Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Was Common ra glacier expansion in the Arctic Atlantic region triggered by unforced atmospheric cooling? [link]

The amplitude and origin of sea level variability during the Pliocene epoch [link]

Ghil and Lucarini: The physics of climate variability and change [link]  A long, but worthwhile read.

Roy Spencer: Record Antarctic stratospheric warming causes Sept. 2019 global temperature update confusion [link]

Revised historical solar irradiance forcing [link]

The U.S. corn belt is making its own weather [link]  Cooler temperatures and more rain

Amplification of the North America dust bowl drought through human-induced land degradation [link]

“Does Rapid Urbanization Trigger Significant Increase of Cumulative Heavy Rains in China?” [link] Answer in paper is yes.

Droughts in far off places are contributing to the amount of heat transported to regions experiencing heat waves [link]

No increase in global temperature variability despite changing regional patterns [link]

The North American hydrologic cycle through the last deglaciation eartharxiv.org/8q5kz/

Evolution of sea surface conditions near northwestern Greenland margin during the mid-Holocene [link]

Advances in extreme value analysis and applications to natural hazards [link]

A paper in Nature reports that Earth’s vegetation may not be able to continue to absorb human carbon dioxide emissions at current rates, which could accelerate climate change and exacerbate its effects. [link]

The climate theory casting new light on the history of Chinese civilization [link]

Policy & technologies

The role of nonfarm influences in estimates of climate change impacts on agriculture [link]

New Michael Moore documentary tackles alternative energy [link]

Biomass burning not sustainable, scientists say subsidies must stop [link]

Democratic candidates undervalue farm productivity and R&D [link]

Is eating beef healthy? [link]

Essay by Reto Knutti: Closing the kowledge-action gap in climate change [link]

How the U.S. power grid is evolving to handle solar and wind ensia.com/features/us-po

Granger Morgan Opinion: Climate change needs more than ‘muddling through’ [link]

Declining CO2 paths [link]

We need to talk about how we adapt to climate change [link]

Energy use and height in office buildings [link]

New route to carbon neutral fuels from carbon dioxide [link]

Pielke Jr: Net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 requires a new nuclear power plant every day [link]

Pielke Jr: t’s Time To Get Real About The Extreme Scenario Used To Generate Climate Porn [link]

The future of nuclear power in the US: beyond Yucca mountain [link]

Utilities big promises on CO2 reductions questioned [link]

Harnessing new technologies to prevent hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico [link]

NASA is getting serious about protecting Earth from killer asteroids. [link]

About science and scientists

Heterodox Academy: Seizing the means of knowledge production [link]

Highlight negative results to improve science [link]

The accuracy of German citizens’ confidence in their climate change knowledge go.nature.com/2mZxbc0

Political Disparities in the Academy: It’s More Than Self-Selection One reason for the extreme political skew of the academy? Initially Republican profs convert to Democrats. But why? [link]

Turkish scientists gets 15 month jail sentence for publishing environmental study [link]

Has reductionism run its course? [link]

Confessions of a climate scientist [link]

Here’s @AliceDreger‘s story of what happened to the great Napoleon Chagnon, the pioneering anthropologist who suffered one of the worst academic witch-hunts in history link.springer.com/article/10.100

Computers Are Making Huge Mistakes Because They Can’t Understand Chaos, [link]

Democracy requires discomfort [link]

Cambridge scientist sacked for ‘racist’ research is suing university [link]

Study: Science denial is found on both sides of the political aisle journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117

Are politically diverse teams more effective? [link]

Nir Shaviv: How climate pseudo science came to be publicly accepted [link]

Book defending free speech has been cancelled by the publisher [link]

Behind the energy and climate hypocrisy in all of us [link]

Dueling weathermen of the 1800s [link]

Climate scientist or activist – where’s the line? [link]


411 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Dan Pangburn

    Water vapor increase, accurately measured worldwide only since Jan, 1988, has produced 36+ times more warming at ground level than CO2 increase. Added cooling by CO2 well above the tropopause effectively cancels the tiny added warming from CO2 at ground level. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

    According to alarmists, water vapor increase depends only on temperature increase of the liquid surface water and has increased an average of 0.88% per decade. Actual measurements show the global average WV increase to be about 1.47% per decade. This proves WV, not CO2, has contributed to temperature increase.

    CO2 increase 1988 to 2018 = 407 – 347 = 60 ppmv
    Water vapor increase from TPW graph trend = 1.47 % per decade
    Average global WV = 10,000 ppmv
    WV increase in 3 decades = .0147 * 10,000 * 3 = 441 ppmv
    Per calculations from Hitran, each WV molecule is 5+ times more effective at
    absorbing energy from radiated heat than a CO2 molecule.

    Therefore, WV has been 441/60 * 5 = 36+ times more effective at increasing ground
    level temperature as CO2.

    The increased cooling by more CO2 well above the tropopause counters the added
    warming of CO2 at ground level.

    Accounting for the WV increase, ocean surface temperature cycles and the solar
    effect quantified by the sunspot number anomaly time-integral
    matches 5-year smoothed HadCRUT4 measured temperatures
    96+ % 1895-2018.

    • Water vapour has both GHG warming (which declines logarithmically according to beer lambert law) and convective cooling (which increases exponentially with temp) Net result is a U shaped buffering system on the earths climate. The GHG effect will resist cooling and the convection will resist warming. Increased convection is probably responsible for the decrease in humidity in the upper troposphere, either by increase efficiency of precipitation or due to dry/cold air pushing down from the stratosphere the resultant high pressure cells or in the downdraft itself.

      The major driver of warming is decreases in cloud cover (5% during sat era, resulting in a 2w/m2 increase in OLR) The driver of cloud cover is likely stratospheric chemistry driving zonal or meridional regimes via jet stream patterns. More airmass mixing, more clouds.

      • Ice ages are times when ice extent is more.
        Warm times are times when ice extent is less.
        There is more evaporation and snowfall in warm times when polar oceans are thawed. There is less evaporation and snowfall in cold times when polar oceans are frozen. More snowfall increases ice volume and the ice piles up and advances and causes the colder. Less snowfall allows ice volume to deplete and less ice retreats and allows the warmer.

        It is a natural, self correcting cycle, and we did not cause it.

    • Eric Hatfield

      This is my first comment here.
      I noticed in Dan Pangburn’s comment above (first response in the thread) that he confirmed my understanding the global average water vapor concentration being 10,000 ppm. That represents about 50% RH at the global average temp (the 50% figure I had seen before). The saturation mixing ratio there is about 10-11 g/kg looking at the skew-t. That would equate to a concentration of about 20,000 ppm (thanks to water vapor being a light molecule in comparison to Nitrogen or Oxygen). I want to go in a different direction than he did.

      We measure water vapor by measuring RH with a resolution of 1%. At the global average temp that resolution is about 200 ppm per 1%RH. Referencing someone else Dan mentions water vapor is 5 times as effective than CO2. So that 200 ppm of water vapor is worth about 1000 ppm of CO2.

      The logical conclusion is you lose the total effect of CO2 in the measurement error of water vapor at anything above pretty chilly temps like near freezing. (The resolution gets more fine at cooler temps.) How can we even consider trying to figure CO2’s component to climate change (warm or cold) until we can measure water vapor at a fine enough resolution not to lose CO2’s?

  2. David Wojick

    Is Google News legally liable for bias against conservatives?

    My latest article.


    Some excerpts:

    I recently wrote that Google News should be sued for bias against conservative sources, not regulated. Regulating Internet news aggregators is the last thing we want, but Google News is clearly doing something wrong, that needs to be corrected.

    To further this line of thought, here is a specific legal argument for the Courts to order Google News to stop discriminating. The Courts might even impose penalties for past discrimination. The Federal Trade Commission could bring such a suit, as could the users of Google News. Mind you I am not an expert on this stuff, hence the question mark in the title.

    We are looking for new law so should look at first principles. I posit a variation on the product liability principle called the implied warrant of merchantability. This says the product should work. It is a fundamental principle of product liability law.

    The possible parallel is that while Google News has no explicit contract with its users, because they do not pay anything, this may not be the end of the legal story. Google News users do not pay, but Google derives a monetary benefit from them, namely advertising revenues, which are based on usage. This creates an implicit financial relationship.

    No users, no income. Few users, a little income. In the case of Google news, there are a huge number of users, so Google gets a huge income from advertising. In fact Google News dominates the online news aggregation field, almost to the point of monopoly.

    Given this huge monetary benefit, Google therefore has a reciprocal obligation to return a benefit to its users, namely good news coverage. That is the implied product — good coverage.

    Politically biased coverage is not good coverage, especially given that roughly half of the users are conservatives. The users are not receiving the benefit that is owed them, in return for their usage. They are being deprived of vast swaths of news and opinion.

    By failing to provide good coverage, Google News is wrongfully damaging its users. The product does not work. This is a wrong the Courts can address.

    More in the article.

    • Yes David the internet knows you better than you know yourself. Someday everyone will have to be biologically linked to their digital identity and this freedom of anonymity will seem like the good old days.

    • Actually the failure is the lack of alternative search engines not using US algorithms.

      As a non-US citizen, I am absolutely disgusted with how both Google search and Wikipedia are basically US first, second and last.

      The rest of the world needs an internet not written by the USA for the USA.

      I could not care whst Google does any more as I refuse to use it. But I really want a great neutral search engine owned by the people for the people.

      • Modern search engines are like a tool with dozens of dials, switches, buttons and controls. Most people don’t know how to operate them to get the information they need. To paraphrase the title of a popular tune, (Depeche Mode – Personal Jesus) you need your own personal Google/Bing/DuckDuckGo AI god. Learn how to operate power tools safely!
        Search engines are not evil, people are.

      • PS: If you want to dethrone the USA just take away it’s dollar status as the world’s reserve currency.

      • Not just search engines but everything. For example, in the study of tropical cyclones only the north atlantic basin matters.

      • Rhys Jaggar,
        Just a follow up to my point about our digital privacy and identity:

        “Political Campaigns Know Where You’ve Been. They’re Tracking Your Phone.”
        “Unknown to the crowd, the Committee to Defend the President, a Republican political-action committee that supports Mr. Trump, had hired a company to collect unique identification numbers from attendees’ smartphones that evening, based on location data those phones were sending to third parties. The goal was to target ads at people it could drive to the polls the next day. Mr. Bishop won by about 3,800 votes.
        The PAC now plans to use the technique, which is called geofencing, in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election in about half a dozen swing states to find people who may not be registered to vote, said its chairman, Ted Harvey.
        “It’s another aggressive, on-the-ground effort to get those people identified,” Mr. Harvey said.
        Democratic and Republican candidates, political parties and outside groups are increasingly tapping into a new source of data as they gear up for the 2020 election: your smartphone. That is allowing for more granular—and sometimes invasive—voter targeting than has been used before.”

        Note to everyone, turn off your phone’s WiFi (ie. hide your device’s unique MAC address) while you are in public venues.

  3. Looking forward to Michael Moore new anti-renewable documentary. Too bad it couldn’t be released during the UN Climate summit where it could have caused maximum blow-back. I bought in to the solar panel fad back in 2011 and installed 28 panels. I can’t complain about my own experience since my panels have paid for themselves and my electric utility provider owes me almost $1,900 via net metering. But I am the exception not the rule and most residential roof mounted solar arrays do not make engineering sense (mine are ground mounted). As to Moore’s point about renewables it’s just another way of saying we can’t grow our way out of environmental degradation with more resource extraction and unlimited consumer consumption on a finite planet.

    • How much of the cost of your solar power was/is subsidized

    • $1,900 via net metering
      That clearly is good for you.

      Are your utility providers and the other customers better or worse due to this? You indicated it is generally worse.

    • dollars and cents question. assuming a constant annual KWh demand, buy a 20+ year supply of electricity at the current 2011 rate vs. the prevailing 20yr treasury bond rate. Took the 30% tax credit but several years later and defiantly made the payoff faster. I get way more federal tax breaks on my rental property but I also pay huge local school and property taxes.

      • “Took the 30% tax credit but several years later and defiantly made the payoff faster.”

        Slightly off topic for a science blog – However since you mentioned the tax credit – FWIW, most of the tax credit gets rebated back to the seller via a higher sales price. The tax credit creates a secondary artificial supply and demand curve. Comparing the natural supply /demand curve vs the artificial supply and demand curves shows the benefit goes mostly to the seller.

      • Hi Joe,
        I have no objection to the way you describe how tax credits work. In general tax credits tend to favor the upper income segment of the population so I prefer other ways to stimulate consumption. One of the things that piss me off is electric providers who offer a below market KWh price of $0.06/KWh but the fine print requires you must use over 2,000KWh /month or the price reverts to $0.11MWh. Rewarding people to overuse/waste electricity.
        I designed and specified all the components of my system. 100% american made panels, microinverters, wiring, racking. My installer and his crew were Iraq war vets. I actually tried hard to make this a Made in USA project.

    • My brother in law installed panels on their garage. The projected payback was reasonable, although less than if you invested it into an index fund, and I think it has worked out as expected. I don’t know if the installation or payment for electricity generated is subsidized but I guess most of the benefit is your own reduced bills.

  4. Hear’s something that caught my eye. The Niskanen Center has published a response to Mark Mills report on the new energy economy being magical thinking:


    Mark Mills’ original Manhattan Institute report:


  5. Javier/Frank/Tony B,

    Further to our “debate” in the previous edition of “Week in review”, it may interest you to know that the PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume numbers have just been released:


    What do you make of this linear trend?


    • The M in PIOMAS is from modeling, so you should take that graph from the facts-about-the-arctic category. A model output ain’t a fact.

      • Mornin’ Javier,

        So at the risk of repeating myself yet again, what do you make of this fact filled video revealing plummeting Arctic sea ice age?


        If a picture is worth a thousand words an animation must be worth at least a million?

    • Jim, thanks for publishing the latest piomas data. When you ask what to make of the (linear) trend, the answer is easy: The arctic sea ice volume is shrinking, pronounced since the mid 90s. It’s what one can await from the arctic amplification of every forced warming. However, the linear trend says nothing about a possible participation of some internal variability. Perhaps it could help to look at some nonlinear trend, I would suggest the application of a 10 years LOESS as I did it in the previous edidtion. As I could not get the official data on the website of piomas up to now I can’t do this. Hopefully they publish the data soon.

      • Hi Frank,

        I think you will find that Wipneus’ Arctic wide calculations based on the already published gridded thickness numbers will be remarkably close to the official PSC numbers when they are made publicly available.

    • The linear trend suggests a physical mechanism, it is not, it is just a line.
      What does a second order polynomial fit give as result?
      Why to you take volume and not area?

      • Hi Hans,

        Because many moons ago I studied physics. I’m even qualified to teach it!

        In a physics lesson, the “amount” of a substance is generally taken to be its volume or mass, is it not?


