2018 –> 2019

by Judith Curry

Happy New Year!

In thinking about what to write for this post, I took a look at the previous end of year posts at Climate Etc.  In the early years of the blog, I focused on end of year blog statistics and CE’s ‘greatest hits’.  Some years I looked at other published ‘year in review’ articles, and prognostications.

Evaluating my prognostications for 2018

My 2017 year in review post included the following prognostications, lets see how I did:

U.S. politics:  I’m predicting that the midterm (2018) elections will not be particularly ‘partisan’, but rather the best candidates will be elected, with ‘character’ a major factor.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties are in disarray.  This is an opportunity for post partisanship in U.S. politics, and maybe some good candidates will be elected to the Senate and House. –> impact of November election remains to be seen.

Climate politics:  I predict that in 2018 the climate dialogue in the U.S. will be dominated by litigation against federal and state governments and petroleum companies.  The ‘blame game.’  President Trump will continue to ignore the issue, other than to troll the warmists whenever the weather in the US goes counter to the ‘alarm.’ –> spot on

Climate solutions:  I predict that internationally, governments will re-prioritize providing reliable power in the face of extreme cold events.  There will be a growing realization that we don’t have ‘solutions’ to the problem of bringing CO2 emissions down to zero in the near term.  The focus will turn towards technological innovation and adaptation. –> spot on

2018 climate:  I predict that global average 2018 surface temperatures won’t be ‘top five’, i.e. cooler than the last few years.  –> oops, looks like 2018 will be top 4.

My main goals for 2018

From my 2017 post:

Continue to build my business Climate Forecast Applications Network, with research focused on sub seasonal, seasonal and interannual prediction.   Working with new clients on decadal and century scale climate issues. –> check, its going pretty well.

Adapt to my retirement:  less travel and more time for carving out things I want to do.  More focus on health – my right hand is now at about 60% functionality (don’t ask me to chop an onion, etc). –> check, much less travel (my carbon footprint is probably smaller than 95% of climate scientists), my hand is at 85% (I can now chop an onion).

More time for the blog and writing in general.  –> much time spent writing, but not so much for the blog.

Looking forward to 2019

My goals for 2019 aren’t much different from 2018. But here are some specifics.

I have started a new report Hurricanes and Climate Change (analogous to the sea level rise report), I will be publishing draft chapters in the coming months.  This report is actually easier than the sea level one, since the field is not changing so rapidly.

I am also working on a series related to the recent U.S. National Climate Assessment, using that report as a focal point for addressing a number of problems with assessment reports, detection and attribution, etc.  The first installment will be published Thursday, entitled: National Climate Assessment: A crisis of epistemic overconfidence.  Stay tuned.

Working on the NCA series is affording me an opportunity to go back to my earlier posts (back in the day when I had more time for the blog), many of which raised important points but weren’t integrated into broader themes.

A special thanks to all guest posters: Nic Lewis, Javier, Andy West, Pat Michaels, Ross McKitrick, John Christy, Dan Hughes, Tomas Milanovic, Tony Brown, Donald Rapp, Garth Paltridge, Frank Bosse, Jim Steele, Phil Salmon, Jim Johnstone.

Here’s to a healthy, happy and productive 2019!

68 responses to “2018 –> 2019

  1. Dr. Curry,
    Happy New Year, and thank you very much for all the work you put into this.

  2. Ditto, and special thanks for the excellent review of sea level rise!

    • Indeed, I considering moving further away [1/2 a block] from the coastline in about 3,846 AD.

    • Yes. As always, thanks for being the adult in the room. I hope the effort you expend in that area helps your new career overall. I can see that there’s a potential conflict between being a spokesperson for moderation and sanity on the public side, and being a lower profile “responsible” business owner. In any event, you are an important voice in the climate debate and we appreciate your persistence.

  3. The Informed Consumer


    Good news about your hand. “Climate change is like onions, layers.” (Shrek…..almost). Keep chopping!

