getting hotter, longer and more frequent. This surmise is not supported by the data from 6 Australian capitals that I analysed. Here, for example, is the history of heat waves for Sydney, which is home for about 15% of our population. These are simple graphs from official data with no playing around, homogenizing or whatever.
    It might have been preferable for the authors of the paper above to choose sites like this with a long history of observation of many climate factors.
    What do you think?

    The Y axis is the average of the maximum temperature over either 1, 3, 5 or 10 consecutive days, the hottest such average for each year.

  11. If CO2 emissions continue unabated, Bretherton says, “It’s possible that most of our low clouds in the tropics would melt away. And we are all going to die?

  12. I am on a spontaneous road trip. I told everyone I was going to the Great Ocean road to see the Great Southern Ocean. In Australia we don’t need to be made great again. Much of the world’s weather and climate spins off polar zones – ENSO, PDO, AMO etc. And cold winds are pushing off the Antarctic as recent negative polar annular values* would suggest they should – and I figure I am close enough. Now my friend Daisy wants to do it – great – we’ll use her new turbo diesel Suzuki Vitara. We might wait until summer.

    This is the earthnullschool near real time wind field over the southern hemisphere. What could be done with many layers and regional scales – and including cloud and ice – would be stupendously amazing. Not enough to enable climate prediction or projection – but super fun.


    More super rich people – celebrities even – should buy into this super climate computing project.



  13. I am sure I’ve linked to this before:

    Long take a on variability starting about at 15:00. One take is climate variability averages out. Variability is noise. The punchline is, variability or noise, is the system. To lead everything with CO2 plus noise isn’t understanding the system.

    A driving force in reductionist science is to get rid of noise. Too great a focus on noise as noise gives us a low dimensioned science. Climate science has many dimensions. Noise averages out. You get this:

    Banner plot from the IPCC. Noise averages out.

    Sapolosky. Worth watching the whole series of lectures of which the link above is one of.

  14. sheldonjwalker

    Many warmists like to claim that the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was ONLY regional. As if that means that it is not important.

    But what these warmists don’t realise, is that the present day global warming is ONLY regional, as well.

    Can I prove that? Of course I can. I divided the earth up into 8 equal sized areas, by latitude. They were:
    90N to 48N, 48N to 30N, 30N to 14N, 14N to Equator, Equator to 14S, 14S to 30S, 30S to 48S, and 48S to 90S

    As you move from north to south, the warming rate decreases consistently. From +3.98, to +2.53, to +1.99, to +1.63, to +1.61, to +1.29, to +1.07, to +0.26 (all in degrees Celsius per century).

    Look at the brightly coloured Global Warming Contour Maps, which show the decreasing warming rates, from north to south, as colours. They go left to right, and top to bottom. Look at the legend, to see what warming rates each colour represents.

    I will put full sized versions of these contour maps on my website when I have time. Until then, enjoy the eye candy:

    Here is the legend:

    • Geoff Sherrington


      Nice graphics to illustrate that early preconceptions that global warming would be global and ell-encompassing and steady were not to happen.
      Would it not be nice, given this observation, for some author/scientist to attempt an explanation for these regional differences, one based on physics, chemistry, etc. Alternatively, how these patterns justify that CO2 is the global control knob. Geoff.

    • The easiest way to see the global nature is a map of the average difference between 21st century temperatures so far and 20th century temperatures.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        No, Jim D, that is not so. I have no interest in global temperature anomaly maps that are largely infills of missing values, extrapolations and adjustments. I am not claiming that global temperatures have not changes. I am claiming that the main explanations of global warming have a major deficiency, namely, they cannot explain a mechanism whereby the distribution of warming is selective and unexplainable. I also claim that extreme events like heatwaves are being hypes up out of nowhere.
        Also we did do an Australia wide comparison of the best official data from the 1930-1950 era, with the present. Our finding was that it was hard to see even a 0.5 deg C increase in warming over that century, when the official figure is double that. We put the difference down to adjustments.
        I do not get any reward for pointing out embarrassing misinterpretations of data. These things are done to correct poor science. Geoff
        http://www.geoffstuff.com/explanation_chris_gilham.pdf http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html

      • Actually the warming is very explainable. Continental areas warm faster than the oceans due to thermal inertia and the northern continents and Arctic warm fastest due to the loss of ice and snow for larger parts of each year.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Jim D,
        You can’t really believe that what you wrote means anything quantitative, do you?
        You have made a summary of static events. In a dynamic situation, the continental areas might warm first, then the oceanic would catch up later. There is no sign of such a mechanism in what I have presented. It all just stays flat and featureless. Geoff.

      • I gave you a quantitative picture, which you have not, and until you do I have no idea what you are talking about.

    • It is always regional with global fluid flow physics transporting heat through the Earth system. But there is perpetual climate change of course – a little cooling in the last few centuries and and this is climate so it is deterministically chaotic.

      Heat and cold in one sense simple. Cloud, ice, ocean temperature and planetary energy budget changes. Over moments to ages.

      Modulated by winds, storms and great ocean gyres after a month of nothing much happening again. .

      Oceans – btw – do not warm more slowly than land but more deeply through eddies and countered by buoyant convection. Oceans heat and cool with a very much stronger irradiance driver than CO2 on an annual basis. Thermal inertia in such an orbitally driven oscillatory system is effectively zero.

  15. Geoff Sherrington

    The paper from above that reads “Climate change made 2018 European heatwave up to ‘five times’ more likely” is not sustainable if events are compared to elsewhere on Earth.
    Here is the heatwave pattern for my home city of Melbourne Australia from 1856, using unadjusted BOM official temperature data.
    A similar pattern exists for the 6 main Australian State capital cities.
    A plausible first question of this graph is “What heatwave?”
    In the present context, a second question is “Why with such boring heatwave graphs in Melbourne, why do we read about horror elsewhere?”
    Like, where is the all pervasive, increasing, heating effect of climate change here? Sure, some days are hotter in summer some years, as the graph shows, you live with that for a short time, but where is the evidence for more of them, hotter ones, longer ones, horror ones? It is simply not there for Melbourne unless you strain your definition of heatwave or invent future stuff. Geoff

    • “using unadjusted BOM official temperature data”

      Was there any change in time-of-day recordings? Did any stations move?

      We all know that Australia has seen increasing temps and increasing heat waves, no matter what method is used UNLESS it is some random sample of a city without adjustments, like what Heller would be doing.


      • Scott Koontz | August 5, 2018 at 8:39 am |“using unadjusted BOM official temperature data”Was there any change in time-of-day recordings? Did any stations move?”