      • Hi Hans and Jim, indeed piomas published the monthly data but not the daily set. If it will be released I can make an overwiew over the whole melting saison in relation to the previous saisons. However, I recalculated the figure posted by Jim:
        with some additional informations, also a 10 years loess smooth. IMO it’s clear that there was some kind of internal variability between 2006 and 2014 leading to a pushed melting. Thereafter we see some kind of stabilizing.
        The slope of the linear trend ( IF one extrapolates it) suggests a “total death” (zero volume) in 2033. But this is “climate science by extraplation” IMO. Let me point to a paper which was released in 2018: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL079223 .
        They find a “mighty negative feedback” from simple physics: thinner ice grows faster than thicker ice. The authors compared the sea ice volume gain Oct.-April with the sea ice volume in October. They also used piomas data and I recalculated it:
        The trend is highly significant. As more ice melts to october in a given saison as more rapid the volume increases to the following April.
        Coming back to your question Jim: The figure with the linear trend for the Septembers 1979…2019 says that the volume decreased with a slope of -0.323 t km³/year, very likely due to the antropgenic forcing with some internal variability as additional component. The predictive power is very …limited. The real world is much more complicated than a linear trend.
        best Frank

      • Good afternoon Frank (UTC),

        Perhaps Alek, Marika, David and Nathan are avid readers of the Arctic Sea Ice Forum, where the concept of the “The Slow Transition” has been under discussion since 2014?

        As you rightly point out “simple physics” beats “a second order polynomial fit”, or indeed “the slope of the linear trend”, any day of the week.

        Perhaps I might direct Javier’s, Tony’s and your attention once again to this animation?


      • Hi Jim once more… I also was a reader (silent) in the ASIF but in the melting saison 2018 I stopped it because some members wrote to much boring stuff ( “Waiting for the cliff during the next 20 days” or so). So I maybe oversaw the more interesting dicussion. It’s always the danger when the audience is so big : The design of a “noise filter” is to time demanding. :-)
        However, it’s my impression that we do not disagree in some key facts, i.e. the antropogenic forcing as the main contributor to the Arctic sea ice decline since 1979 with some natural contributions. But when you ask me: “What happens next saison?” I would answer: I don’t know albeit great increase or the “cliff”.
        Thanks for the insightful und politely discussion. I wish there would be more!!
        best Frank

      • Hi Frank,

        Yes, the signal to noise ratio in the main ASIF melting/freezing season threads has undoubtedly reduced over the years.

        It seems wherever you go on the internet there are always plenty of people overly fond of the sound of their own voices!

      • Jim, so what, your appeal to authority does not impress me much, I studied geophysics and I also did teach it.

      • Hans,

        Here’s some recent exciting geological news from over here for you:


        Why are MetAmpere drilling holes and digging trenches if all that matters is the area of their alleged lithium deposits?

      • Three comments,
        Firstly as to “So at the risk of repeating myself yet again, what do you make of this fact filled video revealing plummeting Arctic sea ice age?”.
        This is a very misleading statistic chart to use for a record of only near 40 years starting with a larger ice area/ volume going to lower ice area/volume.
        Arctic Sea Ice (ASI) age is totally dependent on the amount of ice left in September when new ice starts to reform. When it is low and has a good year of regrowth you actually could get a good regrowth year (high first year ice) showing as a falling (plummeting in your words) ASI.
        Without taking into account the dynamics of starting point and end point the actual graph does not reflect whether more or less ice is being formed over a few years.
        Plummeting levels for say the last 3 years could actually be a feature, from a low base, of rapidly increasing sea ice, not that it is.

      • Angech – The longer sea ice hangs around the thicker it gets. A bit from thermodynamics, plus a lot more from ridging/rafting.

        Not so very long ago ice could circle around the Beaufort Gyre for 10 years or more. These days hardly any survives for 4 or more years.

      • “Angech – The longer sea ice hangs around the thicker it gets. A bit from thermodynamics, plus a lot more from ridging/rafting.”
        The beauty of language is that you can say things that are true but meaningless and also things that sound as if they are true for the point you wish to push, but in fact may have no relevance.
        10 year old ice is marginally thicker than one year old ice in density, perhaps. Sounds odd but it may have to do with a change in salt content.
        We are talking more about thickness as in volume, with ridging and rafting?
        In this case the ice thickness depends more on where it is being formed or moved to than its age. 10 year ice that has moved to a periphery is quite thin, first year ice moving centrally can become quite thick.
        The thickness, in volume, is purely related to the area it is on, not its age.
        As I pointed out sea ice age is dependent purely on the starting point and end point each year and when sea ice volume makes a yearly increase in the current clime the sea ice age appears to fall. Thus a completely misleading statistic to quote or use.

      • Angech,

        This “debate” is going around in circles like the Beaufort Gyre in centuries past.

        See Gordon’s comment on “colliding ice masses [that] push up and over each other to displace ice vertically up to 50 feet” and my response.

        Sea ice thickness doesn’t grow thermodynamically by 50 feet in a year!

    • *Since 1979*
      I would only be interested in seeing a graph starting ~1900, although generally it’s no surprise to me that with about 1 degree of warming since the end of the little ice age we would see reduced arctic ice.

      It was also supposed to result in reduced Antarctic ice but I’ve heard what melting there is is localized and even that ice extent has increased, I think the source for that was Climate Etc.

    • Personally I always thought that PIPS was better/more reliable than PIOMAS.. wasnt such a linear nor catastrophic output and was favoured by various militaries who tend to want accurate estimates (if there is such a thing in climate science these days). If I’m risking lives and billions of dollars worth of equipment I’d like to be informed without bias.

      Many a stranded/journey interrupted enviromentalist might agree, shame that their own narratives sometimes get in the way.

    • Taylor Pohlman

      So Jim, what do you make of the trend over the last ten years? Any chance that trend will continue? Has volume reached a ‘pause’. I certainly hope so for your sake – it will cause some science to be done to explain, vs. the endless cries of doom.

    • Do they have a table showing Arctic sea ice mass, average for each month?

  6. The descent into darkness article by Alice Dreger is of utmost interest. It shows how the false genocide accusations on anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon and physician James Neel were conferred credibility to the eyes of the American Anthropological Association by Terence Turner, an anthropologist activist. Here is his obituary:

    As usual what we see is that activism allows the abandonment of scientific neutrality and the committing of despicable acts justified through a noble corruption. Being an activist in a discipline related to the field of work should be incompatible with being a scientist in that field. It really casts doubt on the work being contaminated by the activism. It looks to me it constitutes a strong conflict of interest.

    • “As usual what we see is that activism allows the abandonment of scientific neutrality and the committing of despicable acts justified through a noble corruption.”

      WOW, beautiful – that one statement sums up the shenanigans of the whole leftist world at this moment in time. JWK

      • dwinstanley84gmailcom

        Four plus four makes five.
        Ignorance is Strength
        George Orwell, “1984” [+35]

    • Bill Fabrizio

      I passed by this article, being lazy to copy and paste the url. Thanks for drawing me back to it. If this isn’t an elucidation of the play book for alarmists I don’t know what is. The parallels to Russiagate are sobering. A fantastic report.

  7. Robots in precision agriculture feeding billions on billions in the world into the far future. Many billions of artificial eyes keeping an eye on land, ocean and sky.

    I have made my personal FB timeline public to 100’s of friend requests. Is this a thing? 😃


  8. Thank you again for shining a light on science

    Sent from my iPhone


  9. Computers Are Making Huge Mistakes Because They Can’t Understand Chaos, [link]
    There is no chaos in climate. Everything obeys the laws of nature and physics. When things are not well understood, important factors are left out of the solutions. This is not chaos, this is just a case of “they do not know, they do not even have a clue as to what causes natural climate change. Temperatures are bounded in the same bounds in repeating cycles. The bounds and cycles have evolved and abruptly changed from cycles that were more than a hundred thousand years into cycles that are about one thousand years.
    Climate science is based on peer reviewed consensus facts that are just wrong. Artificial Intelligent Computers are not advanced enough to fix basic facts that are really wrong. Climate scientists discuss past ice ages and ends of ice ages, and at some point, they almost always describe something and then say, “Nobody understands why”, then they tell you they understand the future.

    • richswarthout

      I believe you are confusing Chaos with Chaos Theory, which is a branch mathematics often simply called Chaos. It is widley accepted that our climate is a nonlinear system and thereby falls within the scientific study of chaotic systems.

      A key takeaway from the study of chaotic systems is the mathematical proof that climate/weather predictions cannot be made beyond a few months. Shouldn’t this be key to the whole climate debate?


  10. Curious George

    Has reductionism run its course? Dr. Hossenfelder argues that the Standard Model (SM) of elementary particles has been so successful in its predictions, that it probably represents the ultimate picture of Nature on microscopic scales. I too am impressed by the success of the SM, but .. in its very foundations it postulates that quarks (the basic components of nuclear matter) are impossible to observe individually. Only in pairs or triplets. Intellectually rather unsatisfactory.

    It is amazing how many experimental facts it explains, but it feels rather byzantine. I hope that a simpler explanation of all those facts might be found.

    One hundred and twenty years ago there was a feeling that physics – what we call classical physics – explained everything, and that there was nothing left to discover. Then came quantum physics, and the theory of relativity. I don’t call the addition of these two theories a “reductionism”.

    • They do not reduce things by learning things, they do reduce things by forming peer reviewed consensus, totally wrong, more often than right!

    • My impression is that quantum mechanics and general relativity may be compatible, if we assume all fields/forces are expressions of an underlying unified field, and that interactions between particles are not taking place in absolute space-time. This will require the development of quantum mechanics assuming that particles leave an imprint in or shape spacetime.

      I remember, many years ago, asking my father how come quantum mechanics assumed a rigid frame and background dependent behavior, when GR proved it was relative. He answered that was the way it was, period. He was more disciplined, had a tendency to accept received wisdom. But that answer never satisfied me, and now, after more than 50 years, I still think we have to follow that rabbit, and assume general relativity does apply to particles.

  11. Computers Are Making Huge Mistakes Because They Can’t Understand Chaos, [link]

    Although ice-sheet, ocean and continental geometries were subtly dif-
    ferent during the mid-Pliocene, our results suggest that major loss of
    Antarctica’s marine-based ice sheets, and an associated GMSL rise of
    up to 23m, is likely if CO2 partial pressures remain above 400ppm.

    Since ice-sheet, ocean and continental geometries are different than during the mid-Pliocene, I suggest a one molecule in ten thousand in the atmosphere increase of a trace gas will not even be noticed.

  12. Is Eating Beef Heathy?

    “We’re closer to saying: we really don’t know,” while past guidelines have generally suggested we fully understand meat’s health effects.”

    The issue is whether science is involved in nutrition policy determinations or are advocates for some social well-being belief system to determine public policy. The red meat issue is burdened with other social issues including climate change.

    Ever since the Korean War autopsy information on “fatty streaks” on soldiers who died of their wounds made the rounds in academic circles, the cholesterol urban myth made its way into changing our way of dietary messaging. Amongst those stories was that cholesterol from animal fats was bad and the US and the wold in general should follow the diets of the high altitude vegetarians. It turns out that these people had the same coronary artery disease as anybody else and the researchers were examining only those who survived their heart attacks.

    Other data on cholesterol and animal based diets was suppressed for multiple decades until just recently. Hard to imagine but eating meat, red meat is OK, but it is.

    In the Annals of Internal Medicine: 1 October 2019 the clinical guidelines based upon evidence based medicine is…Continue doing what you have been doing. What a message. The clinics, doctors, and the whole health food industry have been told…never mind. They are not going down without a fight .

    • Does Nir Shaviv know what he is talking about? Where are the data or calculations?

    • George McGovern said in his hearsing that there was no consensus on it.

    • The tambonthongchai reference was interesting regarding methane being a major greenhouse gas that needed regulation. Further, the source of methane from farm animals was such that: ” Lowering peak climate forcing quickly with ruminant and CH4 reductions would lessen the likelihood of irreversibly crossing such tipping points into a new climatic state.” Other sources of methane were from reservoirs whereby vegetation settled from fast flowing rivers, decompose and produce methane. Bogs, wetlands, and other still waters create similar vegetation decaying methane producing sources.

      All these sources of methane was likely irreversibly crossing such tipping points into a new climate state, which, not stated but implied, would be catastrophic. We have our brethren in the modeling industry to thank for our searing view into the future.

      After much ado about nothing regarding a human calamity regarding eating red meats that never materialized, one wonders about the speculation regarding ruminating farm animals hurling us all to some equally frightening tipping point. I am reminded in a sort of circumspect way of an earlier era of: “cow tipping.” A cruel trick played on such a gentle and docile creature.

  13. An examination of the attribution of sea ice changes to AGW


  14. Biomass and sustainable wood burning is a renewable and inexpensive source of future energy. It is proven and it works. Take a look at the paper pulp industry. Those who say otherwise have vested interest one way or another.

    • In the linked article about it the Netherlands subsidy package for biomass is 11 billion Euros and it says if the subsidy is dropped energy companies will demand compensation.

      Seems likely to me that it would be smarter to burn natural gas which is cleaner for the air and just plant more trees anyway.

  15. Study: Science denial is found on both sides of the political aisle http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617731500

    This implies that the conductors of the survey did know what the correct honest science was. I suggest they did not know, did not even have a clue, did not know what the correct science answers would be.

    Publish the questions and answers and let the readers decide who made any sense, if any did. I have seen surveys, related to climate change, that did not have a correct answer to choose from. I started an online climate course once. The test answer choices gave me pains in my body. I could not finish the course. A typical test would not have any right answers to choose from. It was easy to know the answer they wanted, it was always whatever promoted the most fear for our future.


  16. I hate to say this, because I know well how much of serious efforts have been put into improving these parametric representations (I spent hundreds of hours in vain myself), but all of these parametric representations, even the best of them, are Mickey Mouse mockeries when compared with the reality. …That is, the selection of the parameter values is an engineering process to “make the model work” rather than a scientific process. The models are “tuned” by tinkering around with values of various parameters until the best compromise is obtained. I used to do it myself. It is a necessary and unavoidable procedure and is not a problem so long as the user is aware of its ramifications and is honest about it. But it is a serious and fatal flaw if it is used for climate forecasting/prediction purposes. …

    Even if the best compromise so obtained from the tuning looks very close to the observation, the models’ behaviors are guaranteed to be grotesquely unrealistic, since the tuning requires other aspects of the models to be extremely distorted in order to counterbalance the distortion associated with the Mickey Mouse representations described above. …

    I wondered how long it would take before an insider confession by a climate modeller shed light on the reality of their trade. Kudos to Mototaka Nakamura.

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A wave of dry air that falls from the stratosphere causes a large drop in surface temperature. In this area, the vertical temperature gradient is maximum. The tropopause height drops. Explained below.
    An increase in ionization by the GCR over the polar circle in winter causes blockages in the polar vortex.

  18. re The New Michael Moore Documentary: MM says “This is not a film by climate change deniers, this is a film by people who really care about the environment.”.
    Non sequitur. And, by implication, a slur. MM’s earlier documentaries were pretty awful; I suspect that this one will be too.

  19. Re : How the U.S. power grid is evolving to handle solar and wind

    Politics-speak for How the U.S. power grid is having the expensive additions necessary to handle solar and wind. And how these costs are shifted away from wind and solar operators in order to gull the electorate

  20. Hi BFGC,

    Now you’re getting on to my “professional” speciality, albeit from an EU rather than US perspective I suppose.

    That article scandalously neglects to mention vehicle-to-grid technology! V2G for short, or VGI as I believe they prefer to call it on the other side of the pond.

    • Could it be that V2G is even further from commercial viability than other grid batteries ?