    Thanks for your diligence.


    • The Informed Consumer


      And Happy New Year when it comes.

      Enjoy your Hogmanay.

      Our Scottish tradition is that your First Foot (the first person crossing your threshold in the New Year) should be tall, dark and handsome and should bring with him something to eat (so you don’t go hungry in the New Year) and something to heat your house with (traditionally a lump of coal….ironically) so you keep warm in the coming year.

      Tall, dark and handsome was allegedly attributed to us being invaded by fair haired Norsemen so a dark Celt was considered lucky. The traditional food offering was a rich fruitcake…….sadly, I’m not rich. :)

      (Still no idea why WordPress persists in announcing me as The Informed Consumer).


  4. sheldonjwalker


    Just in time for the New Year, an article which will stop you feeling gloomy about the future.

    How far would you need to move towards the nearest Pole, to reverse one degree Celsius of global warming?

    You may have already been thinking about moving towards one of the Poles (the North Pole, or the South Pole), in order to avoid global warming. But how far should you go?

    Don’t worry any longer, this article tells you exactly how far you should move, to get the perfect climate.

    Not only that, this article also shows you how to find your pre-industrial paradise.

    And there is more. Experience global warming, before it actually happens (that way, you can see whether you like it, or not).

    Don’t wait any longer, click the following link.


    • During the Medieval Warm Period, the Vikings moved all the way to Greenland. The Chinese mapped the Arctic Ocean because it was open then. During this warm period, warmer than now, it snowed enough to cause ice in cold places to build for several hundred years and then advance. This drove the Vikings to move out of Greenland and move more south and closed the Arctic Ocean and caused the Little Ice Age. This natural, normal and necessary warm period will last a few hundred years while ice accumulates in Greenland and other cold places and then this warm period will end when the sequestered ice advances again and causes another little ice age. Climate changes in natural cycles and we did not take over regulating climate. It works the same way it always has worked.
      We can move to adapt or we can use fossil fuel to power heating and cooling to help us adapt. We already do that to adapt to day and night, sunny and stormy and summer and winter.

      • sheldonjwalker


        Not many people know,

        that the real reason that the Vikings went to Greenland, was because you can’t reverse a Viking longship. Once you are going in a particular direction, you can only continue in the direction that you are going. Of course, once the front of the ship touches land, then you are stranded. The only thing that you can do, is colonise the place that you have reached. And then build longships which face the other way.

    • Scott Koontz

      That’s pretty significant. For the lifespan of one person (my grandmother, for example, lived in PA) a person would have to move 200 miles north to get the same temperature. That’s amazing, and it’s only going to get worse.

      Ask anyone if they think the temps for locations 200 miles north are warmer or colder. Ask then if their farm had the same growing season as those 200 miles north (keeping to the same altitude, of course.)

      Lots of change already, and lots coming.

  5. Happy New Year Ms. Judy, you and your blog are an inspiration for many of us non climate scientists, rather engineers in the energy field. From Latin courses, or perhaps Spanish you undoubtedly must have taken in the (far?) past you’ll recognize the word roots in the Romanian language traditional New Year greeting, w/o the need for a dictionary: “Anul Nou Fericit cu multa sanatate”.

  6. Roy Spencer estimates 2018 will be the 6th warmest so I think I can give you a win by a nose on that one.

  7. Happy new year!

    Thanks for all you do here.

  8. Judith Curry,

    I love your blog. Keep up the good fight.

    The following was on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday morning before you posted the above excellent prognostications piece.


    I want to seriously debunk this moron from ever reporting on any media. What would be your take on it? You can see my comment on it at Scientists Skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming on FB.

    Happy New Year (we can only hope it will be).

  9. Thank you for your efforts. You are a hero of science!

    Happy New Year!

  10. Dr Curry,
    In your coming hurricane report, would you, please, include west Pacific typhoons and cyclones to give a world-wide cover, not just the USA?
    Happy New Year!