        BOM shamelessly puts this up on their website to advertise the shocking adjustments they do and this is only at one of many sites

        “We all know that Australia has seen increasing temps and increasing heat waves, no matter what method is usedAn example of the adjustment processKerang in northern Victoria is one of the 112 ACORN-SAT locations. The site was moved one kilometre to the north on 18 January 2000, from a location in the town centre near the Post Office to a more open site in parkland.
        This site move resulted in a ‘drop’ in overnight minimum temperatures, particularly in the cooler months. The move, as is common for shifts to more open locations, had a larger impact on clear, calm nights (which are more likely to be cold, especially in winter) than it did on cloudy and windy nights. The adjustment procedure takes this into account (see below), with temperatures from the old site adjusted by 0.8 °C on the coldest nights in July, but only 0.1 °C on the mildest nights.
        As a result of the adjustment for the move in 2000, average pre-2000 minimum temperatures were adjusted by approximately 0.4 °C, but extreme low minimum temperatures had a larger adjustment of between 0.6 °C and 1.1 °C. These adjustments result in the observed trends at Kerang being more consistent with other sites in the region.”

        Notice how they apply a shifting adjustment scale for colder nights to remove colder records.

        Care to comment on the bias, Scott.

      • Kerang is in the same state as Nick Stokes.
        Any comment Nick?
        This is official BOM skullduggery.
        Boasted about on their web page.
        About ACORN-S
        An example of the adjustment process.

      • Care to comment? Sure! If you’re not adjusting, you have no reason to even begin to step foot in this type of discussion. Anyone who uses raw data is a fool and clearly a non-scientist.

        Care to comment on why non-scientists always use raw data? Care to comment on why global raw temps show even more warming? Care to comment on why all major science organizations come to the same warming trend conclusions while the non-scientists cherry pick single sites?

      • A good rant Scotty would be proud if I had done the same myself. So many contradictions in one short paragraph.

        Scott Koontz | August 5, 2018 at 11:13 am |
        Care to comment? Sure! If you’re not adjusting, you have no reason to even begin to step foot in this type of discussion. Anyone who uses raw data is a fool and clearly a non-scientist.
        Care to comment on why non-scientists always use raw data? Care to comment on why global raw temps show even more warming? Care to comment on why all major science organizations come to the same warming trend conclusions while the non-scientists cherry pick single sites?

        Raw data is what everyone uses Scotty, especially scientists. They are not fools. You have to have raw data to manufacture all your data sets.
        What you cannot do is pass off contrived data as the raw data.
        BOM pretends the Acorn data set is the raw, real data when it is the adjusted data set. They are the ones who cherry picked a site to adjust
        Did you read the rubbish they put up? No.
        Just straight onto the insults.
        Try reading it, then comment.
        Try to explain variable adjusting so the colder it gets the more you adjust
        “temperatures from the old (warmer) site adjusted by 0.8 °C on the coldest nights in July, but only 0.1 °C on the mildest nights.”
        “The move, as is common for shifts to more open locations, had a larger impact on clear, calm nights (which are more likely to be cold, especially in winter) than it did on cloudy and windy nights.”
        So these scientists, at the BOM, in their own words, decided that a colder night could only be due to cloud cover or wind and needed adjusting on the temperature alone.
        Not that it could have been just a naturally cold night.
        Zeke and Mosher, real adjusting scientists, would roll in their graves .
        Proper adjustments are done with reasons not whims.

      • Zeke and Mosher, real adjusting scientists, would roll in their graves.

        Somehow, just on your track record, I suspect Zeke and Mother would mostly to completely disagree with you.

      • “Raw data is what everyone uses Scotty”

        How to really know you’re discussing this with a child. Is it too hard to call people by name?

        “What you cannot do is pass off contrived data as the raw data.”

        Contrived? WTH passes off “contrived” data? Using raw data like what Heller does is the best way to look foolish, since “contrived” (i.e., properly adjusted) data is science, while the raw data is a mess in the hands of someone who doesn’t understand the very first thing about adjustments. Go ahead, stop by Heller-Goddard’s site and have a few laughs at his expense.

        Are you still confused about simple names? Let me know, I can help you look more mature by posting like an adult.

      • Scott Koontz | August 5, 2018 at 11:13 am |
        Anyone who uses raw data is a fool and clearly a non-scientist.
        Stop dodging the issue and comment on the facts as an adult.
        Read what BOM says about their adjustments.
        Just read it.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        These are irrelevant questions. Some of the best maintained sites with long records, in the world. I have not even considered UHI, no need to. I selected these capitals because most of Australia’s people liver in them and so are affected by heat waves; and because they are such long term, continuous records.
        Now answer the question. Where has global warming gone? Geoff.

    • “Like, where is the all pervasive, increasing, heating effect of climate change here? Sure, some days are hotter in summer some years, as the graph shows, you live with that for a short time, but where is the evidence for more of them, hotter ones, longer ones, horror ones? It is simply not there for Melbourne unless you strain your definition of heatwave or invent future stuff. Geoff”

      The issue is not melbourne. The increase in heat waves IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE UNIFORM.

      This is pretty brain dead simple. If your global average is 14C and you see
      X heat waves scattered around the globe. if you raise the baseline 1C,
      then you will expect to see more heatwaves, ALSO SCATTERED around the globe. Not every summer, but more summers. Not in every location,
      but more frequently in more locations.

      You dont have to believe that c02 is the cause of this warming to get the idea. if you have X heat waves when the ave temp is 14C, you will see more when its 15, 16 17,

      Not rocket science

  16. Interesting that, after several decades of intense research into AGW, we are more certain that:
    1. It’s not the sun,
    2. It’s primarily CO2,
    3. Other natural factors shift the heat around.

    • After several decades of intense research into AGW, we aren’t sure what it is. “…is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system and its related effects.”


      Then Wikipedia goes on to show mostly GMST plots with a little attention to glaciers (huge ice) and SLR. With zero plots of the temperature of the oceans as a whole.

      If AGW is the whole system, plots of the GMSTs are the poor man’s way of communicating that and tracking that.

      If it is mostly CO2, this is the 3 iron we’re swinging: For a doubling of CO2, we get from 1.5 to 4.5 C of GMST rise with 66% confidence. If we are unhappy with our 3 iron, all our other clubs are the same in that respect.

      The Wikipedia article brings up: “Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) and warming of the continents and atmosphere account for the remainder of the change in energy.”

      My quick and dirty calculation shows that for the above time frame, the 0-700 meters rose by 0.15 C as an average. This assumes the GMST rose by 1.0 C which is a bit high for AR5. While it can be argued this is a weak driver of future GMST rise, because of the existing GMST rise, the differential is now more of an atmosphere to oceans gradient than in 1970. And the oceans hold in reserve what’s below 700 meters which I can’t imagine being more than a 0.05 C rise over the same time frame.