      • Here in the once Great Britain static “grid scale” battery storage has allegedly come of age:


        Anesco’s landmark Clayhill development, which was the first solar farm in the UK to be created without government subsidy, has been named Solar PV Project of the Year as part of the 2018 National Energy Efficiency Awards.

        Based in Milton Keynes, the hybrid site combines 10MW solar PV co-located with 6MW battery storage.

        V2x technology isn’t too far behind (IMHO!)

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Blocking is already visible. The polar vortex pattern will be similar to last year. Very strong sudden stratospheric warming and breakage of the polar vortex are possible in January or February.

    • I’ll be sure to change to winter tyres.

    • Blunderbunny

      Yep. We’ll see what mischief a truly quiet sun can cause. Not an experiment that I’m keen on, but it is something we really need to know. We had an interesting summer and ts looking as if winter may be even more interesting. Hopefully it wont be as cold on th northern hemisphere as I think it could be.

      • Blunderbunny

        We have a strong correlation between quiet suns and a flappy jet stream, polar vortex incursions and blocking weather patterns. It might be nice to channel some modelling effort over and above normal long range weather prediction towards this. Anyone actually know of any efforts in this regard?

  22. “The accuracy of German citizens’ confidence in their climate change knowledge”:
    One wonders that this stuff gets published.
    8 rather arbitrary questions no one from the general public without specialised knowledge can confidently answer other than guessing whether it sounds like it conforms to the propaganda one hears all day long. Two question might be legitimately debatable. And you are supposed to believe in the hockey stick.

    So what did we learn from this “study”? About whom? The public? Or the Psychologists beliefs? Or the “nature climate change” editiors?

  23. “500-year [solar] cycles often ended with rapid climate cooling. Whenever that happened, societies started to collapse and neither culture nor political systems could sustain them.”

    So, it is imperative that humanity must pump more and more CO2 in the atmosphere to avoid the inevitable, disastrous consequences of global cooling on human culture and society?

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      Unfortunately, this will not help. Only an increase in the strength of the geomagnetic field can help.

  24. The US corn belt is making its own weather.

    Typical of those Trump-voting southerners with other antisocial habits such as feeding the world. To add insult to injury – now it turns out that their redneck agriculture is reversing global warming, causing regional cooling – a direct insult to Greta Thunberg and all the good believers of the world.

    “The [influence] of agriculture intensification is really an independent problem from greenhouse gas emissions,” says Ross Alter, lead author of the study

    Now if warming were a problem, then one would have thought that cooling to offset warming would be a good thing. But that’s not the logic of today’s advanced climate science.Yes warming is a problem. And cooling – that’s a problem too especially if it’s caused by humans. And even more especially – if it’s caused by the kind of humans who live in the southern republican red states.

  25. Ireneusz Palmowski

    There will be unusual temperature drops next week in Colorado at night.

  26. Blunderbunny

    No, I wasn’t aware of those further iterations Jim. Thanks that’s very useful mate. I’ll look them up in bit do they differ much from PIOMAS?

    • The pleasure is all mine BB.

      I think you’ll find that the US Navy’s current estimates show Arctic sea ice to be thinner than PIOMAS. Please feel free to compare and contrast at :


      • Blunderbunny

        Thinner but greater coverage? Or just less ice overall? That’s actually not what I was expecting. I do need to go and read your site. Rather than just saying, hello. Seems I’m under informed. My fault, not been that interested in ice coverage for a number of years. Hence the PIPS reference. Knew it was to be replaced but not had cause to go look until now. During which time it wasnt only replaced once. It was even superceded again. Will rectify my state of informedness.

      • Hi BB – I think you will find that the Navy’s current calculations reveal astonishingly thin sea ice cover across the Arctic.

        Meanwhile the MOSAiC Expedition has installed some buoys that actually measure sea ice thickness:


        Here’s the initial readings from the most recent one to go live:


      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        Anomalies in the stratosphere due to low solar activity are clearly visible. In winter they will block the polar vortex.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        The volume of ice in the Arctic was lower in 2016.

      • Ireneusz – Not according to PIOMAS it wasn’t!

      • Gordon Robertson

        jim…from one of your links…”Meanwhile the MOSAiC Expedition has installed some buoys that actually measure sea ice thickness:”

        Some people are comedians. They are installing buoys in the Beaufort Sea to measure ice thickness. Do they have any idea of the conditions on the Arctic Ocean?

        It seems obvious they are trying to measure ice thickness in the one month of Arctic summer.


        The Arctic Ocean is a dynamic system that features ocean currents and wind patterns. The ice is constantly in motion.

        When the Canadian RCMP cutter, the St. Roch, sailed west to east through the NW Passage in the early 1940s, it was held up by ice for 2 years. On the return voyage, it sailed right through in 88 days. Captain Larsen, of the St. Roch, explained that the ice is moved around by ocean currents and winds.

        How does one measure ice thickness under such conditions? On top of that, colliding ice masses push up and over each other to displace ice vertically up to 50 feet.

        There are times in mid-winter when the North Pole temperatures rise above 0C and the Pole is ice free. That has nothing to do with the ice melting, it’s due to the circulating ice leaving a hole. The rise in temperature at the Pole is an artefact of the ocean currents and winds.

        Global warming is not an issue in the Arctic Ocean, despite what climate alarmists think.

      • Also relevant may be the geological features of the Arctic. Pls see   https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/04/svalbard/  

        Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

      • Mornin’ Gordon,

        If you had read a bit further you would have discovered that

        German research icebreaker Polarstern will… spend a year drifting through the Arctic Ocean – trapped in ice.

        In essence Polarstern will be following in the illustrious footsteps of Tara and Fridtjof Nansen‘s Fram before her, but with vastly more scientists in attendance than previous transpolar drift expeditions.

        The MOSAiC expedition will bring a modern research icebreaker close to the north pole for a full year including for the first time in polar winter. The data gathered will be used by scientists around the globe to take climate research to a completely new level.

        There is an ice mass balance buoy of similar design already deployed in the Beaufort Sea. The MOSAiC expedition will be deploying all sorts of other buoys too.

        The aim of the expedition is thus “a full year” and not your claimed “one month of Arctic summer”.

        As I previously explained to Angech, in this day and age the sea ice in the Arctic doesn’t hang around long enough to do a whole lot of “push[ing] up and over each other”

      • Jim

        The OMG mission of NASA says the Jakobshavn Glacier is advancing. OMG stands for Oceans Melting Greenland. Really? Is there anything more lame than a government agency of the United States of America naming one of its programs OMG? Do you think they paid a public relations consultant big bucks to come up with the name. Do you think they used focus groups?

        What is going to happen when the AMO flips and the Glaciers keep advancing and the Sea Ice recovers? Maybe a new acronym…WG. We Goofed.


      • Ceresco,

        I have no idea if, or how much, NASA paid hordes of PR consultants.

        I’m also not sure what Jakobshavn Glacier has to do with sea ice?

        Perhaps you’d be good enough to explain your “What is going to happen when the AMO flips.. and the Sea Ice recovers?” theory to me very slowly?


      • When is the AMO going to flip? It’s not going to flip for a very long time. It’s the same as the global temperature, which is going to be going up for several more decades. The PDO can flip. It recently did. Yawn.

      • Hi JCH,

        Thanks for your input.

        However I was rather hoping to hear a synopsis of Ceresco’s AMO theory from his (presumably?) own virtual lips!

      • Jim and all others interested in the daily arctic sea ice volume developments: The daily piomas data were released, I made this figure:
        IMO it shows the anomaly better then the original piomas plot.
        best Frank

      • Even NOAA recognizes the AMO has an association with Arctic Sea Ice.


        But if that’s not enough there are other citations on the AMO correlation with Arctic Sea Ice/Temperature/Climate Dynamics.

        Chylek et al 2009
        Li et al 2018
        Drinkwater 2018
        Hahn 2018
        Levitus et al 2009
        Yu et al 2019
        Day et al 2012
        Divine Dick 2006
        Miles et al 2013
        Polyakov et al 2004
        Lamoureux et al 2006

      • Mornin’ Ceresco,

        Thanks very much for those learned journal references. However I am anxious to discover much, much more about the AMO theory which is yours.

        In case my homage to the Great Python in the sky eludes you, please see:


      • What am I supposed to be “rebutting” Ceresco?

        At the risk of repeating myself:

        I am anxious to discover much, much more about the AMO theory which is yours.

        Tick, tock:


      • The negative phase of the AMO is coming back. Or so say the skeptical priests. Soon. It’s a cargo cult.


      • Not quite up to the standards of the Lafayette Escadrille. At a minimum needs to be retrofitted with wheels.

      • In the end the “discussion” (with a very managable argumentative value) in this subthread lowers the bar, I’m afraid.

      • Ceresco,

        It seems as if the mod has red pencilled a couple of my witty ripostes to your evasions, so….. At the risk of repeating myself, repeating myself:

        Please divulge your predictions regarding the no doubt imminent “flip” of the AMO and the effect you anticipate that will have on the sea ice in the Arctic.

        With or without reference to the learned journal articles you hinted at earlier in the “discussion”.


      • There is no evidence that past associations between AMO and Arctic temperatures and past associations between Arctic temperatures and Arctic Sea Ice won’t continue.

      • Ceresco,

        So that being the case, what’s your prediction for the Arctic sea ice metric of your choice?

      • “Covariability between sea ice and Atlantic multidecadal variability as represented by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is evident during the instrumental record, including an abrupt change at the onset of the early twentieth century warming. Similar covariability through previous centuries is evident from comparison of the longest historical sea ice records and paleoproxy reconstructions of sea ice and the AMO. This observational evidence supports recent modeling studies that have suggested that Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal variability.”

        Since the AMO is quasi periodic with some upper bounds suggested at between 50 and 90 years, who knows when it will begin affecting Arctic Sea Ice. One estimate is 80% probability of turning cold by 2024. My prediction is that the Arctic Sea Ice extent will exceed the 1981-2010 median level before the Detroit Lions appear in the Super Bowl.

      • Good morning Ceresco (UTC),

        Thanks for elucidating your theory. However I’m from across the pond, so I’m afraid the sporting reference eludes me. However that doesn’t sound like much of a prediction!

        Meanwhile as we all wait patiently for the Lions to roar and the AMO to flip the Arctic is still warming faster than Detroit:


      • Can you imagine kicking it back with your bloomer clad sweetie on the beach in Malibu, California in 1923 and having a prescient prognosticator tell you that that beach will be awash by sea level rise in 12 years, and then visiting that same beach nearly 100 years later and being disappointed that the ocean has risen only 4 inches.

        I keep waiting for the acceleration. You keep waiting for the flip.
        My prediction is that the flip will occur before the Malibu beach disappears.


      • Ceresco,

        What do you suppose will happen when the “ice cube” melts away completely?


      • “the Arctic is still warming faster than Detroit”

        That is consistent with modeled global warming.

        However, it’s worth bearing in mind, the warming is coming from the latent heat of freezing. The reason it’s warmer than average is that more ice is forming than average ( because there’s more open water to freeze ). It’s warmer because it’s cold.

        As the graphic indicates, it’s warmer when it’s cold, and it’s not warmer when it’s warm.

        Also, while melting of Arctic Sea Ice is modeled with global warming,
        a confounding physical process is also possible. Factors other than AGW which reduce ice, such as anomalous winds blowing ice through the Fram Strait, would lead to warming. Since some Fram Strait dynamic loss has occurred through the satellite era, it’s possible that some global warming came from Arctic Sea Ice loss simultaneous with ice loss from warming.

      • Eddie,

        Please see the question I just put to the Kid.

        You do realise that “it’s not warmer when it’s warm” on the DMI T2 graph because the “ice cube” is melting?

        Don’t you?

      • Jim, “What do you suppose will happen when the “ice cube” melts away completely?” Your attached figure suggests that you mean the arctic sea ice and the content of the question suggests a link to SLR ( in Malibu in this case) and the right answer is: only marginaly issues (due to the salt in the ice)

      • You can’t possibly mean the Arctic Sea Ice. If so, the answer is the same thing that happens every summer, which is nothing. It is the same thing that happens every austral summer with the Antarctica sea Ice. Melting the sea ice at either pole does nothing.

        You might be confused with what will happen if the Ice Sheets over Greenland and Antarctica melt. That is a concern by some. But the IPCC In 2013 said the contribution to Global Mean Sea Level from Antarctica is only 0.27mm/yr. Do you know how much that is? It is precisely 1/5 the thickness of a dime. You might not know how thin an American dime is but it, by itself, is very thin. And then divide that by 5.

        On the other hand, studies have found reasons to be concerned about the collapse of the Ice Sheets. But the time frame of some studies for that to happen is a millennium.The Ice Sheet over West Antarctica is inherently unstable, partly because some of it is below sea level and warm water laps away at the glaciers and the ice shelves 24/7. The same dynamics are occurring there as tossing a glass of ice cubes into a kitchen sink of water, regardless of the temperature of the water. Eventually the ice cubes disappear. There are also recent studies that have looked into the effect of geothermal activity below certain major glaciers and the ice sheet. But that is another discussion.

        I don’t think you said what you meant to say.

      • I’m not in the least confused Ceresco, but you and Eddie seem to be.

        Once the Arctic Sea “ice cube” has (mostly) melted there’ll be nothing left to hold the summer DMI Arctic temperature graph near the freezing/melting point of salty sea water, will there?

        Except possibly the Greenland ice sheet?

      • cerescokid, indeed basic physics or the lack of? :-)

  27. Pingback: CHRONOS antaa toisen kuvan | Roskasaitti

  28. I would be interested to hear from Jim Hunt or someone else that have more knowledge in what exact error that caused PIOMAS to ad more ice volume to year 2011–13, according to their website:
    “We identified a programming error in a routine that interpolates ice concentration data prior to assimilation. The error only affected data from 2010-2013”.
    Maybe this question have been discussed earlier, if so please give me a link.

    • Curious George

      A classical advice to engineers and scientists:
      Interpolate at will. Extrapolate at your own peril.

    • Lars,

      I have no idea if that subject has been discussed here previously. I am a very irregular visitor!

      However, according to the PSC:

      In February 2014 we identified a programming error affecting the assimilation of ice concentration data. This error affected PIOMAS variables starting 2010-2013. Data have been reprocessed and are identified as version 2.1. Ice area and ice thicknesses in the Beaufort Chuckchi Sea areas were affected with ice thicknesses larger in reprocessed versions. Largest errors were in May.