    • Yes! The atlantic has the longest/best data, but West Pacific is pretty good also, so both are covered. I also provide information on global tropical cyclone activity (in fact I am writing that chapter now)

  11. Happy New Year to Judith Curry and to the denizens of this excellent blog, pro-AGW and anti-AGW alike..

    Looking forward into 2019, the events I will be observing most closely concern how far the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will be moving in pushing their anti-carbon agenda, given these two predictable certainties about the next two years:

    — Any anti-carbon legislation written and passed by the Democrats in the House of Representatives in 2019 and 2020 will be rejected by the Republicans in the Senate; and

    — In January 2021, a Democrat will be taking office as president and the Democrats will be in full control of the Congress by substantial majorities in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

    In 2021, when the Democrats are once again in full control of the federal government, it is guaranteed they will be enacting a series of massive spending programs for supporting a variety of renewable energy technologies and projects.

    But the question arises, will they also be putting a price on carbon in 2021, a price high enough and broadly enough applied to promote the quick and effective reduction of all of America’s GHG emissions, not just those from coal-fired and gas-fired power plants?

    Just as important two years from now, will the Democrats be using the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in directly regulating all of America’s carbon emissions — something they refused to do when they were last in full control of the federal government?

    If the answer to these latter two questions turns out to be ‘yes’, then we should believe that the Democrats are truly and honestly concerned about the dangers of climate change.

    But if the answer to both questions turns out to be ‘no’, then we can rightly conclude that their talk about the dangers of climate change is just that — talk.

    • If the democrats win and do this dumb stuff to end carbon emissions, it will be their last term, stupid only goes so far. Look at what is happening in France and other countries. People are fed up with alarmism. The alarmism in the UK helped bring about BREXIT.
      They will need to find another Chicken Little, The Sky Is Falling, disaster to scare people to tax and control them. The backers for climate disaster get rich selling windmills and solar panels that generate electricity that is much more expensive and much less reliable and still must be backed up by fossil fuel generated power. People fell for it, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, , , , forever!

      • Rob Johnson-taylor

        We also ended up as the only country, so far as I know, to have a carbon tax, and the only reason this appears to have work is to move large number of high energy consumers, eg aluminium, Iron industries from the UK to Europe, and the loss of a few 100 thousands of jobs. Europe don’t have this tax and never will.

    • Beta, if you think that a Democrat sweep is a “predictable certainty” this tells us a lot about your strange concept of uncertainty, which in turn helps explain your views on the climate change debate.

      • David Wojick: “Beta, if you think that a Democrat sweep is a ‘predictable certainty’ this tells us a lot about your strange concept of uncertainty, which in turn helps explain your views on the climate change debate.”

        Donald Trump’s election as president in 2016 was an aberration in the long term ebb and flow of American politics. It’s one that won’t last long.

        That Trump’s victory happened at all was a consequence of Hillary Clinton’s extreme hubris in believing she was the sure winner in 2016. Thus her failure to campaign hard in the Electoral College swing states most vulnerable to the Trump message. Having witnessed what that hubris cost them in 2016, the Democrats will not be making the same mistake in 2020.

        Much more likely than not, a Democrat will be elected president in 2020, and the Democrats will probably take control of the Senate as well, given that a larger number of vulnerable Republican Senate seats will be up for reelection in the 2020 campaign cycle than there were in 2018. Starting in January 2021, everything Donald Trump did while he was in office will be quickly overturned and erased.

        That said, the aggressive use of existing Executive Branch authorities operating under the Clean Air Act and its EPA-managed enforcement mechanisms is the only possible means of getting from here to there in reducing America’s GHG emissions as quickly as climate activists say is necessary.

        If the Democrat who follows Donald Trump as president doesn’t use the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in controlling America’s carbon emissions, it will become obviously apparent that climate activists have an agenda which doesn’t necessarily include saving the earth from climate change.