      My first sentence says we don’t know what AGW is. We don’t. The communication is all scattered as is found from someone who has trouble focusing. Everything is AGW. GMST is AGW. Polar bears are AGW. Hurricanes are AGW. Percentages are AGW, 100 years events going down the rabbit hole is AGW.

      I imagine the job was to communicate something. What are the results? The normal political food fights. What is ExxonMobil’s job? They are doing it and their investors are happy. At least I am.

      • Ragnaar, integrating its forcing over time, CO2 has provided 3 GJ/m2 in the last century or so (80% since 1950, 50% in the last 30 years). Much of this has been already offset by surface warming and some has gone into the heat content. Your 700 m ocean change of 0.15 C amounts to just under 0.5 GJ/m2. CO2 forcing alone can easily account for it plus what has already gone into deeper layers. It is a big enough source of energy in case you are doubting that.

      • Jim D:

        I can’t lay anything at your feet. I don’t understand what this, ‘0.5 GJ/m2’ means. It could be 474 BTUs stuck in each cubic meter of the the top 700 meters.

        “The longest interval over which instrumental records of subsurface global-scale temperature can be compared is the 135 years between the voyage of HMS Challenger(3) (1872-1876) and the modern data set of the Argo Programme(4) (2004-2010). Argo’s unprecedented global coverage permits its comparison with any earlier measurements. This, the first global-scale comparison of Challenger and modern data, shows spatial mean warming at the surface of 0.59 degrees C +/- 0.12, consistent with previous estimates(5) of globally averaged sea surface temperature increase. Below the surface the mean warming decreases to 0.39 degrees C +/- 0.18 at 366m (200 fathoms) and 0.12 degrees C +/- 0.07 at 914 m (500 fathoms). The 0.33 degrees C +/- 0.14 average temperature difference from 0 to 700 m is twice the value observed globally in that depth range over the past 50 years(6), implying a centennial timescale for the present rate of global warming.”


        Focusing on the last sentence above and wishing it was more clear, about 0.165 C for about the last 50 years. And the guy says centennial timescale. Pushing this back before about 1950. Suppose we take my number as close enough. And assume the oceans are the God of all thermometers. The one. The way.

        AR5 says 64% is from 0 to 700 meters. That’s the money. It’s what we count. If your 0.5 GJ/m2 can be directly compared to your 3 GJ/m2, something is off. 0 to 700 meters is the money. The money the way I figured, ties back to a 1.0 C GMST rise. But I am just a plodding accountant. But, my quote above leads me to believe I got it close enough.

      • Ragnaar, 3 GJ/m2 is what you get with 1 W/m2 averaged over a century. I didn’t calculate it that way, but that is one way to see it. CO2 forcing currently is at 2 W/m2 over pre-industrial values. Why is it well in excess of what you need to warm all the ocean’s water so far? It turns out that the earth has warmed already to offset more than half, maybe 75%, of this extra energy, so the net increase in energy is less than the forcing provided amount. Only part goes into the rate of change of heat content, and most goes into the temperature response even in a transient climate where H is changing.

    • Ragnaar,

      My first sentence says we don’t know what AGW is. We don’t. The communication is all scattered as is found from someone who has trouble focusing. Everything is AGW. GMST is AGW. Polar bears are AGW. Hurricanes are AGW. Percentages are AGW, 100 years events going down the rabbit hole is AGW.

      Don’t know what the last two things mean, but I’m not sure what you want in general? Yes, GMST is affected by the increase in greenhouse gases. Yes, Polar Bear populations are and will be affected by increasing temperatures and associated effects (i.e. melting ice). As will pretty much every other species on Earth. Yes, hurricanes are and will be affected by warming sea surface temperatures as well as changing atmospheric properties. And there are many other effects besides those. And yes, it makes sense to talk about these things under the same banner, at least in a policy context, because the cause is the same: human emissions of greenhouse gases. Yes, the effects and wide-ranging, substantial and daunting. That’s why it’s a big deal.

      What you seem to be suggesting is that, faced with the true scale and breadth of the problem, you prefer to listen to a simpler story which allows you to feel justified in burying your head in the sand. That seems like a sad state of affairs.

      • At Wikipedia, it says the climate system. Then what most people look at is mostly plots of the GMST at that same place. They don’t even plot the majority of the climate system. They plot a small part of it, less than 10% of it. To me this is a messaging problem. One could conclude the climate system is an after thought compared to the GMST which is given most of the attention.

        Let’s ask the CMIPs to get the GMST right. Let’s ask them to get the oceans right instead. I’ve seen a number of cases where they force to SSTs and it’s all so wonderful. Let’s stop forcing those and get them right. Forcing the SSTs is going to Lord Humungus and just following him.

        So if I was meteorologist, I’d just load everything to the West of Minnesota into a computer all the time, and predict my weather all the time. Then I’d say, look what I did. If you ask me how the climate worked, I’d point to Lord Hummungus of the West.

        This was supposed to be about messaging. You need one that people can understand. I could argue all day why you should be libertarian. That doesn’t work. Clinton said, It’s the economy stupid. Did he need economists to say anything? No. It worked.

        GMST is AGW. Just about everything is AGW. When everything is we do impacts AGW, from transportation, to heating and lighting, to food, to wars, to animals, to SLR, focus is lost. Perhaps we could save smaller things. Grow a few vegetables, ride a bike once in awhile. When you dump an avalanche on people, will you get what you want? As you dump your avalanche, others our dumping theirs. The Russians, racism, phobias eight ways from Sunday. Micro aggressions, nuclear power, fracking, pipe lines, power lines, corporate greed.

        What would work? An answer. Fracking worked. It’s message was, it worked.

  17. Hi,
    Sorry to post an off-topic comment here. As you all know, there has been a lot of comment about the death of the internal combustion engine. You might be interested in the review article rebutting such views that was recently published in Applied Energy (Title: Is it really the end of internal combustion engines and petroleum in transport?). I’ll send a copy if you email me at kalghatgig@gmail.com.
    – Gautam Kalghatgi FREng FSAE FIMechE FCI

  18. “Attributing high-impact extreme events across timescales—a case study of four different types of events”

    Perhaps–e.g., relate exposure to ‘extreme events’ to (1) wealthier societies where more people can afford to live in the midst of the forest, on the shores of the ocean, the banks of a river and (2) poorer societies due to inadequate sanitation, crumbling stone buildings in earthquakes, millions of deaths because enviro-whacko-inspired DDT bans, disease due to bad air and water that access to affordable energy would prevent…

  19. “Heatwaves in Northern Europe as much as ‘five times’ as likely due to climate change”

    Report from the UK: –

    I’ve had the soft-top on my Mini Cooper convertible down for weeks! – The most fun you can have while still keeping your clothes on IMHO.