  29. How accurately can the climate sensitivity to CO₂ be estimated from historical climate change?

    Abstract The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, in K) to CO2 doubling is a large source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Estimates of ECS made from non-equilibrium states or in response to radiative forcings other than 2 × CO2 are called “effective climate sensitivity” (EffCS, in K). Taking a “perfect-model” approach, using coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) experiments, we evaluate the accuracy with which CO2 EffCS can be estimated from climate change in the “historical” period (since about 1860). We find that (1) for statistical reasons, unforced variability makes the estimate of historical EffCS both uncertain and biased; it is overestimated by about 10% if the energy balance is applied to the entire historical period, 20% for 30-year periods, and larger factors for interannual variability, (2) systematic uncertainty in historical radiative forcing translates into an uncertainty of ±30–45% (standard deviation) in historical EffCS, (3) the response to the changing relative importance of the forcing agents, principally CO2 and volcanic aerosol, causes historical EffCS to vary over multidecadal timescales by a factor of two. In recent decades it reached its maximum in the AOGCM historical experiment (similar to the multimodel-mean CO2 EffCS of 3.6 K from idealised experiments), but its minimum in the real world (1.6 K for an observational estimate for 1985–2011, similar to the multimodel-mean value for volcanic forcing). The real-world variations mean that historical EffCS underestimates CO2 EffCS by 30% when considering the entire historical period. The difference for recent decades implies that either unforced variability or the response to volcanic forcing causes a much stronger regional pattern of sea surface temperature change in the real world than in AOGCMs. We speculate that this could be explained by a deficiency in simulated coupled atmosphere–ocean feedbacks which reinforce the pattern (resembling the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation in some respects) that causes the low EffCS. We conclude that energy-balance estimates of CO2 EffCS are most accurate from periods unaffected by volcanic forcing. Atmosphere GCMs provided with observed sea surface temperature for the 1920s to the 1950s, which was such a period, give a range of about 2.0–4.5 K, agreeing with idealised CO2 AOGCM experiments; the consistency is a reason for confidence in this range as an estimate of CO2 EffCS. Unless another explosive volcanic eruption oc37 curs, the first 30 years of the present century may give a more accurate energy-balance historical estimate of this quantity.

    Pray for a big eruption.

    • Pray for a big eruption.

      You follow a sick and twisted religion if you pray for catastrophes. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

    • El Chichon and Pinatubo do exaggerate warming trends since the peak rates from the mid 1970s.

      However, backward looking rates from present are no more than 1.7°C per century, even with the bump from eruptions.

      Wonder why the boogie man rates of 2.0–4.5 K are cited.

    • JCH: Are you sure you understood this paper quite well? I.e it gives an answer to your bolded sentences in this post https://judithcurry.com/2019/10/05/week-in-review-science-edition-110/#comment-901156 with this part of the discussion section: “Whatever the cause, it is striking that αα in amip-piForcing, associated with this pattern, reaches such a large value, given that it is derived from the single realisation of observed climate history….We speculate that there are coupled atmosphere-ocean feedbacks which reinforce this SST pattern in the real world but are lacking in models (McGregor et al. 2014, 2018; Raedel et al. 2016; Yuan et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2018). ”
      No evil patterns that increase the sensitivity from observed values!

  30. Emergent constraints on Earth’s transient and equilibrium response to doubled CO2 from post-1970s global warming

    Future global warming is determined by both greenhouse gas emission pathways and Earth’s transient and equilibrium climate response to doubled atmospheric CO2. Energy-balance inference from the instrumental record typically yields central estimates for the transient response of around 1.3 K and the equilibrium response of 1.5–2.0 K, which is at the lower end of those from contemporary climate models. Uncertainty arises primarily from poorly known aerosol-induced cooling since the early industrialization era and a temporary cooling induced by evolving sea surface temperature patterns. Here we present an emergent constraint on post-1970s warming, taking advantage of the weakly varying aerosol cooling during this period. We derive a relationship between the transient response and the post-1970s warming in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models. We thereby constrain, with the observations, the transient response to 1.67 K (1.17–2.16 K, 5–95th percentiles). This is a 20% increase relative to energy-balance inference stemming from previously neglected upper-ocean energy storage. For the equilibrium climate sensitivity we obtain a best estimate of 2.83 K (1.72–4.12 K) contingent on the temporary pattern effects exhibited by climate models. If the real world’s surface temperature pattern effects are substantially stronger, then the upper-bound equilibrium sensitivity may be higher than found here.

    On the way to > 3.0 ℃.

    • Curious George

      3.0 ℃ would take a lot of homogenization.

    • On the way to > 3.0 ℃.

      Not without going first through –5°C, thus spoke Milankovitch.

    • “On the way to > 3.0 ℃.”

      Typical – invent something that hasn’t been observed.

    • Transient and equilibrium? I have said something of the sort. How transient Earth subsystems transition to emergent equilibrium – question is.


      Computer generated cloud modelling at a scale not possible globally without billions more times computing power. I have great expectations for silicon quantum computing with the amazing Michelle Simmons.


      Soon we can observe and simulate. The numbers to be taken within broad limits below show bi-equilibrium cloud. Low to high CO2. Something of the sort is observed in decadal cloud and sea surface temperature shifts in the north-east Pacific.


      There’s not much to them but clouds reflect some 20% sunlight and cool the planet. Loss of low level marine strato-cumulus cloud could cause warming of 8 degrees C.


      The Earth system changes. How fast and how much is an open question.

    • Gordon Robertson

      JCH…re post 1970s global warming.

      It seems those issuing articles like this offer only the surface temperatures as fudged by NOAA. The post-1970s is also the age of the satellite as per UAH.

      Except for the 2016 EN warming, which still seems to be resolving, UAH shows a flat ‘global average’ warming trend from 1998 till roughly 2015, stalled at roughly 0.2C above the base line. Yet the UAH trend is stated at 0.12C/decade.

      I have asked repeatedly over at Roy Spencer’s blog how a 0.12C/decade trend can contain an 18 year flat trend? Many people seem OK with a number-crunched trend but my skeptical mind rejects such math.

      The IPCC admitted to 15 years of that flat trend and the early portions of it caused alarmist Kevin Trenberth to lament in the Climategate emails that the warming had stopped.

      He called it a travesty that their instrumentation could not detect an anthropogenic signal from the ‘real’ noise. Ah, to be as blind as an alarmist. The fictitious anthropogenic signal is a real signal but the real weather signal is noise.

      Seems to me the article to which you have linked suffers from the same blind spots.

    • JCH: see thr text and the supps! They estimate a fully forced AMO and IPO, in the supps. they caculate more likely values (i.e. TCR=1.5 when allowing some internal variability after 1970 ) for both. The higher ECS than the obs. comes mostly (they state in the maintext) from changing warming patterns but some new papers assume that the oberved pattern is a result of the forcing itself, so it won’t change much with ongoing further forcing.Therefore their ECS could be too high.

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A positive anomaly in Iceland indicates a strong circulation bolkada during the winter of 1708/1709.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      A positive anomaly in Iceland indicates a strong circulation blockade during the winter of 1708/1709.

    • Gordon Robertson

      Ireneusz…I am reading a book about an English adventurer, Samuel Hearne, who explored in the Hudson’s Bay area and to the west close to the time you mention 1708/1709. He wrote a book on his adventures which is apparently considered a classic for its description of the Arctic and sub-Arctic at that time. I am going to see if I can find it.

      Although Iceland is on the other side of Greenland from Hudson’s Bay, I was interested in whether the Bay froze over during our Canadian winters. Apparently it does, beginning the freeze over in October/November and becoming ice free only by August.


      The focus right now is on the Arctic sea ice but why is sea ice further south not considered? It freezes all the way to James Bay at the south end of Hudson’s Bay. There is a mention in the link that this years ice extent is close to normal for the time referenced.

      The southern end of Hudson’s Bay does not suffer from the lack of solar energy in winter like the Arctic. The cold spells in that region are due to cold air drifting south from the Arctic. I live near Vancouver, Canada, which is slightly lower in latitude than the southern tip of James Bay and our temperatures seldom dip below 0C in winter. We are warmed by ocean currents which keep us above 0C unless some Arctic air descends to make us miserable.



  32. Researchers say that when 500-year-long sun cycles brought warmth, communities flourished, but when the Earth cooled, ancient societies collapsed:

    “Citing this and earlier studies, Xu said that over the next few decades the Earth would enter 25 years of cooling, although greenhouse gases could slow the temperature drop.
    Cooling would increase the size of polar ice caps and lower sea levels. Areas such as southern China could benefit as land would be reclaimed from the sea.”

    Low solar increases negative NAO/AO states, driving increased El Nino conditions and a warm AMO. That reduces the Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice sheet, and continental glaciers, and raises the sea level.
    Grand solar minima series occur on average every 863 years, with the next series starting from the late 2090’s, and begins with the longest pair of centennial solar minima for 3450 years. This centennial solar minimum is very short and eases off from 2025.

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Snow is also forecast to develop along with a dramatic temperature plunge over parts of Colorado, including the Denver area.

    “Within 48 hours, Denver may go from 80 degrees and sunshine on Tuesday to 20 degrees and snow Wednesday night,” Sosnowski said.

  34. For weeks, WUWT thrashed around in all sorts of nonsense about the ostensible “propagation of error” in GCM modeling of “cloud forcing.” Judith is to be commended for not offering any such platform for the public display of sheer analytic ignorance.

  35. Gordon Robertson

    re dust bowl amplification…from the link…”…maximum drying in the central and northern Plains, warm temperature anomalies across almost the entire continent, and widespread dust storms. General circulation models (GCMs), forced by sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from the 1930s, produce a drought, but one that is centered in southwestern North America and without the warming centered in the middle of the continent”.


    The models can’t even get it right when the data is real, from the past.

    When I studied geology, as part of my engineering studies, we were ‘told’ the dust was due to plowed furrows in fields being incorrectly plowed in long, parallel rows that the wind could blow down and pick up dust. That seemed odd to me at the time since it would mean all plowed fields would have to align with the direction of wind. Of course, on an exam, I would be forced to regurgitate what they had told me.

    Today, students are likely ‘told’ that the dust was due to anthropogenic practices that caused the warming and temporary climate change, albeit without proof. In either case, it seems no one is willing to admit that no one knows why the 1930s were so hot and dry in North America. Record show there were heat waves in the 1930s that have not been seen since yet we are told today that current warming is unprecedented.

    BTW…Michael Mann is a geologist. Many have queried how his background qualifies him to speak as an authority on warming and climate. He really hasn’t gotten much right in his theories, as far as I can see, He seems to be better, as revealed in the Climategate email scandal, at drumming up support to interfere with peer review and devising methods to hide declining temperatures.

    • “…heat waves in the 1930s…”

      I know you know, but for those who don’t know or pretend that the heat waves didn’t exist, it’s always nice to have a reminder from EPA about the heat waves during that period. This was pretty common knowledge in the 1950s when I first learned about the hot 1930s. Maybe that period is ignored in history classes…..along with everything else.


    • Gordon Robertson

      cerescokid…thanks for graphic.

      The question still remains as to what caused those heat waves and record temperatures that still stand in North America despite NOAAs attempts to amend the record.

      I find it hard to accept that the warming was only in North America just as the Little Ice Age was claimed to affect only Europe.. I think global record keeping must have been poor at the time since large portions of the planet were off bounds to scientific measurement, like in the USSR.

      I hardly think abundant and accurate temperatures were coming from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The vastness of uninhabited Australia was likely not covered.

      I hardly think there was a unified attempt globally to get accurate temperature measurements and the 1930s preceded any kind of electronic instrumentation as in Argo buoys. The oceans were not covered adequately and that remains the case today with the exception of satellite telemetry measurements.

      It seems reasonable to presume the heat waves in North America were likely more global than local. It’s just as reasonable to presume they were measured more accurately in North America due to the majority of reporting weather stations being located there.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        The historic record for Australia has more than adequate coverage of the 1920-1940 era to show that the USA 1930s dust bowl weather did not show in Australia.
        Geoff S.

    • In long years in erosion engineering – dust doesn’t depend on furrows.

    • Systematic records have been kept for as long as 1000 years on the River Nile. 400 years for sunspots. Since the 1860’s for systematic weather data. Plus many millennia of fine resolution proxies. Climate change tends to shows as sudden shifts and multiple climate states.


      Not random and too much dynamical complexity making transitions between states at all scales.

      A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob. A shiny world when marine strato-cumulus cloud rains out.

  36. This is a good one:
    Technically demanding paper, but here’s the bottom line:
    “The correction from the CO2 term is modest and Earth’s feedback is dominated by the influence of water vapor rather than that of CO2.”
    IE: CO2 is not in control of climate change. (And most likely, water vapor is not either.)
    Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood anything…

    • Gordon Robertson

      jimmww…”IE: CO2 is not in control of climate change. (And most likely, water vapor is not either.)”

      I agree with that but it is just my opinion. However, I have tried t base my opinion on scientific fact. Climate change is a loose term aimed at confusion by climate alarmists. They are suggesting the planet has one standard climate, that can change, as a parallel to a global temperature, a number, not a condition. Alarmists like to engage in obfuscation.

      Any climate change should be related to heat and its distribution by weather patterns. Therefore we are looking at how the atmosphere warms.

      fact 1: The Ideal Gas Law applies to gases, or mixes of gases, in a container. Gravity causes the atmosphere to behave somewhat like a container at a reasonably constant volume. The atmosphere wrt to gravity could be modelled as a vertical cylinder with a piston sitting on top of a mass of air, the atmosphere.

      As the gas warms due to solar warming, the piston rises slightly. As it cools, the weight of the piston compresses the gas again. During the gas expansion/compression, the gas warms and cools. Of course, any weight is caused by the attraction of gravitation force on a mass.

      I cannot prove this at the moment but it has occurred to me that it may not be necessary for incoming solar energy to be balanced as in an energy budget. If the atmospheric gases can absorb solar energy during the day through expansion then they should be able to cool during the night naturally through compression.

      I am talking about a very long term stasis that has resulted between solar input, the atmosphere warming to a certain level, then being able to absorb daily solar energy without having to expend it all via radiation. Heat is retained in the atmosphere and oceans at a level that causes the theorized +33C increase from a planet with no atmosphere and oceans.

      This could only apply to a rotating planet with the rotational period of the Earth.

      WRT the atmospheric gases, the IGL requires that all gases contribute heat to the atmosphere based on their mass percent (from Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures…a component of the IGL). The atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen and the only way N2/O2 can warm is via direct conduction from the surface and subsequent convection as the warmed air rises.

      I think it’s also possible that N2/O2 are warmed by high energy solar radiation. Both are definitely warmed by ultraviolet solar energy in the stratosphere and I see no reason why such warming should not extend to the troposphere.

      I don’t think it is a reasonable argument to presume that a trace gas like CO2, warmed by surface radiation infrared, and with a mass percent near 0.04% of atmospheric gases, can warm the other 99%+ of the atmosphere, nor that water vapour at 0.3% of the overall atmosphere can warm it significantly either.

      I think atmospheric warming, the root of climate change, is well explained by the IGL as a steady-state base, even though convective currents act on top of that steady state.

      fact 2: the GHE (greenhouse effect theory) suggests a greenhouse warms due to trapped infrared energy. Indirectly, the GHE suggests that trace gases in the greenhouse environment, like CO2, are responsible for warming the greenhouse.

      That theory is not scientifically reasonable. If all CO2 and WV are removed from a greenhouse would it stop warming? Not according to R. W, Wood, an expert on the radiation of gases like CO2. He proved via experiment that greenhouses warm due to a lack of convection, not trapped radiation.

      That pretty well discredits the theory that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can warm the atmosphere and cause climate change. The theory claiming that is the anthropogenic warming theory, AGW, which is also known as the extended greenhouse theory.

      Wood claimed the GHE cannot operate via CO2. He thought a better explanation of atmospheric warming was N2/O2 picking up heat at the surface with that heated air rising via convection. After picking up the heat, the atmosphere retains it due to the poor radiation of gases like N2/O2.