  12. Happy New Year to the Denizens, including the Climate Crazed!

  13. I have spent way too much of my time posting here, so my New Years resolution is not to.

    • Much appreciated Jim D!

      Sorry about shooting fish in a barrel!

      Dr. Curry, all the best and thanks!

    • JimD, I actually found some of your contributions interesting. Perhaps you could just reduce your commenting rate instead of quitting altogether.

      • I enjoy your contributions and hope you stick around. I don’t want this blog turning into an echo chamber.

        But I have a feeling that if you’re gone someone else will pick up the slack.

    • jimd

      I hope you don’t mean you intend to give up? Your comments are always interesting even if I don’t always agree with them


  14. Judy:
    Many thanks for all the fine work and seemingly unending patience. May 2019 bring you good fortune and good health.

  15. Judith Curry

    Although not formally a guest poster, Robert I Ellison remains a voice of science on this post and in some way should be recognized; ie, as a contributor to the advancement of our scientific knowledge.

    The: Scientists Scientist award. His thinking and clarity and documentation counts for a lot!

    • I agree that Robert E. provides information that is interesting, especially the references.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        dpy6629 | December 31, 2018 at 8:23 pm | I agree that Robert E. provides information that is interesting, especially the references.

        He has his own blog and his own skills, I have never discovered why he took it upon himself to post so heavily on Judith’s blog. I do not see the plus that you seem to. Geoff.

      • I do learn stuff from RIE, he is very welcome here (of course also Jim D). However, I do try to limit how much one person can dominate the comment threads.

  16. Happy new year to you Judith Curry. Best wishes for continued success and happiness.

  17. Richard Drennan

    Dr. Curry,

    Happy New Year and Happy New Year to everyone who visits this blog!

  18. In Response to Beta Blocker: Currently US’ contribution to world GG is some 12% and dropping at a rate of 1.2%/yr. Assuming that the Democrats succeed at reducing the GG emissions here by 50% say within 4 years (they won’t), that would be a puny 6% of world’s total, a drop in the bucket, no pun, likely to be exceeded by additional GG emissions from the likes of China and India. Carbon pricing in the US ONLY is the epitome of a clumsy solution or non solution to the wicked AGW problem. True to form, it would create major disruptions in the economy with few if any benefits. Too many pundits, talking heads and politicians turned climate scientists forget that AGW is a Worldwide problem.

  19. sheldonjwalker


    Global warming temperature distributions

    Using a single number to represent global warming, like 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius of global warming, makes it hard to see how bad the problem really is. Is 2.0 degrees Celsius of global warming a major change from what we have now, or is it a minor change?

    Using temperature anomalies to represent global warming, removes (or ignores) what is “normal” for temperatures. “Normal”, becomes a single temperature anomaly, 0.0 degrees Celsius. Does 0.0 degrees Celsius, really represent the “normal” temperature distribution on the Earth.

    What is the solution to this problem? The answer is to look at temperature distributions, rather than single numbers. Temperature distributions make global warming multi-dimensional, rather than a one-dimensional number. Temperature distributions show how the temperature varies with latitude, elevation, proximity to the ocean, size of landmass, and many other factors.

    Comparing the “normal” temperature distribution, to a “global warming” temperature distribution, makes it easier to judge the size of the problem. Are “alarmists” trying to turn a molehill into a mountain? Or are “deniers” trying to turn a mountain into a molehill?

    This article will show you the temperature distributions for a range of global warming “amounts”. People with weak hearts should not look at the more extreme amounts of global warming. Seeing 10.0 or 20.0 degrees Celsius of global warming on a graph, may be too much for those with a vivid imagination.

    This article offers a choice of global warming simulations.

    1) with NO polar amplification

    2) WITH polar amplification


  20. Just this Judith, thanks.

  21. A happy, prosperous and healthy New year to you and your family Judith and to all the denizens


  22. Happy New Year to Judith and all the denizens :)
    Andy West

  23. Curious George

    Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. [Niels Bohr]
    I am not brave enough. Happy New Year to Climate Etc., all authors, and the community.