    Been going for walks at 7am in order to enjoy this fabulous spell before it gets uncomfortably hot.

    I’ve never seen so many bees and butterflies. Songbirds are fledging their second brood. Kites and kestrels seem to be having a bonanza year due to the abundance of rabbits and other small mammals.

    Blackberries are early this year. Not sure what’s happening because there is a mixture of ripe berries, that are particularly delicious, and unripe ones that seem to be holding off despite the weather.

    Ditto Mulberries, which are fabulous! I picked a load for my girlfriend and got her completely covered in juice, which is horribly staining and needs to be licked off pronto :-).

    Enjoying the hell out of climate change, while still pretending I’m not in order to respect the pieties of the clergy.

    • As a fellow Brit, this weather is much too hot for me and much too sunny. Looking forward to some grey skies and rain.

      I would observe however that given the choice very many people are choosing to sit outside pubs etc in the full sun. They also habitually fly to much warmer climes so I can only assume that, given the choice! Very many would prefer a hotter climate to a cooler one


      • tonyb
        I live in San Francisco and this year has been cloudy, cold and damp all summer. I love it cool. Rest of the US is sweltering but still not above unadjusted 1930 temps. Only UHE in city and modified temp readings show the increase inland.

        I love UK temps, especially Ireland and look forward to our next visit.

      • Scott

        The one time I went to SF it was cloudy and cool, much to my surprise, and with a lot of fog.

        We are on the south coast and after all this sun the sea is almost warm enough to tempt me in at some 19C some 3 degrees above normal

        There is no doubt that warm sunshine has a big effect on SST’s and this will presumably have an impact on land temperatures for the rest of the year

  20. I thought I’d write a rant. Above I talked about the 0 to 700 meters of the oceans. AR5 said 62% of the warmth went here with the another 31% going deeper I suppose. I assume it stayed there on average when we count all flows.

    So with CO2, stuff is put into the oceans. And it stays there on long time frames. And when we count stuff, 93% of the stuff stays where it’s put. So we could count stuff in 1970 or 1990 and now and figure out where stuff stayed. They didn’t say 62% came back out of the top 700 meters as far as I know.

    When you say stuff is going somewhere, and then talk about lunch, and that implies it stays there, otherwise you’d say something like, it stayed there for on average two years and then came back out.

    So on our flow chart of things, not here, we have the top 700 meters of the oceans that have a pretty good track record of hanging onto stuff, Monster Godzilla El Ninos taken into account. Then when we crank up the GMST we ask the top 700 meters, what will you do now? And it says, something else not like what I’ve been doing since 1971. Because of acceleration or some other thing I think up. Or I am just bored with the whole thing.

    Of course it’s not as straightforward as all this. The top inch or whatever those nerds say it is, but not more than 10 meters is about 2/3s of the GMST. And this top layer has quite the intimate relationship with the top 700 meters. This top layer is an indicator of the GMST and the top 700 meters. So we can have our cake and eat it too by having the same joules be in two places at the same time. The top layer can move massive amounts of joules and things go of the scales as frogs rain from the skies. But you can’t do all this if you don’t have money. So after we observe say about 5 El Ninos, then we get an idea of where the money is.

    • You can use a money analogy. The added forcing is a deficit and the only way for earth to pay it back is by the surface warming. However, for various reasons (thermal inertia) it can’t pay back all the debt immediately and that is still growing anyway as we add CO2. The difference is taken up by the ocean heat content because it has to go somewhere (maybe like a mortgage) and that is a mechanism that allows a delayed payback. Imagine we stopped adding CO2 (zero deficit). We still have a debt to pay. It doesn’t come out of the ocean (mortgage lender) because that also has to warm to equilibrium (needs its money back). All that can do is delay the payback, not make the payment for you. Bottom line: to reach equity you need to make the payment even if it is via a lender like the ocean. There is even interest and that is the water vapor feedback as the ocean gets warmer.

  21. Barn E. Rubble

    Imagine if we got our newspaper clippings from science. Oh, right. We do. Apparently Mosh has an issue with ‘observations’. No worries, I’m sure models &/or adjustments have already dealt with the above newspaper clipping re: time and temps. So all’s well. It’s never been that hot until now. My guess is, the authors of the above newspaper clip weren’t aware of ‘time of observation’ and what they were seeing and recording wasn’t what was actually happening. We know better now.

    • Temps are up. Land temps and ocean temps. Don’t believe it? Then why are species that can migrate migrating mostly towards the poles? Why are average global blooms earlier? Why is global ice melting? Why is the stratosphere cooling? Why do satellite measurements show warming at the same rate? Why is permafrost thawing?

      And what is this “newspaper clip” you are referring to? You did not respond to a specific reply.

      • Barn E. Rubble

        RE: Scott Koontz | August 5, 2018 at 3:00 pm
        “Temps are up. Land temps and ocean temps. Don’t believe it?”

        I’m wondering what I wrote that made you think I don’t believe it?

        RE: Scott Koontz
        “And what is this “newspaper clip” you are referring to? You did not respond to a specific reply.”

        My apologies. I thought I had replied inline to a comment from Steven Mosher way up-thread that followed a newspaper clipping from 1852. I don’t know why/how it posted at the bottom, completely out of context. I mean, other than I’m old and not that tech savvy . . . sigh.

        RE: “stevenmosher (@stevenmosher) | August 4, 2018 at 3:35 am | Reply
        Imagine of we got our science from newspaper clippings.”

      • barn e rubble

        Imagine if the newspaper clips had been based on scientific reports.. Which they mostly are.

        (Mosh hates newspaper clippings. and any observations older than 20 years.)


  22. Hilarious that the climate establishment have only just noticed the contradiction in their narrative about the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation): that strengthened and weakened AMOC both cause warming.


    Their solution? Bury the whole issue under layers of added complexity and hope no-one notices.

    • Notices what? Lol.

    • The establishment has perfected the art of ad hoc explanations for any direction the climate takes. They must offer extension classes on how to dream up unforeseen direction of climate outcomes. Also known as flying from the seat of your pants. I give them credit though for having some originality in their imagination.