      Although I can see WV having a small local warming effect, especially in the Tropics , I can’t see it contributing significant warming to the atmosphere. Here on the west coast of Canada (aka the wet coast), in winter, moisture in the air is experienced as a cooling effect.

      I have worked night shifts in -25C weather in other parts of Canada. As anyone in those parts of the world will tell you, you can dress against that kind of cold. The coldest I have ever felt on a night shift was in a high humidity environment with temperatures a few degrees C above zero. I could not wear enough clothes to get comfortably warm.

      • WV and CO2 are two of the 9 forcings on climate, and at this time, at these levels, CO2 is one of the less powerful. Because of its exponential decline, the next doubling to 800ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%, in theory.

    • You really need to reread Lacis. ACO2 is the control knob of our climate.


  37. Ireneusz Palmowski

    If we look at the geomagnetic field in the north, we can see that there is a tendency to block circulation over the Bering Strait and the north-central Atlantic. This tendency intensifies during periods of very low solar wind.

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Current ozone distribution in the southern hemisphere
    Please see how strong the stratospheric warming in the south is.

    • The consequence of sudden stratospheric warmings is generally outbreaks of cold weather. Look for this in the SH in the next month.


      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        Cold air from the stratosphere drops to the surface in medium latitudes. In other regions, moist air from the troposphere is forced upwards.

      • Phil
        As a long term resident of New Zealand and Australia (80-20), how will we identify the coming cold periods to the normal cold periods that visit us at this time of year – October.

        Will it be 1 degree colder on average, or 5 degrees colder ????
        The term four seasons in one day is well known in NZ, and in the southern states of Australia.

        Lambing is well underway in NZ and it is not uncommon to loose numbers by snowfall or cold southerly weather.
        Lovely spring day here again in the South Island of NZ – no s.

  39. I’m still curious about the US corn belt making it’s own cooler and wetter weather.


    So lots of plant growth and transpiration cools climate locally as well as increasing water vapour and rain.

    Now climate scientists like to make inductive leaps so here’s one of my own.
    Anthropogenic CO2 has increased plant biomass something like 15% globally.
    Shouldn’t this also cool the climate and increase water content in the atmosphere?
    Wouldn’t this act as a feedback perhaps explaining why warming is less than predicted by physical models that exclude (or underestimate) CO2 fertilization?

  40. Geoff Sherrington

    Gordon Robertson
    This graph shows some data for hot past days in Australian capital cities, to show a comparative lack of hot days in the 1930s such as USA had with its dustbowl era.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/capital_days.docx Geoff S/

    • Gordon Robertson

      geoff….thanks for docx document. Unfortunately, it won’t open in my Open Office suite.

      I was theorizing in my reply, not asserting a fact. It seems to me the dust bowls occurred in prairie environments in both the US and Canada.

      Here’s an article about the Canadian dust bowl.


      The US…


      They claim the dust bowls were in ‘The Plains’, defined as follows:

      -The entirety of Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota
      -Parts of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming
      -The southern portions of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba

      Both US and Canada:


      Please note the geographical inaccuracy in the opening paragraph.

      “The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s….”

      It may be of interest to you in Australia to note that no such country called America can be found in any world atlas. America is a continent, not a country. The United States are ‘of America’, meaning ‘in America’, just as Canada and Mexico are in America.

      It’s not clear how the dust bowls and the heat waves are connected with regard to extent.


  41. It is amazing how confident (or ignorant?) some scientists can be when showing high resolution global sea and land temperature graphs going back to 1850. Portions of continents had never seen a thermometer in those times. Sea surface water, up until WWII, was read via dipping buckets with bulb thermometers and resolution no greater than 1 degree C. This meant a system accuracy of may be +/- 1.5 degree C. And these measurements were taken mostly along major sea traffic routes, leaving blanks everywhere else. Scientific magic reveals in these graphs an apparent accuracy of 0.2 degrees C.

    • To your point, note the ~12% coverage in 1880 in the Southern Hemisphere on this NASA graph. Northern Hemisphere is a little better but how much confidence can we really have with such sparse coverage during that period.

      But in this era of mass hysteria, anything is possible. Not only possible, but necessary.


    • Potsniron,

      You have a point about the lack of coverage raising doubts about the accuracy (and claimed precision) of the claimed results prior to the 1950s.
      However, you seem to be confusing the concepts of measurement error and sample standard deviation.

      Each measurement of the world’s mean temperature (WMT) has an instrumental (i.e observational) error as well as possible systematic errors. Imagine that each one-off daily calculation of the WMT has an error +/- 1.5 degrees Celcius.

      If you make the assumption that over a period of one month the variation in the calculate WMT caused by seasonal is small, you can average the 30 days of observation that make up that month. This reduces the error of the final monthly WMT by 1/[Squareroot(N)], where N = 30 days.

      this means that an error of +/- 1.5 C for a single daily calculation of the world mean temperature reduces to +/- [1.5 /SQRT(30)] = +/- 0.27 deg. C.

      This is why you get the errors that are quoted on my first graph. In other words, scientists are taking into account observational errors of +/- 1.5 C, however, you are right in saying that they underestimating the errors caused by lack of coverage.

      P.S. Note the increase in the claimed errors in the WMT around 1918-20 and in the 1940s, caused by the lack of sea temperatures caused by the German U-boat campaigns in WWI and WWII.

      • If I understand your application of standard deviation in this case, don’t you assume that the temperature itself over 30 days remains the same? In some locales, like the doldrums, that might be reasonably to assume. However, in most geographical areas the smoothed temperature readings can vary by several degrees, up or down at the beginning vs. end of a month. Plus, you would need to assume averaging weather variables, which do not zero out globally.

    • potsniron
      Provided a measurement is more or less accurate, the precision of the average of many measurements is much higher than the precision of an individual measurement. This often-stated argument that averaged data can’t be more precise than a single measurement is wrong. (Remember the difference between precision and accuracy.)

      For example a person can be male or female (leaving aside progressive exceptions). If the ratio of genders in a school of engineering is 71.3% males, or in a biochemical sciences year is 74.8% females, it does not mean that we are measuring gender to three decimal places in an individual.

      • Mr. Phil,
        don’t mix up multiple measurements on a single experiment with time and location spread measurements. Here we are not measuring the same thing, but a variable that is time related, i.e. over a month, plus in different locales. These variables are often greater than the coarse accuracy of the measurement event itself. A practical example: the stated ARGO thermistor accuracy is +/-0.002 degrees (as of recent history, the ARGO office does not know the system accuracy). A verification transect by a research vessel (Hadfield 2007) showed different readings up to two degrees (i.e. off by three orders of magnitude), relative the ARGO probe data, read on both sides of the transect and within 30 days. And those measurements were done in relatively stable depths, not at the thin surface layer, as with the bucket methods.

      • In probability theory, the central limit theorem (CLT) establishes that, in some situations, when independent random variables are added, their properly normalized sum tends toward a normal distribution (informally a “bell curve”) even if the original variables themselves are not normally distributed. The theorem is a key concept in probability theory because it implies that probabilistic and statistical methods that work for normal distributions can be applicable to many problems involving other types of distributions.

      • Potsniron,
        The world’s mean temperature, on any given day, is made up of thousands and thousands of measurements, spread over a wide variety of climate regimes. However, at any given point in time and place, we know that the temperature varies with:
        a) time of day – i.e. the solar thermal cycle
        b) week-to-week – i.e. the weekly weather cycle
        c) from season to season i..e. the seasonal cycle
        d) from one location to another location i.e. primarily with latitude.
        The question is, how is the concept of a world mean temperature useful and meaningful under these circumstances?
        Take for example the mean daily temperature. Everyone knows that you don’t necessarily use the mean daily temperature to decide what you want to wear, particularly if you live in a continental climate far from large bodies of water like oceans. You would be silly to put on shorts and a tee-shirt when you get up early on a winter’s morning in a tropical desert. Why? Because it is very likely to be well below freezing at 6:00 A.M., even though it is going to reach 77 F (25 C) by the middle of the day.
        So, why is the mean daily temperature useful? For the simple reason that enables you to compare roughly how warm one day is compared to another, as the temperature varies over the seasons. In other words, the daily mean is a robust indicator of the temperature conditions you will experience at a given location, if you allow for the expected daily temperature variations (and levels of humidity as well).
        What you have done, in fact, is removed the 25 – 30 C daily change in temperature (and the humidity levels) to see how the mean daily temperature slowly changes with the seasons.
        The same is true if you plan an overseas vacation using the mean monthly temperature at your intended destination (which has been determined from decades of weather observations). If you go to the Washington D.C. in July, you expect to be hot and humid, so you will plan for these conditions.
        What you have done if you use the mean July temperature to plan your trip is, in fact, remove the day-to-day changes in temperature over the month to see how the mean monthly temperature slowly changes during the yearly seasonal cycle. Clearly, you can even go one step further and see how the mean monthly temperature for a given month of the year slowly changes from one year to the next etc. etc….
        The world mean temperature is a useful and meaningful concept simply because it is a relatively robust indicator of how the thermal energy in the atmosphere changes slowly over time from one year to the next – what it allows you to do is investigate slow changes the atmospheric mean temperature over the decades despite the fact that it greatly varies daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and from place to place.

      • I see the theories floating above and around reality. I understand the matter of the bell curves in relation to time and added variables. However, in the ARGO example, the 30-day application of the bell curve would lead us to an accuracy of 0.0004 degree for water temperature in a particular month. Is that sensible, if a check by the research ship shows a three-order of magnitude coarser record, instead? That is, with variables of 30 days and geographic zone constraints.
        Then, figure all the variables over a century. First it was a once-per-day cursory temperature reading to have better weather forecasting. Then the buckets themselves changed bias from warm to cold from canvas to rigid wall types, to a the change-over of reading engine inlet temperatures. Further, records being used from mostly British ships to US ships after 1946. Then, wanting to know temperature inversions in WWI and II, far below surface for submarine warfare, meaning focus changed from surface to deep waters. etc. etc. Biases and cavalier practices in measuring are to be thrown into the mix of realities.
        A variable soup, which I would not dare compressing into any bell curve, and suggest making the outcome valid and relatable over 150 years. Assuming a 1/4 degree accuracy in global temperature averages a century ago is still far beyond my belief system.

      • Gordon Robertson

        astro…”So, why is the mean daily temperature useful? For the simple reason that enables you to compare roughly how warm one day is compared to another, as the temperature varies over the seasons. In other words, the daily mean is a robust indicator of the temperature conditions you will experience at a given location….”

        There might be a bit of significance if the density of ‘reporting’ surface stations was adequate. As it stands, NOAA has admitted to slashing the number of reporting stations it uses ‘globally’ from 6000 to less than 1500. How can anyone possibly cover the global surface temperature accurately with less than 1500 reporting station, especially when the majority of stations are in the United States?

        It’s well known that NOAA makes up for the slashed stations by interpolating and homogenizing data from less than 1500 real stations in a climate model. In other words, NOAA synthesizes data to fill in for stations it has slashed.

        On top of that, only two temperature readings are taken per day from boxes containing thermometers that vary in altitude above the surface. How can anyone tell what time of day to take those readings and what does the average calculated from both mean?

        I live near Vancouver, Canada. There is a climate locale roughly 150 miles northeast of us where the average temperature is 20C higher in summer and about the same lower in winter. It is a desert climate complete with sagebrush and small cactii.

        Vancouver is at the delta end of a major river, the Fraser River. Along the 90 miles of valley floor created by the river before the delta temperatures can vary +/- 10C in both summer and winter, yet the official reporting station is at the Vancouver airport.

        Global temperatures are actually a serious joke. In order for the warming over a century to equal the claimed 1C rise, and have portions of the Arctic claimed to have a +5C warming, other portions of the planet must obviously have a 4C cooling. Alarmist seem oblivious to cooling in Antarctica, focusing on a small area of the peninsula, closer to South America, that has shown warming.

  42. https://youtu.be/2flZ5UfgzC8

    This chilling video taken by the Russian military – no doubt in protective suits – shows graphically the environmental destruction in the Arctic caused by climate. The music grippingly evokes the deadly miazma of ecosystem collapse.

    Birds cling to a last holdout on precarious cliffs – never before have they been forced to nest their young precariously on vertical cliffs – each one that falls to their death adds to a mountain of human guilt for such a tragedy. A polar bear lies dying by a poisoned creek – howling mournfully.

    Alas the blighted seals have developed grotesquely overgrown front teeth – a quick fact-check from David Attenborough confirms this horrible mutation is quite new and without doubt caused by chemical contamination. Icebergs melt under a relentless sun into hideous shapes before disappearing forever. Another polar bear struggles in vain for life. Pure instinct refuses to surrender to merciless climate.

    Adding insult to injury, human vandals damage centuries-old ice with an axe – have you no shame? Mutated seals languish in fetid stagnant pools. International tourists look on from a pleasure-boat. In panic a polar bear flees the stench from the polluted waterline and despairingly climbs a mountain face. Party-goers ignore the devastation caused by their kin and wave banalely at a camera. Where is Greta Thunberg when we need her?!

  43. Matthew R Marler

    Your weekly reviews are much anticipated and appreciated. Thank you again.

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski

    “Substantial blowing and drifting of snow is in store at the height of the storm Friday and in its immediate wake during part of this weekend.

    The storm is forecast to bring a few inches of snow to northwestern Nebraska and western Minnesota.

    In the wake of the storm, record low temperatures can occur over portions of the North Central states late this week and this weekend.”

  45. Gordon Robertson

    JCH…”Dude, NOAA has not fudged anything”.

    1)All the proof is here for both NOAA and NASA GISS fudging.


    There are several links on this place leading to explanations.

    “NOAA / NCDC have Fudged and Corrupted the Input Data Series”

    There is no doubt about it.

    2)Both NOAA and GISS claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever using confidence levels of 48% and 38% respectively. The fact both used a confidence level means they are using climate models to interpolate and homogenize real data to produce synthesized data. In that case, they must present a confidence level that their fudged data has significance.

    Real data does not require a confidence level, it requires an error margin. Anyone who has studied basic physics learn in the lab to add error margins to each measurement taken. That is far different than claiming 2014 the hottest year ever based on a probability of 48% that you are telling the truth.

    A 48% confidence level means NOAA is claiming it is 52% likely they are wrong. Why would a reputable scientific organization engage in such political chicanery?

    • Google Scholar – if you can prove it there, you’re in the science history books forever. Otherwise, you’re just another BS artist.

  46. Geoff Sherrington

    On the topic of accuracy, here is an email to me from the Australian BOM. I hope that it constructively helps fill in some unknowns about historic daily temperatures Down Under. Geoff S.