  24. Happy New Year to Judith, family, and denizens. May your 2019 be properous and ‘interesting’.

  25. Hope all enjoy the Melody of Life ahead, this coming New Year, which may perhaps also bring a record cold 2018-19 winter and late-blooming cherry blossoms in Washington DC as well…

  26. v8a4y5v8a4y5

    I sincerely hope that in your commitment to less Blog and more writing, You manage to write in detail about exactly what will be required (by our kids, not us, assuming you Judy have any) in order to adapt to something that can only be described as global scale ecological instability ( something civilization has exactly zero experience with) if our roll of the dice commitment to vacuuming CO2 out of the air fails to unfold as we imagine.

    Incidentally, I have suggested similar to Cliff Mass who essentially is of a similar mind to your above stated self fulfilling prophesies, yet despite a reasonably tolerable relationship, he remains silent.

    Weird eh?

    • David Wojick

      I cannot even imagine what ” global scale ecological instability” might mean. Will the plants become unstable? Perhaps laughing too much?

    • You mean like mile deep ice fields in NY City?

      Makes for a tough times square party But we survived and thrived.

  27. v8a4y5v8a4y5

    I’m sure you can’t imagine it. That really doesn’t surprise me at all.

    Although I bet Judith Curry in all of her prodigious research in the sciences beyond her own no doubt has some imagination of it, so why don’t we just wait to hear her talk about it?

    • I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you believe global warming of a few degrees C is dangerous? If so what’s your evidence? (not just statements of your beliefs and appeals to authority).

  28. Happy New Years to all here as well.

    Welcome to the Great West Judy. Nevada can be lovely and no state taxes.

    Tahoe and Sierra mountains are spectacular.

    Thanks for all you do.

    The climate wars go on till observations can inform the models and correct the adjustments.

    • David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

      Happy New Year to one and all.
      Thanks Judy for great informative challenging posts. Keep it up.
      PS Scott. Do you mean “until scientists test models against existing data” and politicians provide major funding to quantify natural variations and require models be validated against data? e.g., Consider:
      McKitrick R, Christy J. A Test of the Tropical 200‐to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models Earth and Space Science. 2018 Sep;5(9):529-36. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018EA000401

      Overall climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling in a general circulation model results from a complex system of parameterizations in combination with the underlying model structure. We refer to this as the model’s major hypothesis, and we assume it to be testable. We explain four criteria that a valid test should meet: measurability, specificity, independence, and uniqueness. We argue that temperature change in the tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa layer meets these criteria. Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years using a persistence‐robust variance estimator shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.

      Then what of the massive TypeB errors on the discrepancy between satellite and surface records? Who will quantify and then identify those?

  29. A Happy and Healthy New Year to you and yours, Judith…and to the denizens here at ClimateEtc.


  30. Thank you for all you do, Judith. Happy New Year to you and all CE followers.

  31. “”2018 climate: I predict that global average 2018 surface temperatures won’t be ‘top five’, i.e. cooler than the last few years. –> oops, looks like 2018 will be top 4”
    Happy new Year.
    I would request an article on the roller coaster sea ice variable changes which no one cares about while they revert to their trends.
    Perhaps later this year when we have a big upsurge in the Arctic sea ice and people are interested.
    Thanks for an entertaining year and all your hard work trying to promote normal scientific activity and your great work on sea level rise. Where are the others who should be approaching these issues on both sides?
    Appreciated ++.

  32. Healthy, Happy, and Prosper New Year!

    2018 climate: I predict that global average 2018 surface temperatures won’t be ‘top five’, i.e. cooler than the last few years. –> oops, looks like 2018 will be top 4

    Not too bad, Judith. You just need to increase your uncertainty range. Look at UK Met Office 2019 temperature prediction:

    “Graph showing global average temperature relative to the 1850–1900 baseline. The grey line and shading shows the 95% uncertainty range. The forecast value for 2019 and its uncertainty range are shown in black and green.”