    • Interstadial Rise and Younger Dryas Demise of Scotland’s Last Ice Fields

      Plain Language Summary
      Geologic data reveal that Earth is capable of abrupt, high‐magnitude changes in both temperature and precipitation that can occur well within a human lifespan. Exactly what causes these potentially catastrophic climate‐change events, however, and their likelihood in the near future, remains frustratingly unclear due to uncertainty about how they are manifested on land and in the oceans. Our study sheds new light on the terrestrial impact of so‐called “stadial” events in the North Atlantic region, a key area in abrupt climate change. We reconstructed the behavior of Scotland’s last glaciers, which served as natural thermometers, to explore past changes in summertime temperature. Stadials have long been associated with extreme cooling of the North Atlantic and adjacent Europe and the most recent, the Younger Dryas stadial, is commonly invoked as an example of what might happen due to anthropogenic global warming. In contrast, our new glacial chronology suggests that the Younger Dryas was instead characterized by glacier retreat, which is indicative of climate warming. This finding is important because, rather than being defined by severe year‐round cooling, it indicates that abrupt climate change is instead characterized by extreme seasonality in the North Atlantic region, with cold winters yet anomalously warm summers.

      • “the Younger Dryas stadial, is commonly invoked as an example of what might happen due to anthropogenic global warming.”

        Invoked doesn’t mean accurate.

        What are the problems/errors with this idea?

        1. Poleward heat transport by air is about twice as large as that by water.
        Changes in atmospheric circulation can easily have a much larger than changes in oceanic circulation.

        2. The Younger Dryas was not a transition from an inter-stadial to a stadial, but rather a re-intensification of the waning stadial. The YD started from a time when Greenland temperatures were still 10C cooler than present:

        3. Because the YD started from a still stadial period, there were still kilometers high ice fields onto which newly fallen snow could accumulate without summer melt, protected by cooler altitude.

        4. Because modern day, unlike the YD beginning, is inter-stadial, there is much less existing high altitude ice field ( Greenland being the execption ).

        So, any analogy with AGW tends to fail because, the YD was from a stadial while AGW is from an inter-stadial and atmospheric heat transport is modeled to increase with AGW.

  23. Geoff Sherrington


    Rather than added layers of complexity, I go for simplicity. Here is a time series plot of temperatures from remote Macquarie Island, between Australia and Antarctica. Not much problem here with TOBS, filnet, UHI, etc.
    The simple question is, how do places like this escape the horrors of global warming?

    How can it NOT show signs of global warming?
    Simple explanations welcomed. Geoff.

    • That’s hilarious. One location (cherry pick) and no indication if time-of-day was changed.

      The real question is, “why do people forget half of the words in ‘global warming’?

      • Steven Mosher

        thesr locations are invariably short records and frequetntly on the coast or an island.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        There is no Time of Day needed, it has been automatic weather stations recording many times a day. I did not cherry pick. If you go to the stations that fringe the Antarctic, you see much the same pattern of little to no temperature increase. You tend to find this for stations where no adjustments are needed. Answer the question: Why no global warming there? Geoff

      • Because it’s an island in the at 54 deg south within the confines of the Antarctic circumpolar current. Look at the max/min range (~ 7/3). Entirely controlled by SST’s.
        With strong winds in circulation there is little room for diurnal variation in temp.
        In case you’ve not noticed warming trends vary over the planet.
        The interior of Antarctic is a powerful refrigerator, isolated by both ocean and atmospheric circumpolar currents/jet-streams. And of course with an ozone hole above in the winter months (O3 is a GHG).



      • Geoff Sherrington

        Tony Banton,
        I have no interest in diurnal temperature ranges. My interest is in why so many places have gone for decades with little to no sign of warming, indeed many show cooling. What is the mechanism?
        The Sydney and Melbourne record that I graphed are 150-160 years long. If global warming was present, but erratic, you might find there were some discernable bumps in the time series heatwave records. I cannot find any such bumps, except here and there about the 1930s, though weaker 1930s in Australia than (say) USA. Even the strong El Nino of 1998 does not show much in the Australian record, though “much” is a point of debate by some who wish to argue trivial points.
        So, I am left with a mental picture of an atmosphere relentlessly warmed by GHG, but with holes all over the shop where the effect did not make it to the thermometer. Or, perhaps, the correct image is one of little to no global change, with a number of stations warming more than cooling and giving the appearance of spotty warming, until it is homogenized and extrapolated and interpolated and guessed at until the global maps give a deceptive image of global warming.
        The question needs an answer. By what mechanisms do some weather stations show no global warming over many decades of observation?

      • “Here is a time series plot of temperatures from remote Macquarie Island, ” (for a very short time period)
        Is followed by:
        “I did not cherry pick.”

        I am one of those people who “believes” that the global part of global warming is the… globe! Ia also am one of those crazy educated people who “think” that decades are needed to see the problem.

        Why did you avoid using the locations that clearly show sea level rise? Because… cherry picks. You should be at Heller’s site showing how Winston NC temps (unadjusted) show cooling for June 20 dates that fall on a Monday when the moon was full.

      • “I have no interest in diurnal temperature ranges.”

        Then why ask about Macquarie island not warming?
        That is the answer.
        It’s temp is entirely controlled by the surrounding ocean’s SST.
        Ground-hog day again with naysayers, being “not interested in”
        And why the wack-a-moles keep turning up, with t”not being interested in” … the answer.
        In case it makes you think and perhaps lead you to confront your confirmation bias.
        God forbid.
        However, I’ll explain again…
        Diurnal temp variation is needed to “see” GW as the primary warming is occurring in the warming of night-time minima, which is driven by radiation conditions (clear skies and light/calm winds” – very unlikely to occur with any frequency at Macquarre.
        A constrained diurnal range on such a small island in a very windy part of the planet close to the Earth’s refrigerator is the least likely place to show warming.

        PS: If the reply is along the lines of “I have no interest in …” then my contribution stops here.
        Either you ask a question in order to hear the answer or not.
        The evidence so far says not.

  24. We now have fake news and fake science. Liberal-Leftist academicians at Australian National University looked at past literature and declared +8°F climate change hell is in the offing– we’re on the “threshold” of a “Hothouse Earth” and possibly… a 30 to 200 foot sea level rise.

    (The Hill, Study warns of looming potential for runaway global warming
    Max Greenwood, 2 hrs. ago)

    • It’s been more interesting when the scientists are Conservative-Rightists academicians. Rare as they are, they do exist. And I’m not talking about the laughable Oregon Petition.

      I think a trip to the sites that are (again) predicting we are due for a quick cooling spell would do you good. For 30+ years those predictions have been wrong, and for 30+ years the IPCC and there have been correct.

      Earth is warming, ice is melting, sea levels are rising, and it’s not the sun. IPCC projections have done an incredible job. Your distrust of smart people is duly noted.

      • It’s always amusing to look back at “sceptic” predictions of cooling.

        Here’s Judith Curry’s:

        “The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt said, the paper’s lead author.

        Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.” Curry is the chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology


        Prediction: hiatus for 20 years
        Reality (NASA GISS):
        2013 0.65 (Year of publication)
        2014 0.74 (All time record)
        2015 0.87 (All time record)
        2016 1.00 (All time record)
        2017 0.90

        Effect of reality on “sceptics”? Nothing, nada, zilch

      • 2013 0.65 (Year of publication)
        2014 0.74 (All time record)
        2015 0.87 (All time record)
        2016 1.00 (All time record)
        2017 0.90

        So, this rate of warming, roughly 12C per century, is nearly 10 times the longer term trend, and roughly 10 times the Plank response of observed GHG forcing, so we have a pretty good idea that something other than GHG forcing accounts for it.

        And the flawed and limited, but best we have observations indicate, that, yes, an increase in absorbed solar, not a decrease in emitted in infra-red can account for recent warming. And also a reversion to the mean is, at least for the last few months of the record, is underway:

        There’s probably not a good physical basis for prediction, since it’s not particularly well understood why it happened, and dynamics make such things unpredictable anyway.

        But statistically, one would wager on mean reversion.

      • But statistically, one would wager on mean reversion.

        TE, Continuing the fine tradition of “sceptics” predicting cooling.

        It’s been going on for a decade or three. Let’s just remind ourselves again how that reality looks, shall we?

        Brrrrrrr. Icy.

      • Everything has changed. The Left just knew we had to do something about climate change and that it was better to do something half-assed about it now, even if it meant sacking the economy and spending trillions of dollars we don’t have. The alternative of course was to do whatever might actually be necessary down the road when we had the chance to understand more about it; but, that course of action posed a threat to the Left that we’d discover global warming is not a problem

      • What accounts for it? The same thing that makes observations to date too low. And the dynamics are progressively changing and not in a good way. The stadium wave is leaning the other direction. So keep betting on the past behavior of a nonlinear system. That’s the smart money. Lol.

      • verytallguy: TE, Continuing the fine tradition of “sceptics” predicting cooling.

        TE did not predict “cooling”, he predicted that the warming rate in the future would would be closer to the post 1880 average warming rate than to the recent “spike” in the warming rate.

        One of the frequently repeated mistakes is to hype the short-term trends, and that has been done by some at least in every party to the debate. In the record, every spike as large as the current spike has rebounded back to something close to the 10-year mean. It is premature to draw any conclusion from the current spike in temps.

      • Matthew,

        I took “reversion to the mean” to mean “reversion to the mean”, rather than “continuation of global warming”. But I’m sure TE can clarify.

        And I said nothing about the short term trend, and meant nothing beyond that it’s clearly not a hiatus continuing for decades, as Judith predicted.

      • The antecedent, absorbed solar, which caused most of the 2013 to 2016 warming was most anomalous. Statistically, one would wager on mean reversion, but I’m not much of one for statistics, or wagering, especially since no one knows quite why planetary albedo fell so.

        What do you wager?

    • Ohh, the wonders of the adjustments.

      • Sciences marches while you dig holes.

        <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2017JC013645&quot;Relative Sea Level, Tides, and Extreme Water Levels in Boston Harbor From 1825 to 2018

        Plain Language Summary

        We show that sea‐level in Boston (MA) rose by nearly a foot (0.28m) over the past 200 years, with most occurring since 1920. The underlying tide measurements we analyzed were made, in part, by local civil engineers in the 1800s and early 1900s who measured daily high and low tides to help solve design problems and protect infrastructure from flooding. One of those structures, dry‐dock number 1 from 1833 at the Charlestown Navy Yard, currently houses the USS Constitution and‐if you know where to look‐contains a benchmark from 1867 that allows historic measurements to be compared to modern data. The fact that this dry‐dock was flooded twice in early 2018 is visceral evidence that sea‐level is higher now than it used to be. The old data also shows the interesting‐and unexpected–result that some historical extremes were larger in Boston than they would be today because tides were larger. Looking forward, we show that the 18.6 year astronomic cycle in tides also impacts flood risk. During the 2020s, tides will be lower than average, partially mitigating against sea‐level rise effects; In the early 2030s, tides will be larger (as in 2018), exacerbating projected sea‐level rise effects.

      • With this silly study the ANU now has the credibility of the NYT. Fear about global warming becomes all too plausible to the warmstoppers when the cause is just what they thought it’d be: Americana– too much freedom and capitalism… the evils of modernity, liberty, free enterprise and now our unsustainable lifestyle: we all just live too well.

      • There is something reassuring in the use of the word “visceral” in a scientific paper. Unless, of course, they are talking about the efficacy of the latest techniques in psychoanalysis versus pharmacology.

        But, I would much rather read the latest on sea level research than those boring graphs that VTG provides. I’ll give the Boston Harbor paper some thought.

      • JCH: We show that sea‐level in Boston (MA) rose by nearly a foot (0.28m) over the past 200 years, with most occurring since 1920.

        That’s something. Is it cause for a global campaign against CO2, or for a Boston-area program to be decided by Bostonians? Are there reliable indices for the Boston area of millenia past as there are with some areas of the Mediterranean? What’s the story on the N. & S. America west coasts, Yokohama, and Shanghai? The area of La Jolla Cove in San Diego is nearly unchanged in the era of photography.

        Thank you for the link.

      • These data seem reasonable. Just over a foot in 200 years is not bad. That comports well with the NOAA Tidal Gauge data since 1921 and a 2013 NOAA report on Vertical Land Motion which found -.84 mm/yr for Boston. Your linked study says that most of the .28M rise occurred after 1921. I will be generous and define “most” as 90%.

        Consequently, let’s assume .25M since 1921 or ~.25mm/yr. Then subtract the VLM of -.84mm/yr which gives ~1.6 to 1.7 mm/yr SLR. Then the acceleration adds some to that, depending on how much of my generous 90% is really too generous.

        That’s right in the skeptic’s wheelhouse for GMSLR.

        Way to go JCH.

        In the English Premier League I think that’s called an Own Goal.

      • 1/2 of it is since 1986: .14 M.

      • The story of Balboa Island (Newport Beach, CA) is interesting, having recently raised the sea wall around it in anticipation of what may well happen between now and 2100, but… no one would be living there now if not for government bailout in 1936 to improve the then existing wall that was itself the product of many replacements, rebuilds and repairs to protect a artificial island, made by dumping dredged sand to turn a wetlands into a bay….

        To keep the bay from washing away their investment, residents built a wooden seawall in 1909. A few years later, they replaced it with a sturdier barrier of cement, and then rebuilt again several times over the next few decades. After a monster 1936 storm topped the seawall, broke it in a few places, and inundated Balboa Island’s streets, the protection was beefed up even more. That seawall, finished in 1938 with help from the New Deal’s National Recovery Act, has been protecting the island ever since.