    11 April 2019
    Dear Mr Sherrington,
    Thank you for your correspondence dated 1 April 2019 and apologies for delays in responding.
    Dr Rea has asked me to respond to your query on his behalf, as he is away from the office at this time.
    The answer to your question regarding uncertainty is not trivial. As such, our response needs to consider the context of “values of X dissected into components like adjustment uncertainty, representative error, or values used in area-averaged mapping” to address your question.
    Measurement uncertainty is the outcome of the application of a measurement model to a specific problem or process. The mathematical model then defines the expected range within which the measured quantity is expected to fall, at a defined level of confidence. The value derived from this process is dependent on the information being sought from the measurement data. The Bureau is drafting a report that describes the models for temperature measurement, the scope of application and the contributing sources and magnitudes to the estimates of uncertainty. This report will be available in due course.
    While the report is in development, the most relevant figure we can supply to meet your request for a “T +/- X degrees C” is our specified inspection threshold. This is not an estimate of the uncertainty of the “full uncertainty numbers for historic temperature measurements for all stations in the ACORN_SAT group”. The inspection threshold is the value used during verification of sensor performance in the field to determine if there is an issue with the measurement chain, be it the sensor or the measurement electronics. The inspection involves comparison of the fielded sensor against a transfer standard, in the screen and in thermal contact with the fielded sensor. If the difference in the temperature measured by the two instruments is greater than +/- 0.3°C, then the sensor is replaced. The test is conducted both as an “on arrival” and “on departure/replacement” test.
    In 2016, an analysis of these records was presented at the WMO TECO16 meeting in Madrid. This presentation demonstrated that for comparisons from 1990 to 2013 at all sites, the bias was 0.02 +/- 0.01°C and that 5.6% of the before tests and 3.7% of the after tests registered inspection differences greater than +/- 0.3°C. The same analysis on only the ACORN-SAT sites demonstrated that only 2.1% of the inspection differences were greater than +/- 0.3°C. The results provide confidence that the temperatures measured at ACORN-SAT sites in the field are conservatively within +/- 0.3°C. However, it needs to be stressed that this value is not the uncertainty of the ACORN-SAT network’s temperature measurements in the field.
    Pending further analysis, it is expected that the uncertainty of a single observation at a single location will be less than the inspection threshold provided in this letter. It is important to note that the inspection threshold and the pending (single instrument, single measurement) field uncertainty are not the same as the uncertainty for temperature products created from network averages of measurements spread out over a wide area and covering a long-time series. Such statistical measurement products fall under the science of homogenisation.
    Regarding historical temperature measurements, you might be aware that in 1992 the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) released their Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). This document provided a rigorous, uniform and internationally consistent approach to the assessment of uncertainty in any measurement. After its release, the Bureau adopted the approach recommended in the GUM for calibration uncertainty of its surface measurements. Alignment of uncertainty estimates before the 1990s with the GUM requires the evaluation of primary source material. It will, therefore, take time to provide you with compatible “T +/- X degrees C” for older records.
    Finally, as mentioned in Dr Rea’s earlier correspondence to you, dated 28 November 2018, we are continuing to prepare a number of publications relevant to this topic, all of which will be released in due course.
    Yours sincerely,

    • Gordon Robertson

      geoff…”Measurement uncertainty is the outcome of the application of a measurement model to a specific problem or process”.

      BOM is talking about a thermometer reading, for cripes sake. The error margin in a reading depends on the number of decimal points required in the reading by a human. There is no confidence level that a person is likely to have read the thermometer correctly, or incorrectly.


      BOM is talking about the fudging they have picked up from NOAA. NOAA synthesizes temperatures using a climate model by interpolating data from at least two real stations at a distance of 1200 miles apart, to synthesize the data for a third pseudo-station.

      In the oceans, these pseudo-stations with their synthesized data make up most SST temperatures. That’s how NOAA was able to get rid of the so-called 15 year pause (there’s no proof it’s temporary) revealed by the IPCC. They switched from the reliable bucket of water retrieved directly from the oceans as a source of temperature to the water intake temperatures. However, neither method covers the entirety of the oceans.

      So, NOAA needs to fabricate temperatures, which they do using a climate model. With surface stations, there are only three stations in California, all near the ocean. There is only one ‘reporting’ station covering the entire Canadian Arctic. The temperature for Bolivia has been synthesized from nearby real stations using a climate model.

      Your reply from BOM sounds to me like double-speak aimed at obfuscation.

  47. Judith has cited two references which have yet drawn little notice but I found rather read-worthy, a theoretical review by Ghil and Lucarini and an essay on the limits of reductionism. The former begins with the sentence, “The climate system is a forced, dissipative, nonlinear, complex and heterogeneous system that is out of thermodynamic equilibrium.” ‘Dissipation’ is a trigger word for me, yet rarely mentioned in climate science in its quantitative, thermodynamic sense, e.g. W/m2. The most basic question for a climate scientist should be “How much of the solar energy entering the earth’s atmosphere is dissipated before exiting?”, the manifestation of dissipation being weather, ocean currents, etc. Ghil and Lucarini go on to discuss current nitty-gritty, with passing reference to the “convective adjustment” and Kubo’s fluctuation dissipation theorem. In summary they write of linear response theory, “While it does apply to systems out of thermodynamic equilibrium, it is still limited by its linearity to fairly small perturbations in parameters.”

    The theories they analyze are wholly reductionist in character. Their antithesis lies in classical thermodynamics which deals basically with boundary value problems. Calculation of the energy dissipation of a steady-state flux between boundary potentials is an Algebra I problem. In the electric case it is equally valid for a resistor or a high-pressure gas lamp and does not require a knowledge of the chaotic flux patterns within the latter. For fluxes of mass or energy equally simple equations follow. In the latter case, a 1 kW flux between contacts at 200K and 300K will dissipate 333W regardless of what lies between, vacuum included.

    The reductionist formulation of classical thermodynamics is statistical mechanics. At this time, statmech is wholly restricted to thermodynamic equilibria and 1st-order perturbations thereof, whereas classical thermodynamics demands only path-independent state solutions.

    • Along with the conversion of solar energy to the mechanical energy that drives winds, the dissipation that seems wholly neglected in climate modeling is that used up in photosynthesis. Thus there’s more than 10 W/m^2 that remains unaccounted in the “energy balance” of climate models.

  48. Ireneusz Palmowski

    This year we have the strongest SSW in the southern hemisphere since the beginning of satellite measurements.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      The two strongest SSWs in the north:
      February 2009, North Pole 9.17
      January 2019, North Pole 8.52
      The two strongest during the deep solar minimum.

  49. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Scott R says:
    October 8, 2019 at 5:35 PM
    Here is a chart showing all SSW self categorized as described previously.


  50. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Meanwhile, another cold wave appeared in the eastern equatorial Pacific.

  51. Ireneusz Palmowski

    “The arrival of the Arctic air and the strengthening storm will cause weather conditions to change rapidly, whether in the mountains, over the passes or on the Plains.”

  52. Javier strikes again:

    Solar minimum and ENSO prediction
    Andy May / July 5, 2018

    By Javier

    Two solar physicists, Robert Leamon from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and Scott McIntosh from the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, CO, have made an interesting observation that links changes in solar activity with changes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

    As they reported at the AGU 2017 Fall Meeting, the termination of the solar magnetic activity bands at the solar equator that mark the end of the Hale cycle coincides since the 1960’s with a shift from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific.

    Predicting the La Niña of 2020-21: Termination of Solar Cycles and Correlated Variance in Solar and Atmospheric Variability

    “We look at the particulate and radiative implications of these termination points, their temporal recurrence and signature, from the Sun to the Earth, and show the correlated signature of solar cycle termination events and major oceanic oscillations that extend back many decades. A combined one-two punch of reduced particulate forcing and increased radiative forcing that result from the termination of one solar cycle and rapid blossoming of another correlates strongly with a shift from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean.”

    More information is available at the talk they gave at the last SORCE Meeting:

    Terminators: The Death of Solar Cycles and La Niña 2020

    As they say in the talk, the probability that the pattern is due to chance is very low. Particularly since the termination of the magnetic activity bands at the equator coincides quite precisely with the El
    Niño-La Niña shift.

    Analysis of the ONI (Oceanic Niño Index) data from NOAA, and sunspot number from SIDC shows
    the following pattern:


  53. Meanwhile, another cold wave appeared in the eastern equatorial Pacific.
    Fingers crossed.
    The only way the science misrepresentations can die is several years of colder weather.
    Tired of waiting.

    • A La Niña leaning neutral won’t make a single bit of difference. You have to have the big blow. No sign of it. So, more waiting for you.

      • There was a BIG blowout El Nino in 2016 it wouldn’t surprise me to see an equally BIG La Nina in or near 2021


        It is, after all called ENSO for a reason, namely: Oscillating. Maybe it should be called ELA-NSO

      • Except the ~15-16 El Niño was not really a big blow. Above average about covers it. The extended La Niña events from 2004 to 2012 were the big blow. People keep acting like those La Niña events will repeat soon. Not likely. And even if they do, their effects are immaterial as OHC skyrockets and bangs homers when the blow relaxes. (Tom Knutson’s springbuck warming.)

        The La Niña events did create some misrepresentations: mostly on the skeptic side.

        Like Karl was ordered by Obama to rush the science, and ECS is low, which was rushed science.


      • Gordon Robertson

        jch…”Like Karl was ordered by Obama to rush the science, and ECS is low, which was rushed science”.

        It’s pretty obvious that NOAA was in cahoots with Obama. Karl was also front and centre in the hockey stick controversy when it was known before its release that the data had been fudged to hide declining proxy temperatures. He knew but did nothing to inform the public of the chicanery.

        Kevin Trenberth also knew that global temps had stopped increasing well before the IPCC announced the 15 year ‘pause'(??) in 2013. Trenberth’s knowledge of the warming hiatus came from the Climategate email scandal. Why did he not inform the public?

    • Steven Mosher

      several years of global cold, at least a decade or so

      • Not so. **
        As JCH explained above.
        The 15-16 El Niño was a really big blow because it was sustained for nearly a year on either side ( conveniently neglected this and the estimated size by ENSO statistics).
        Way above average, the biggest in the 21st century would not be an exaggeration. *
        La Niña can run for 9 years. 2004-2012 but magically, because he says so, will not repeat soon?
        Where is the logic in that.
        And he said that the cold spell ran from 1998 to 2012.
        As he says the OHC has plummeted due to the recent El Niño, however its effects, as always, are immaterial as the global temperatures will plummet down and bang homers when the blow relaxes.
        The El Niño events were used to create a lot of misrepresentations virtually all on the warmest side ( no surprise there).
        Using a natural cyclical warming event that gives a short term rapid rise in global temperatures as an excuse to pretend the world is rapidly warming is an extremely dis…….. * tactic, worse when the people using it are extremely knowledgeable in the fact that they know it is natural.
        Shame on both of you.
        Science is not misrepresentation.
        * (sarcasm and misrepresentation).
        Disingenuous (ed)
        ** caution contains humour

    • Several years of cold weather will not be enough for the science misrepresetations to die, but it should shake the foundations a bit and increase the model/observations divergence. It will make shorter pauses (15 – 20 years) reappear by ~2025. After that, the pause will then become increasingly longer. When the trends longer than 20 – 25 years become flat, it will be hard to deny. This will beginn in a decade or so..

      Global temperature indices will be updated and the newer versions might be warmed like before, so the death might be postponed a little, but in the end it will not be enough.

      Other climate indices will show cooling too, according to the ~60 year cycle/pattern.

      • Gordon Robertson

        edim…”Several years of cold weather will not be enough for the science misrepresetations to die….”

        The alarmists will claim the cooling was predicted by the AGW theory and that it is merely a pause in the overall trend.

  54. angech: Do you think that the ERFanthro =0??

    • “angech: Do you think that the ERFanthro =0??“
      Unanswerable question?
      Extremely unlikely.
      If anything exists the likelihood that it would not exist in the sense of balancing out completely is extremely low.
      Is it detectable?
      Short term possibly – decades?
      Long term no – Millenia.
      Is it “ important” Probably not.
      Scientifically increased CO2 in the atmosphere has a proveable effect on the Earths temperature.
      How it works in real life is the conundrum.
      So many people wish to believe in both catastrophe and human guilt for everything that happens in the world.
      This makes them forget or forgo rigourous science and thinking.
      Everything has to be twisted to fit a narrative they earnestly believe in and wish to force on others for their own good.
      Climate changes.
      This causes good effects in some areas and bad effects in others.
      The mark of a committed fanatic is that they must deny anything and everything that disputes their narrative.
      (Applies to both sides).
      And support anything weird that might bolster their case, no matter how scientifically wrong.
      The Resplandy defence, the Lewandowski defence, the Mann circus, Girghis.
      All papers, taken down and retracted in 3 cases, broken apart in the fourth
      Where are Nick Stokes, ATTP and Mosher now on Resplandy?
      No apologies offered.
      This is not how science works, guys.

  55. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The drop in temperature in Colorado

  56. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Extremely cold air moves to Kansans and Nebraska.

  57. Ireneusz Palmowski

    “In Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin, corn harvested is at less than 3%. Those same four states are also substantially behind in soybeans harvested, with North Dakota at just 8% compared to its five-year average of 48%.

    And now comes an expected snowfall for that area.”

  58. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A temperature jump also occurred in the upper stratosphere over the southern polar circle in September. Now the stratosphere temperature has fallen again.

  59. Ireneusz Palmowski

    In two days the winter storm will reach the Great Lakes.

  60. My latest: 500 skeptics rattle Europe’s climate cage


    The beginning:

    The climate change debate has never been as hot in Europe as it is in America, but that has now changed some. At least 500 experts, mostly Europeans, have signed a ” Declaration that there is no climate emergency” which has been delivered to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
    Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the signatories and a moderate German green, explains it this way:
    “The Dutch climate researcher and geophysicist Professor Guus Berkhout took the initiative and wrote to critics of climate models in various countries, including me. We then promoted the text among colleagues. It’s interesting to note that there are about 150 Italian researchers on the lists, about 100 Americans and 70 Dutch, but only 14 Germans. In Germany, the mainstream is particularly dominant – one no longer dares to go against the party line.” (I am one of the American signers.)

    Vahrenholt adds: “The climate debate has become so hysterical that it is driving politics into a cul-de-sac. But there is no climate emergency. If Greta Thunberg’s demands were to be implemented, development and prosperity would be at risk worldwide. Thunberg accuses politicians of killing people – but she ignores the successes of policy making: The global number of starving people has halved, life expectancy has doubled, child mortality has declined by 90%. These achievements have been significantly to do with improved energy supply, better heating and transportation and better food supply.”

    The Declaration project is led by a Dutch group called CLINTEL (https://clintel.nl/), which is short for Climate Intelligence. We certainly need more of that.

    There is more in the article.

    Great fun this.

    I have been informed that the number of signers is over 600 and growing. Here’s to Climate Intelligence. Their English language website is coming soon.

    Also check out my Climate Change Debate Education website, with over 350 skeptical science videos, organized by presenter. Then by length, ranging from one minute to over an hour per video. http://ccdedu.blogspot.com

  61. https://apnews.com/933b49681b0d47d3a005d356f35251ab

    Praise be to Michael Moore for some truth speak!

    They were even nervous to show it to the festival crowd, where they expected maybe a “50-50 response.” Instead, they got a standing ovation. And there were even members of The Sierra Club there.

    “It’s up to people who actually share the same values to sometimes call each other out and bring out the uncomfortable truths,” Gibbs said. “This is not a film by climate change deniers, this is a film by people who really care about the environment.”

    Gibbs said. “This is not a film by climate change deniers, this is a film by people who really care about the environment.”

    I have to ask myself;”If this had been written by climate change deniers (of which I’m sure Michael Mann would have included Judith Curry albeit erroneously) would it be any less true? Also, do so called climate change deniers (ie Martin Mlynczak, Willie Soon and Don Easterbrook). NOT really care about the environment?