    You see, they predict 1.15°C (1850-1900 pre-industrial baseline), that would make it second warmest year, but give it a range 0.98-1.22°C (first to third warmest year). The 0.24°C range is significantly higher than the median yearly change so essentially they have covered any warming that could take place. Have you done the same you would have been correct in your prediction. Well done. Climatological predictions are easy with the proper uncertainty ranges (i.e. huge). For example:

    I predict that 2019 average temperature will not reach the UK Met Office central value prediction and 2019 will become third to fifth warmest year.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      The weakness of that graph from the Met Office is that the shaded areas of grey, representing “the 95% uncertainty range” have no connection with scientific reality.
      At a minimum, there is a +/- 1 degree C at the 2 sigma level (if that is the appropriate metric) and it is strongly possible that the +/- 1 deg C also expresses 1 sigma uncertainty.
      This is not a personal opinion plucked from the ether. I have studied the historic Australian record for decades. It cannot be “improved” so much by adding it to the sparse African continental record, or any other, to make a global record.
      One cannot make a silk purse from a cow’s ear.
      Think of the sophistication and distribution of thermometry in the 1850-60 era at the start of the graph.The claimed +/- 0.25 for 2 sigma is pathetic and comical and the product of simplistic wan***s.

      • I know, Geoff. But this is like when you go watch a Marvel superhero movie. You have to accept superpowers. Otherwise you have to reject the entire movie. This is the way we measure global temperature and you and I are not going to change it. It does reflect global warming and cooling so it is not totally incorrect. It is important to remember that it cannot be trusted prior to 1950, and that it cannot be corresponded to proxy temperature changes.

      • The instruments began to be available in the 14th century. By the 1960’s weather stations were popping up around the globe for the purpose of synoptic weather forecasting.

        e.g https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WxForecasting/wx2.php

        So while the methodology – or even credibility – of combining weather station records into a global average may be questioned – this has no relation to the random difference of a value from the expected mean of a population represented by the shaded area.

      • Whoops – by the 1860’s.

  33. Happy New Year to Judith and all the followers here. My wish is that the establishment comes out of their own silos and becomes as knowledgeable about the climate history and their own science as some of the denizens. That might result in some revelations and ease the pathological obsession with certain doom. Relax and enjoy the ride.

  34. David Wojick

    My prediction is that 2019 will be the Year of Attribution (for human causes of bad weather). Under the new Paris Accord rules the developing countries are each supposed to begin reporting all the loss and damage they suffer due to AGW. It will be a lot and make many headlines. This will put the supposed science of attribution center stage, dwarfing all other climate science issues..(Caveat: it might not happen until 2020. Cooking that many books takes time.)

    See my http://www.cfact.org/2018/12/20/cop-24-dangerous-rules-added-to-paris-climate-accord/.

  35. Judith, I wondered if this was worth putting up as a post on Arctic Sea Ice.
    Might need some editing. Perhaps others here could take it and redraft it into something respectable without my bias. Sincerely angech

    Yo yo ice, probability and natural variation..

    While everyone has been focusing on CO2 and MGST a funny thing has been happening [at the forum] with the sea ice extents this last 8 months. Which should cause some scratching of heads and readjustments in the range we currently give to natural variability, in our assessment of the causes of sea ice growth and the reliability of Arctic and Antarctic temperature recording.

    2018 had the lowest winter maximum extent of the last 40 years of the satellite record despite a promising early regrowth. As such it was expected that it could set a new low record for the minimum summer extent comparable to that of 2016. Arctic temperatures fluctuated much higher than average though possibly on a par with the last 4 years during the melting season. Robust claims were made but the ice stubbornly refused to play along. Arctic hurricanes and large sea swells were predicted to break it up very quickly but the ice stubbornly sat there melting very slowly on top of an even more unexpected slow volume loss.