      • Every time I hear the massive acceleration line I look at the up to date NOAA chart and I say to myself “Who should I believe, my lying eyes or some delusional warmist?” The answer is always the same. But the paper does warrant honorable mention for using the word visceral. A special touch.

  25. Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extreme

    Hourly maximum rainfall rates increased, but maximum daily rainfall rates stayed within historic bounds. Indicative of more intense but less frequent rainstorms, or more intense but shorter rainfalls? Is there a theory that predicts that co-occurence of statistical outcomes?

  26. My article on Trump’s nomination of a warmer to head up the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President has been published here:

    Below is the first half of the article. Also, contrary to some reports, Droegemeier has only been nominated to head OSTP, not to be the President’s Science Advisor. Whether he will get that honorary title remains to be see. This is just the beginning of a big story.

    “Trumpers play politics with climate alarmism

    Skeptics of climate alarmism are surprised that President Trump has nominated atmospheric scientist Kelvin Droegemeier to head up the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and possibly be his official Science Advisor as well. The likely explanation is the looming midterm elections.

    The Trump people do not want climate change to be a big issue, while the alarmists are trying to make it one. The New York Times just ran an entire magazine devoted to alarmism and a carbon tax bill has been introduced in the House. The issue of global warming policy is clearly heating up.

    Droegemeier is at best a “lukewarmer,” which is someone who accepts that humans are causing global warming but who argues that this is not dangerous. At worst he may even be an alarmist.

    We will not know until his Senate confirmation hearing, when the issue will no doubt be pressed, possibly by both sides. Even then we may not know for sure because confirmation hearings are exercises in saying as little as possible that might offend some Senator or other.

    He is certainly not a skeptic of human caused warming. To begin with he is a computer modeler, not an empirical scientist. Mind you his research work has involved modeling the weather, not the climate, but the models are basically the same so he is not likely to question the basic validity of the climate models, although he may say they are running hot, which is an understatement.

    He has been chair the National Science Board, which oversees the U.S. National Science Foundation. NSF is the leading federal climate research agency and very alarmist, to the point of denying that natural variability might explain global warming, as well as funding a lot of alarmist education centers. Droegemeier must have supported this stuff; it being in his field.

    Even worse, he was on the Board of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This is an NSF national laboratory that is the leading U.S. producer of alarmist science. They are one of the top climate modeling centers supporting the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the leading global voice of alarmism. Droegemeier must have supported all this as well. See my http://www.cfact.org/2018/07/24/the-u-s-government-is-still-the-uns-top-climate-alarmist/.

    It has been clear that some of the Trump people want to minimize the climate change issue. They see overt skepticism of alarmism as a policy distraction, not a cause worth fighting for. They also see fighting alarmism as politically dangerous.”

  27. New paper on climate sensitivity suggests that changing patterns of future warming raise Otto-et-al-style instrumentally-based sensitivity estimates from 1.9C to 3.2C

    That’s one way to put it.

    Also: The AGCMs simulate a spread in climate feedback similar to that seen in coupled simulations of the response to CO2 quadrupling. However the feedbacks are robustly more stabilizing and the effective climate sensitivity (EffCS) smaller. This is due to a ‘pattern effect’ whereby the pattern of observed historical SST change gives rise to more negative cloud and LW clear‐sky feedbacks.

  28. Barn E. Rubble

    RE: climatereason | August 6, 2018 at 2:24 am |
    ” . . . Mosh hates newspaper clippings. and any observations older than 20 years.”

    Apparently Mosh wants code not evidence or observations. The word ‘adjustment’ in any thread seems to be like a dog whistle for him.

    • Barn E Rubble

      I had translated from the Latin and French some 13th Century English Manorial records which records the weather conditions of each season on the fields of the great estates.

      I find it very inconsiderate they did not produce this as code. People working each day in the fields making observations and being recorded so those managing the estate can understand how crops grew or failed.

      What use are they to anyone?


      • Barn E. Rubble

        RE: CR “What use are they to anyone?”

        Ah yes, history. Those that ignore it are doomed to repeat it . . . sigh . . .
        math too.

    • It is odd that so many people, even those claiming to be well informed about climate and temps, do not understand adjustments.

      The number of skeptics who want to use raw temps is really sad. Why would one use temps taken at noon and pretend that they should be compared directly to those taken at 3: 00 p.m.? They also think that moving a station to a better location does not warrant adjustments. It’s just weird.

      Show them the global trend when no adjustments are used and they freak out. They never considered that adjusted temps show less warming, not more. Again, some of these people claim to be well read on this topic.

      The other topic that ruins their day is the issue of UHI. There are so few relative to the globe that the influence would be minimal. Point out that adjustments account for UHI (in fact urban areas end up showing less of a warming trend than rural) and again they panic. Remove all urban temp readings and the trend is exactly the same (OK, slightly less) and they Gish Gallop away from the topic. Use Watts’ best rated stations and you get the same trend, and they cry about some minor details that have nothing to do with the results.

      No wonder “adjustments” gets people fired up. If some would stop pretending that adjustments are nefarious we could finally get to the heart of the matter.

  29. “Heatwaves in Northern Europe as much as ‘five times’ as likely due to climate change, scientists say”

    Scientists who are having greater success in defying common sense and reason than religion has. Not only do heatwaves occur regardless of climate change, but most of the heatwaves would not even exist without their discrete solar forcing, they are a major agent of climate change. And maybe ‘five times’ as likely during a warm AMO phase, which is normal during a solar minimum.

    • What would change with the AMO phase is the atmospheric circulation patterns, and the number of regional heatwaves driven by blocking, and by drought. But big ones like 1976 and 2003 were not going to happen without the hotter solar wind states (top trace).

  30. ‘Human “fingerprints” in planet’s changing seasons’

    Detective Ben Santer does a fit up job on the increased seasonal variability driven by the shift from cold to warm AMO phase within his study period. Show us the dabs of natural variability Ben.

  31. Progressives communicate along an oppressor–oppressed axis, where those who stand up for the underprivileged are good, while those indifferent to the plights of the disadvantaged are bad.
    Conservatives communicate along a civilization–barbarism axis, where those who stand up for time-tested traditions and virtues are good, while those indifferent to assaults on Western values are bad.
    Libertarians communicate along a liberty–coercion axis, where those who stand up for individual rights are good, while those indifferent to government intrusion are bad.

    In discussing political issues, people rarely stray off of their preferred axis. This can make it seem as though the political tribes—progressives, conservatives, and libertarians—are perpetually opposed. But in reality, each tribe is simply focused on a different set of concerns. And while these concerns occasionally conflict with each other, they can also be compatible. When our worldview is constricted to just one axis, though, any difference in concern comes across as an unbridgeable divide; even where concerns complement each other, they may seem irreconcilably opposed.