  62. Ocean cycles sidelined in 20th century temperature record

    For decades, scientists have chalked up early swings in 20th century temperature to the planet’s internal variability—in particular, a climatic pacemaker called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), said to warm and cool the ocean. But researchers are increasingly questioning whether the AMO played the dominant role once thought. A new study has found that it is now possible to explain the record almost entirely without the AMO. After correcting for the distinct effects of pollution hazes over land and ocean and for flaws in the temperature record, the researchers found that the interplay of greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollution almost single-handedly shaped the climate. Although the study could have reached different conclusions with different assumptions, outside researchers have conceded that the idea of regular multidecade cycles in the ocean is getting harder to defend.

    Oh my.

    • Evenin’ JCH,

      Not only that, but for some strange reason the Kid neglected to mention the conclusions of the AMO paper he cited with apparent approval earlier:


      The observed decreases in the Arctic sea-ice cover, especially in summer, may continue largely unabated as the GHG signal strengthens further.

      • “May” is the operative word. Sounds like throwing a dog a bone. Or like tribute to fend off the AGW censors.

      • Gordon Robertson

        jim hunt…”The observed decreases in the Arctic sea-ice cover, especially in summer, may continue largely unabated as the GHG signal strengthens further”.

        re the quote…

        What GHG signal?

        There is also no observed decrease in the Arctic sea ice cover other than in one month of summer. It is ludicrous to claim otherwise. Beginning in October, Arctic temps decline immensely and by January, the Arctic Ocean is pretty well covered with 10 feet of ice.

        Please allow me to state that succinctly. There is no way GHGs have any effect on Arctic sea ice, it is controlled completely by the amount of solar energy available over a year.

      • Mornin’ Gordon,

        “What GHG signal?”

        Why don’t you ask Ceresco that question? My quotation was from a paper he introduced into the discussion. Here’s another one from the same learned article:

        A pertinent, unresolved question is how future reductions in Arctic sea ice could affect ice export and thereby possibly influence the AMO/AMOC.

      • Gordon Robertson

        Jim Hunt…”Why don’t you ask Ceresco that question? My quotation was from a paper he introduced into the discussion”.

        Sorry ’bout that. I was just commenting on the Arctic situation, nothing personal.

      • Good morning Gordon,

        Well if you’re talking Arctic generalities then I’m compelled to quibble with several of your assertions above. By way of one example, it is ludicrous to claim there is no observed decrease in the Arctic sea ice cover other than in one month of summer:



      • Gordon Robertson

        Jim…”By way of one example, it is ludicrous to claim there is no observed decrease in the Arctic sea ice cover other than in one month of summer:”

        My understanding is that piomas graphs are modeled. If they are anything like climate models they are wild guesses.

        How can anyone measure the Arctic Ocean sea ice extent when the ice is constantly moving and adjacent flows collide, building up ice hills of 40 feet height and more?

        If the Arctic Ocean is losing significant ice mass all year round, Arctic explorers walking to the North Pole from the north coast of Canada would have great difficulty. The likes of Ranulph Fiennes reported no such difficulties, however, he had to start earlier, in February to ensure no melting by the time they reached the Pole.

        It should be obvious, that with little or no solar energy for several months, no amount of GHGs are going to cause a generalized melting ice.

        Besides, if you look at the UAH temperature contour maps for the Arctic you will see that any warming regions move significantly month to month. There is no such thing as a generalized warming Arctic, the warming is local hot spots moving around regularly. That is better explained by warming influences from the AMO and perhaps the PDO.

        Check the contour maps month by month and you’ll see how much the so-called Arctic warming changes on a regular basis.

        September 2019


        September 2018


      • Gordon,

        Here’s this morning’s report from a couple of explorers attempting to walk to the North Pole (and beyond) even as we speak:



      • Gordon Robertson

        Jim…a couple of points about your link to the explorers ‘walking’ to the North Pole. According to the following article, they arrived in Nome, Alaska in August and propose sailing from there north till they reach pack ice. Then they intend to walk across the ice to the NP.

        These guys are lightweights and they should expect to reach lots of open water leaving in the Arctic summer. I think they are likely both climate alarmists.


        Fiennes reported similar ‘leads’ (narrow linear cracks) in the ice they had to cross and the NP itself was open water in April. However, the NP is often open water, even in mid-winter when ice is ten feet thick due to ice movement. The NP also has a phenomenon where temps occasionally rise to near freezing level when the rest of the Arctic Ocean is -40C.

        The Arctic Ocean is a dynamic system comprised of two major ocean currents and very strong winds. The ice breaks and moves around all winter long.


        The current pseudo-science that the Arctic is warming in general and ice is being lost all year round flies in the face of the real science which studies the dynamics forces related to the Arctic Ocean.

      • Good morning Gordon (UTC),

        Mike and Borge are certainly not “lightweights”, and open water in leads is certainly not unexpected. Neither of them appear to have drowned yet for example.

        However why do you continue to ignore the abundant evidence that “the Arctic is warming in general and ice is being lost all year round”?

        For example, here’s the NSIDC maximum and minimum extent


      • Gordon Robertson

        Jim…”However why do you continue to ignore the abundant evidence that “the Arctic is warming in general and ice is being lost all year round”?”

        It’s simple, Jim, there is little or no solar energy input for at least half of the Arctic year. I don’t need to read studies claiming a loss of ice under those conditions when Arctic temperatures over the ocean average -40C and the average sea ice thickness approaches 10 feet.

        Any study claiming a loss of ice under those conditions is bogus. In the Arctic, under those conditions, warming means a warming from -50C to -45C, and that applies to small pockets of warming that are moving around month to month.

        In one of the links I posted from UAH, there is a very apparent large area of cooling, based on the UAH 1981 – 2010 global average.

      • Good evening Gordon (UTC),

        So you’ve never, ever, ever read an article which explains that not far below the surface of the Arctic Ocean there’s enough warm water to melt all the ice floating above several times over? How about this one from 2012 for starters?


        This analysis evaluates the thermal state of the intermediate (depth range of 150–900 m) Atlantic Water (AW) of the Arctic Ocean, beginning in the 1950s and with particular focus on the transition from the 1990s to the 2000s and on changes during the 2000s. Using an extensive array of observations, the authors document AW warming trends across various time scales and demonstrate that the 2000s were exceptionally warm, with no analogy since the 1950s or probably in the history of instrumental observations in the Arctic Ocean.

    • There is the GMST, to which the AMO is about as related as I am to the Queen of England, and there is the neighborhood.

      • While Jim and I were discussing Arctic Temperatures & Sea Ice, some have found an interesting association.


      • You do understand that is not proof of anything at all. Nothing.

      • What a gotcha moment, Cerescokid. Empty statements against data. Arctic sea ice also shows a degree of correlation to AMO, as many scientists have acknowledged.


        IPCC is required to reject everything non-anthropogenic, internal variability and natural forcings must have zero contribution.


        Most scientists disagree.


      • You’re back Javier!

        Please feel free to answer the Arctic questions I posed during Judith’s previous “Week in Review”:


        Meanwhile there’s some “Shock news!” from the cryosphere this morning:


      • Don’t tire yourself, Jim. I don’t take requests unless accompanied by consultancy fees.

        Alarmists are weird people. A single day or week of lowest ice in a year makes them all cheerful. The path doesn’t matter. Ice will grow. What matters is maximum and minimum:

        March 2007: 14.54 million km2
        March 2019: 14.55 million km2

        September 2007: 4.27 million km2
        September 2019: 4.32 million km2

        Not what we were told.

      • Good afternoon Javier,

        You charge people to listen to the ballcocks you spout? ROFL!

        And if you’re looking at an extent graph of course the “path” matters. Since it seems your eyesight is failing note that 2019 has been “lowest” for most of 2019.

      • My work has a price, like everybody else’s. If I decide to offer it free of charge that is my choice, but if you request that I use it in something you want that is different.

        Arctic sea ice matters little. It melted completely during Holocene Climatic Optimum summers according to some studies. The idea that the path from maximum to minimum and back is important tells of the desperation of alarmists in the face of Arctic sea ice refusal to melt as ordered.

        This all shows climate scientists don’t have a good understanding of climate variables, and hence their models that they use to scare people are crap.

      • Javier,

        If you continue to maintain that “the idea that the path from maximum to minimum and back is important tells of the desperation of alarmists” then you are doing a very good impersonation of somebody wholly ignorant of one of the fundamentals of Arctic physics:

        FYI from the NSIDC FAQ:


      • of somebody wholly ignorant of one of the fundamentals of Arctic physics [albedo]

        Or of somebody that understands the fundamentals of Arctic climatology better than most. The assumption that albedo changes are a powerful feedback driving Arctic melt was behind the predictions/projections of a sea-ice free Arctic. 12 years of lack of significant melting after a loss of about 1/3 of the sea ice cover, however, demonstrates that albedo can only be a minor player and its effect has been grossly misunderstood. Nobody appears to want to talk about one of the most important processes driving cryosphere reduction, the increase in light absorbing particles. The problem is that they are related more to population increase from industrial processes and biomass burning than to fossil fuels emissions.

        So let’s see who is ignoring what.

      • Hooray Javier!

        We’re agreed that “the path from maximum to minimum” is not irrelevant.

        Now about those “predictions/projections of a sea-ice free Arctic” that you keep blathering on about. Where are they hiding?


      • Hooray Javier!
        We’re agreed that “the path from maximum to minimum” is not irrelevant.

        I haven’t agreed to that. The speed of melting or refreezing changes with the weather and it is thus irrelevant and highly variable. As long as the minimum doesn’t decrease significantly the Arctic is not melting. It is just seasonal variability.

      • Mornin’ Javier,

        I didn’t think you were disputing the physics of the so called “ice albedo feedback”, merely the magnitude of its effect.

        Was I mistaken?

      • I don’t dispute the physics of anything. I let that to physicists.

        Regarding climatic effects I look at the evidence of what is, not what should be according to failed models.

      • Javier,

        You keep regurgitating nonsense, without providing any evidence to back up your assertions.

        What “failed models” are you referring to?

      • Jim, you appear to have a memory problem. We discussed Maslowski’s model from 2012 and I even showed twice their figure 9 a few days ago in a previous thread.

        Do I have to keep showing the same evidence over and over? Is it a problem of selective memory?

      • Jim, btw I think that this “forecast” is a waste of time and money. Up to the last year I also was a member of the team, but thereafter I found out what this figure shows:
        Since 2013 one would “win” if one subtracts 9,05 +- 0.14 Mio km² (1 sigma) from the april (!) extent to forecast the sptember extent (all monthly NSIDC values). The lost over the melting season is fairly constant at about 8 Mio km² with one outlier (1996, which I interpolated in the figure above) in the years to 2007, untill 2012 was some acceleration ( IMO due to internal variability, not foreseen in the forecast, and after 2013 it’s rather constant again. The slope of september is mostly gererated by the falling trend of april which arises due to the amplified antropgenic warming of the arctic. The clue is not the melting saison, the clue is the extent at the beginning of the melting saison. In this light one also should think about the reliabiliy of all the weather reports with the imagination that this influences the minimum. Not since 2013, for 7 years! Therefore the forecast is obsolete IMO. An expensive playground.

      • Frank,

        Be that as it may, the aim of the exercise in this instance is to point out to Javier that there were 39 assorted “predictions”, none of which were suggesting anything like an “ice free Arctic” in September 2019.

      • Jim, of course an “ice free arctic” in 2019 ( and IMO it holds for a few decades) is not a realistic option. However, in 2015 there was a scientist in the forecast team (Wadhams) who predicted this 4 years ago:
        He never again participated, it’s a good choice IMO. Sometimes there is a fine line between science and activists. ;)

      • Thanks Frank,

        That rather reinforces my point that the likes of Javier have to indulge in extreme cherry picking in order to try and justify their continuing claims of “All those alarmist predictions for the 21st century“. One amongst dozens of “predictions” each year for eleven years?

        On the other hand, this Sea Ice Outlook is entertaining too:


    • Gordon Robertson

      JCH…if the article to which you link is by the same Paul Voosen at the link below, he is a reporter. That’s not to say that being a reporter excludes him from writing papers but when he makes claims in the article like, “But researchers are increasingly questioning whether the AMO played the dominant role once thought”.

      Which researchers? Are there that many studying the effect of the AMO? His statement ranks up there with the ‘vast majority’, or the mysterious 97% of scientists who apparently agree on global warming.


      Re Voosen…”He’s a graduate of Boston College, where he dabbled in physics, computer science, and English…”

      I might add that he appears to be a blatant alarmist.

      • Let us know when you have something to add.

      • Gordon Robertson

        Phil…quote from Einstein…”During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules”.

        ….”this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit”.


        Einstein was wrong about this, especially the latter statement.

        Whereas it would have been nice to have Einstein onside as a skeptic, I have begun to realize that Einstein was a theoretical physicist who dabbled largely in thought experiments. In his thought experiment based on older statistical theory he has ignored, or been unaware, of the work of Bohr and Schrodinger in the same era.

        Since his statement above was made in 1917, midway between the Bohr claim of discrete quantum levels in atoms and Schrodinger’s paper circa 1925 that is the foundation of quantum theory, I must presume that Einstein was not up to speed at that point on the quantum theory of that era. That’s understandable.

        For one, he speaks of molecules as opposed to atoms, with the presumption there is something magical in a molecule that can change momentum. A molecule is purely a definition for two or more atomic nucleii joined together by electron bonds. Therefore, it is the electron that absorbs and emits the electromagnetic energy to which E. refers, not the molecule per se.

        Both the Bohr model and the Schrodinger equation are based on electrons and their relationship to the nucleus, in an atom, not a molecule. It appears E. was not privy to that information. Either that or he was and elected to fall back on the statistical theories of Maxwell who put them out before the electron was discovered.

        Don’t get me wrong, both were brilliant men but men cannot be experts in every facet of science no matter how many degrees they have.

        What E. did not seem to understand is that the EM energy is absorbed by electrons in atoms and the absorbed energy causes the electron to rise to a higher energy orbital thus increasing its kinetic energy. That’s how the atoms warm when they absorb EM, since KE in atoms is heat.

        However, the Bohr/Schrodinger theories uphold the skeptical theories regarding the GHE and AGW. Bohr made it clear that electrons can only absorb EM of a specific energy and frequency, therefore E. was wrong to claim that Maxwell’s relationship is independent of the frequency at which the ‘molecule’ absorbs and emits.

        Whether an electron in an atom will absorb EM depends very much on the frequency of the EM. There is no point talking about the momentum of EM when it has nothing to do with whether it will be absorbed or not. The determining factor is the frequency of the EM. If it does not match the frequency of the electron in an atom, that is, if it is too low, the electron will not absorb it.

        That falls right into the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which clearly states that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. This is an absolute law in physics and not something to be amended whimsically. The basis of the 2nd law wrt to radiative heat transfer is the interaction of electrons in atoms with EM.

        The reason heat cannot be transferred cold to hot by radiation is that EM emitted by colder atoms lack the intensity and frequency to be absorbed by the electrons in atoms of a hotter body. That is Bohr’s theory and Schrodinger’s theory. Einstein must have been out of touch circa 1917.