    Consequently when the minimum arrived despite the heroic high temperatures it had gone from the lowest maximum extent to the 8th lowest minimum in September. Skeptics were crowing and then it refused to refreeze dropping rapidly to the second lowest recovering extent in October.

    Then weirdness set in with pockets of quick refreeze in November in areas, Barents and Chukchi, which were sadly lacking the previous year. The East Siberian Sea, stalwart in not melting early but a long slow late melt refroze overnight [well not quite but rapidly]. The Hudson Bay started to freeze and November offered up an impossible freezing sequence of 16 days of way well above average freezing rates despite the high temperatures. From 2nd lowest to 13th or 14th lowest in that time. Unprecedented, alarming freezing. The trend went from below 2010 to equal to the 2010 average and then, almost, to the 2000 average in that 16 days. Why? Silence.

    As suddenly as it did the freeze it stopped. 2 weeks of below par freezing brought it back to the 2nd lowest. Then two human comedies. NASA mucked up with a graph on incomplete data that showed an impossible regrowth day that took 3 days to correct. Finally the last week into December. Ice growth recouped again helped by a shuffle at the end of December where growth rates are reset by the algorithms they use which give a jump to reflect an offset that develops each month [Masking].

    Currently we sit in 8th place with a steep rise occurring and looking likely to continue.

    What is to like? A recovery of sorts from the warm weather and currents stimulated by the 2016 El Nino and the 2017 rewarmth has occurred as expected due to the warming lag in these events finally wearing off. Further melting rate increase might occur in 4 months when the 2018 baby El Nino currents again reach the Arctic. This recovery might be big enough to give all concerned pause for thought as to how we should be assessing Arctic variability.

    What is not to like? When 16 days can give a fluctuation that should normally take 10 or more years to develop without due cause [unpredicted, unprecedented] The problem is not with the fluctuations but the concept of how much natural variation is actually capable of occurring. These results strongly suggest that variability in the Arctic is much greater than the trends of the last 40 years predict.

    The take home message is good for both sides. The last 10 years of data show a slowdown or pause in melting which might be the bottom of a cycle that is going to turn upwards if we choose to believe in 60 yar cycles. For warmists the fact that such large fluctuations can exist [independent of CO2 and surface temperatures] means there is also an outside chance of further large downward fluctuations.

    JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 6,731,603 km2?October 24, 2018?- Extent is lowest in the satellite record- Extent increase at 156 k is about 55 k ABOVE the average (2008-2017) on this day,
    JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 6,933,069 km2? October 25, 2018?- Extent is 2nd lowest in the satellite record,
    – Extent increase at 201 k is about 110 k ABOVE the average (2008-2017) on this
    JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 7,182,053 km2? October 26, 2018?- Extent is 3rd lowest in the satellite record,
    – Extent increase at 249 k is nearly 160 k ABOVE the average (2008-2017) on this day,
    JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 8,624,638 km2?November 5, 2018?- Extent is 4th lowest in the satellite record,
    JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 9,278,237 km2?November 14, 2018?- Extent is 6th lowest in the satellite record,
    JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 10,272,807 km2?November 22, 2018?– Extent is 13th lowest in the satellite record.
    JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 11,197,247 km2?December 11, 2018?- Extent is 2nd lowest
    (JAXA)] ASI Extent. December 16th, 2018: [The error]
    11,752,725 km2, an increase of 263,728 km2. 2018 is now the 9th lowest on record.
    JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 11,752,393 km2? December 22, 2018? – Extent is 4th lowest
    JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 11,871,945 km2? December 28, 2018? – Extent is 2nd lowest JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 12,590,152 km2 ?January 4, 2019 – Extent is 8th lowest
    [figures from others posting at Arctic Sea Ice Forum] * not a member

  36. Thank you for your honesty, integrity and hard work, Dr. Curry. Happy New Year.