    So the ability to dodge an attack is enhanced by the attackers thinking along their own axis. The dodger can reframe the issue along their axis. The attacker will keep hammering from their above axis.

    In my case, I pretty much accept the science but not the confidence in it many have. But I defend along the economic axis. For instance, take what PE said about our grid from a libertarian’s point of view, and wind and solar as rolled out in the United States isn’t helping. It has problems that are shared with other feel good government failures in the area of economics.

    The first thing to do is understand the alarmists, or whatever name that doesn’t drive them into a safe space. What is their axis? The one we hear a lot is big oil. Big oil is oppressing us and the about the whole planet. This is indicated by policy that gives us wind turbines and solar panels. Who is being sued? Big oil. AGs are rabid in this area.

  32. What I was curious about this article is how they determined a departure from natural variability. So I looked, and I didn’t find much.

    They say “Insights into the risks posed by the rapid climatic changes emerging in the Anthropocene can be obtained not only from contemporary observations (51⇓⇓⇓–55) but also, from interactions in the past between human societies and regional and seasonal hydroclimate variability. This variability was often much more pronounced than global, longer-term Holocene variability (SI Appendix).”

    Is it just me or are they referencing their own white paper in their determination that climate is abnormal?

    When I referenced SI Appendix I find that their holocene variability is based upon limnology conducted at two bodies of water in Europe. Limnology isn’t the best tool for understanding hydroclimate variability, speleothems are. From what I see the speleothems from around the world show variability that is severe enough to wipe out entire cultures and shift plant communities several hundred meters in elevation. We have not experienced such climate change in the modern era, so how is it that we are in a new geologic epoch?

    Also, how the hell do you define “global climate?” Does the earth have a global color? Global vegetation type? Global rainfall? Global doesn’t mean anything meaningful. I thought climate was always local?

    It seems to me that the only way they can get away with claiming we are in the anthropocene is by introducing an abstract idea such as “global climate.” I know, I know, we could simply say “global climate” is a measure of the energy balance of the planet, but it doesn’t really mean anything to humans, and it does not describe anything with regards to climate.

    I think Judith would agree as this concept of “global climate” is simply a spin off of the idea that we have a “global temperature” that seems to change based on observer and methods used.

    I have met individuals such as the authors, and to discuss climate with them is no different than arguing religion; if you know something that doesn’t fit nicely with their beliefs, they will dismiss it as non existent.

  33. “New paper on climate sensitivity suggests that changing patterns of future warming raise Otto-et-al-style instrumentally-based sensitivity estimates from 1.9C to 3.2C.”
    For anyone who wants a really good belly-laugh, I would strongly recommend this paper by Andrews et al. It comes after a long line of flawed papers attacking observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity. This paper however is not just flawed; it is the FULL CHEWBACCA DEFENSE ON STEROIDS. The argument goes like this:-
    Coupled AOGCM models yield an ECS with a median estimate of X. However, if we replace the AOGCMs with their corresponding atmospheric models, and prescribe the surface temperatures with our best estimate of the real sea-surface temperature pattern evolution in history based on observational data, then we find that the effective equilibrium climate sensitivity is about half of X. You might think of course that what this means is that the AOGCMs are crap at predicting the evolution of sea surface temperature patterns, However, you would be wrong. The true explanation is that the real world is crap at predicting its own temperature pattern evolution. Hence, if you accept the temperature patterns predicted by the AOGCMs, which are clearly the correct ones because of the error that the real world has made in its incorrect evolution of observed temperature patterns, the estimates of climate sensitivity based on realworld observations are only half what they should be. Bwah hah hah.

    • Getting a bit more specific, what they’re saying is that:
      -The feedback parameter (lambda) is, in Otto 13, 1.95w/m2 per K (assuming 3.7w/m2 for a doubling of COW). This happened by chance: the evolution of SST temperatures led to a higher lambda (i.e. lower sensitivity) than the ‘true’ long-term value.
      -The true feedback parameter is about 1.15. This value presumably reveal itself when the real world SST follows the pattern that takes place in climate models. Thus, by chance the feedback parameter that happened since 1850 was 0.8K per w/m2 (or 40%) lower than the true long-term value.

      It doesn’t sound unreasonable. An analogy could be a very good sportsman who gets poor scores over a short period of time; you’d need a long period in order to estimate his ‘true’ ability. The obvious question is, what are the chances of the above scenario having happened over the 150-odd years for which we have thermometer records?

      The recent Dessler, Stevens and Mauritsen paper used 100 simulations of a climate model, all of them using historical forcings from 1850 to 2005, but each diverging slightly on the initial conditions (thus providing the ‘chance’ factor). The median ‘effective’ climate sensitivity (out of the 100 simulations) was 2.72K, and median lambda was 1.43K per w/m2 (though unstated, this seems to imply forcing from a CO2 doubling in the model is 3.9w/m2).

      Now, I couldn’t find this in the paper itself, but acorrding the comment Nic Lewis wrote about it, the standard deviation in lambda across the 100 simulations is 0.137. Going back to the Otto example, this would mean that by chance the real world followed a course nearly six standard deviations from the true climate sensitivity!

      If you looked at it from the view of the ‘fractional’ standard deviation it’s even more unlikely, because the (alleged) true lambda for Otto 13 is lower than that of the model used in the Dessler paper. Specifically, if the true lambda was 1.15K per w/m2, then applying the fractional standard deviation of the Dessler paper (0.096x), in order to get ‘by chance’ the actual Otto 13 lambda of 1.95 you’d need:
      1.95 / 1.15 = 1.695
      0.695 / 0.096 = 7.19 standard deviations!

      No matter which way you look at it I’d say it’s rather unlikely.

      • Yes, Alberto. Your use of the term “rather unlikely” displays your mastery of ironic understatement.

      • Alberto,
        The thrust of your argument is fine, but I think you have included a couple of minor mis-statements, including some confusion over units..
        “Thus, by chance the feedback parameter that happened since 1850 was 0.8K per w/m2 (or 40%) lower than the true long-term value.”
        I think perhaps you meant to write:-
        “Thus, by chance the feedback parameter that happened since 1850 was 0.8 W/m2/K (or 40%) higher than the true long-term value.”
        You also invert the units of lambda twice in your later text.
        Note also FYI that not all of these studies have assumed adjusted forcing as a basis. Some have used effective forcing (around 3.5 W/m2).
        None of this detail really matters when measured against the extraordinary implication that the AOGCM temperature pattern predictions are trustworthy while the observed reality just happens to be a highly unlikely freak of happenstance.

  34. Well, I did get units right once!

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 )

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 )

Connecting to %s