        In fact, in all forms of energy transfer, energy is always transferred from an area of higher potential energy to an area of lower potential energy. Water cannot flow uphill by its own means not can a bolder raise itself onto a cliff by its own means. In the same manner, heat cannot be transferred from a lower potential (colder area) to a higher potential (hotter area) by its own means, no matter what the means of transfer.

        Since heat cannot be transferred from colder atoms via radiation to a hotter atoms, that rules out any GHGs in a colder atmosphere transferring energy to a hotter surface, especially a hotter surface that gave them the heat. If heat could be recycled like that, it would be perpetual motion.

        So, we don’t need Einstein as a skeptic when we have the very sound theories of Bohr and Schrodinger.

      • Gordon Robertson
        Einstein was wrong about this, especially the latter statement.

        Thanks for answering but I’ll go with Albert if that’s OK.

        What E. did not seem to understand is that the EM energy is absorbed by electrons in atoms and the absorbed energy causes the electron to rise to a higher energy orbital thus increasing its kinetic energy. That’s how the atoms warm when they absorb EM, since KE in atoms is heat.

        This appears to be exactly the mistake that Einstein was trying to correct. No it is absolutely not the case that the only thermal interactions that occur between radiation and gas are ones involving fluorescence or ionisation or characteristic emission where an electron is elevated to a higher energy level and then drops with some quantum phenomenom following such as fluorescence. There are inelastic momentum transfer interactions that involve no electron energy level change but which probably account for most of the thermal energy transfer. I’m not the only one who thinks so (Oh and Einstein as well):

        Tom Zepf of the physics department at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., notes that “Sunlight heats a material … primarily because the long wavelength, or infrared, portion of the sun’s radiation resonates well with molecules in the material, thereby setting them into motion. So the energy transfer that causes the temperature of the substance to rise takes place at the molecular rather than the electronic level.”

    • JCH
      outside researchers have conceded that the idea of regular multidecade cycles in the ocean is getting harder to defend.

      So future cooling with CO2 still increasing can only mean the falsehood of the CO2 creation-of-heat-magically-from-nothing hypothesis?

      Thanks, noted, we’ll be returning to this.

      • Absurd.

      • Gordon Robertson

        phil salmon…”…the falsehood of the CO2 creation-of-heat-magically-from-nothing hypothesis?”

        Where did that hypothesis come from? Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS has claimed CO2 has a warming factor between 9% and 25%, depending on the water vapour content. Did he pick that number form a hat?

        There is no proof that CO2 can produce that much warming and a lot of proof, based on the Ideal Gas Law, that CO2 can produce no more warming than it’s mass percent will allow, about 0.04% if any atmospheric warming.

      • Albert Einstein can be added to the list of CO2 climate change deniers:

        Albert Einstein 1917:


        During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be

        kT / 2

        this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.

      • phil, I agree that there is some (multi) decadal unforced internal variability. However, this does not contradict the GHG warming. If you disagree: look upon the cloudless sky! Isn’t its colour blue? And how does it come? It’s not a trivial question, there is some quantum physics at work. The “Raylight scatter” makes it if the atmosphere contains O2 and N. In almost the same manner it works for GHG: In this case the vectored infrared radiation from the earth into the space is also scattered due to the gases which produce this effect. Not all LW radiation can leave the atmosphere. Thank god ( or better the physics) : The effect makes the earth habitable.

      • Phil Salmon: Albert Einstein can be added to the list of CO2 climate change deniers:

        That quote does not show A.E. to be denying that increased CO2 and H2O will increase mean temp of the atmosphere, or of the Earth surface.

    • JCH
      So multidecadal ocean oscillations’ turn has come to be airbrushed out?

      Levitus published data on Barents Sea temperatures (150m) over the last few decades:


      In this paper:


      If the AMO is non existent, then can you tell me by what mechanism the Barents Sea cooled by almost 2 degrees between 1950 and 1980?

      • BTW in the figure black is the Barents upper 150m temperature and l red is the AMO.

      • So what? The North Atlantic often behaves like the GMST. Big deal. What a surprise.

      • Phil,

        Do you by any chance have some links to learned journal articles about Beaufort and/or Chukchi Sea temperatures over the last few decades?

      • Jim , huge parts of the arctic are influenced ( with some delay of course) by the inflow of Atlanic watervolume:

      • Afternoon Frank,

        Sure, but it seems that Phil still hasn’t done his due diligence on the Pacific side of things?


      • “Our results show that the atmosphere-driven changes in sea ice linked to the AMV tend to be more pan-Arctic with maximum expressions in the Pacific sector, whereas changes linked to the Atlantic Ocean heat transport are more confined to the Atlantic sector (e.g., Zhang 2015; Yeager et al. 2015; Delworth et al. 2016). The present results also imply that atmospheric teleconnections might be expected to explain some of, or perhaps augment, the Arctic response to AMV associated with multidecadal variations in ocean circulation highlighted by other authors (e.g., Mahajan et al. 2011; Day et al. 2012; Zhang 2015; Delworth and Zeng 2016)”


      • “With amplified warming and record sea ice loss, the Arctic is the canary of global warming. The historical Arctic warming is poorly understood, limiting our confidence in model projections. Specifically, Arctic surface air temperature increased rapidly over the early 20th century, at rates comparable to those of recent decades despite much weaker greenhouse gas forcing. Here, we show that the concurrent phase shift of Pacific and Atlantic interdecadal variability modes is the major driver for the rapid early 20th-century Arctic warming. Atmospheric model simulations successfully reproduce the early Arctic warming when the interdecadal variability of sea surface temperature (SST) is properly prescribed. The early 20th-century Arctic warming is associated with positive SST anomalies over the tropical and North Atlantic and a Pacific SST pattern reminiscent of the positive phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation. Atmospheric circulation changes are important for the early 20th-century Arctic warming. The equatorial Pacific warming deepens the Aleutian low, advecting warm air into the North American Arctic. The extratropical North Atlantic and North Pacific SST warming strengthens surface westerly winds over northern Eurasia, intensifying the warming there. Coupled ocean–atmosphere simulations support the constructive intensification of Arctic warming by a concurrent, negative-to-positive phase shift of the Pacific and Atlantic interdecadal modes. Our results aid attributing the historical Arctic warming and thereby constrain the amplified warming projected for this important region.”


      • “The inter-relationship between subtropical western–central Pacific sea surface temperatures (STWCPSST), sea ice concentrations in the Beaufort Sea (SICBS), and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) in summer are investigated over the period 1980–2016. It is shown that the Arctic response to the remote impact of the Pacific SST is more dominant in recent summers, leading to a frequent occurrence of the negative phase of the NAO following the STWCPSST increase. Lag–correlations of STWCPSST positive (negative) anomalies in spring with the negative (positive) NAO and SICBS loss (recovery) in summer have increased over the last two decades, reaching r = 0.4–0.5 with significance at the 5 percent level…………Connected with this atmospheric response, SIC and surface albedo decrease with an increase in the surface net shortwave flux over the Beaufort Sea. Examination of the surface energy balance (radiative and turbulent fluxes) reveals that surplus energy that can heat the surface increases over the Arctic, enhancing the SIC reduction.“


      • “In the modern climate, the Transpolar Drift strength and pattern, and the precipitation over the Arctic, are positively related to the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) [Dickson et al., 2000; Mysak, 2001; Peterson et al., 2002; Rigor et al., 2002; Moritz et al., 2002]. Thus it is entirely possible that a link exists between the decadal to millennial variability of sea ice cover in the western Arctic and the relative frequencies of the atmospheric circulation patterns similar to the AO‐NAO modes.“


      • “[6] The basic driver of Beaufort Sea meteorology is the annual cycle of insolation (Figure 1). Although the Sun is close to the horizon during summer, the 24 h of daylight provides more potential solar radiation (i.e., without cloud effects) in the Arctic than at lower latitudes in the northern hemisphere.”

        “Over the last decade, however, the AO exhibited relatively low and fluctuating values. The dominance of the AO was generally replaced by a more meridional atmospheric flow with anomalous winds blowing from the Bering Sea toward the North Pole, supporting a positive AOO for the Beaufort Sea [Overland et al., 2008]. The positive AO of the early 1990s followed by nearly a decade of the unusual meridional flow pattern has lead to decreases in sea ice thickness throughout the Arctic [Nghiem et al., 2007]”

        “The unique meteorology of the Beaufort Sea region is caused by the presence of sea ice and a seasonal swing from a large heat loss in winter to a gain in summer. Even though the Sun angle is low in summer, the length of daylight provides as much energy to the surface as anywhere on the planet.”

        As much energy to the surface as ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET.


      • Thanks Ceresco,

        “As much energy to the surface as ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET”.

        And all that energy must be conserved and thus surely has to go somewhere? See:

        “Warming of the interior Arctic Ocean linked to sea ice losses at the basin margins.” Mary-Louise Timmermans, John Toole, Richard Krishfield (2018)


        “In the coming years, however, excess Beaufort Gyre halocline heat will give rise to enhanced upward heat fluxes year-round, creating compound effects on the system by slowing winter sea ice growth.”

        Plus, especially for Javier:

        “The effects of an efficient local ice-albedo feedback are thus not confined to the surface ocean/sea ice heat budget but, in addition, lead to increased heat accumulation in the ocean interior that has consequences far beyond the summer season.”

      • Ceresco,

        Perhaps “the thrust of the thread” has been “conveniently” misdirected?

      • Jim, JCH
        If you need me to spell it out, the obvious implication of the Levitus data on Barents temperatures and the AMO, is that the AMO itself represents an oscillation in the strength of the AMOC / “Gulf Stream” bringing warm water into the Arctic.

        It was Mike Mann himself (who is a much better oceanographer than dendrochronologist) who was among the first to note a decrease in the strength of the AMOC about 10 years ago. Skeptics actually argued against this simply because it was MM who was saying it but he has been proved right.

        The “AMO” is simply a detrended index of North Atlantic SST’s which have been empirically observed to describe an approximately sinusoidal oscillation with a few decades alternately in warmer and cooler phases:


        A reasonable working hypothesis is that the AMO is driven by periodic speeding up and slowing down of the AMOC. We are about due for a slowing down about now so Mann’s observation of the AMOC slowdown makes sense.

        A little down thread I am discussing with Robert Ellison how feedbacks in a chaotic system can lead to oscillation. You can check the references I cited there – it’s from chemical engineering and papers by Matthias Bertram and others. The point is that a system exhibiting chaos and turbulence can change to exhibit a more regular oscillation if a positive feedback operates in the system. In the North Atlantic such a positive feedback exists between transport of saline water to the far North Atlantic and the resultant downwelling of the cooled and still saline deep water impelling the AMOC and further driving the saline water transport. This salinity-downwelling (deep water formation) provides the positive feedback to turn an otherwise chaotic Gulf Stream into an AMOC with oscillating strength.

      • Mornin’ Ceresco,

        Was that bare link to a 2000 paper aimed at me? If so perhaps you’d be so kind as to explain whatever you suppose it proves?

        Why don’t you address the issues raised in Timmermans et al. 2018 instead of merely regurgitating ancient history?

      • And, what has the AMOC been doing since 1905, the approximate 20-century low point the GMST? What has the AMO done since RAPID detected its recent decline?

        What does the GMST do whenever the Eastern Pacific changes?

      • Jim
        Do you by any chance have some links to learned journal articles about Beaufort and/or Chukchi Sea temperatures over the last few decades?

        You could start with the reference list of Levitus et al. 2009.

      • Phil,

        Perhaps it would be better to start with a bibliography that includes the last ten years? Like this one for instance:


        At the risk of repeating myself:

        Why don’t you address the issues raised in Timmermans et al. 2018 instead of merely regurgitating ancient history?

      • OK Timmermans

        a near doubling of ocean heat content relative to the freezing temperature in the Beaufort Gyre halocline

        How can you have “relative” OHC??

        Summer solar heat absorption by the surface waters has increased fivefold over the same time period, chiefly because of reduced sea ice coverage

        Wrong. This is a mistake that alarmists love to make. Reduced sea ice coverage increases heat loss, not heat gain. The heat loss from evaporation and convective cooling of exposed water is much greater than heat gain from very weak sunlight at extreme high latitudes. This reflects the extraordinary bias in alarmist science to radiation only in terms of heat – as if heat can be transferred only by radiation. Less sea ice coverage means more heat loss from exposed sea water under very cold air. It’s a negative feedback. That is why Arctic ice loss and gain is cyclical as shown in the data presented by Cereskokid, Ragnaar and Javier.

        It remains to be seen how continued sea ice losses will fundamentally change the water column structure and dynamics of the Arctic halocline. In the coming years, however, excess BG halocline heat will give rise to
        enhanced upward heat fluxes year-round, creating compound effects
        on the system by slowing winter sea ice growth.

        Maybe – and maybe not. We shall see.

      • Good afternoon Phil (UTC),

        So you reckon that you, Ceresco, Ragnaar and Javier understand this stuff better then the scientists who have spent decades of their working lives studying it?

      • Phil, your sentence “The heat loss from evaporation and convective cooling of exposed water is much greater than heat gain from very weak sunlight at extreme high latitudes. ” is right for the winter in the arctic but not for the summer:
        From May to mid August the insolation is higher than at the equator. The sun shines 24/7!

      • On net, the loss of sea ice causes the ocean to warm. It’s elementary:


      • Good morning Phil (UTC),

        Even Javier admits albedo has some effect! FYI:


        At the risk of repeating yourself quoting Timmermans et al.

        Summer solar heat absorption by the surface waters has increased fivefold over the same time period, chiefly because of reduced sea ice coverage.

      • Jim, Frank, JCH
        Another contributor RACooke has explained in detail many times here and over at WUWT why ice albedo only becomes a positive feedback below a lattitude of (I think) 60 degrees. Then the sunlight does become intense enough to become the dominant factor in sea surface heat flux. (This occurs marginally in winter around Antarctica where sea ice extent is greater, but not in the Arctic.) But at higher latitudes, he shows that increases in open seawater increase heat loss since the convective flux from warmer seas to colder overlying air is indeed – I strongly suspect – more than radiation flux.

        Frank – are your w/m3 at top of atmosphere or adjusted for actual sea surface?

        JCH – your graph of correlation between ice extent and Arctic heat content are not surprising. But in no way do they address the issue of whether Arctic sea surface heat flux is dominated by radiation or convection. If as I argue elsewhere the AMO oscillation is a variation in the strength of the AMOC and results in oscillating volume flow of warm water into the Arctic, then your graphs are a perfect illustration of this. Stronger AMOC warm inflow is increasing Arctic ocean heat content (as shown in the Levitus et al 2009 paper) and this in turn is reducing ice volume.

        Note that convective heat loss from Arctic waters to overlying air that is nearly always colder than the water, is also 24/7 all year round.

        What is needed is a detailed and explicit calculation of relative heat flux from convection / evaporation and radiation, taking all factors of geometry and day length into account. But mainstream climate science discussion of the Arctic and of climate in general seems to focus myopically on radiative fluxes, seemingly ignoring convective / evaporative ones.

      • Good morning Phil (UTC),

        Surely you jest invoking “RACooke… over at WUWT”? Next you’ll be citing David Middleton!

        Are you aware how Anthony and his army of moderators suppress “alternative” points of view regarding the physics of Arctic sea ice? If not then as luck would have it I am currently in a position to enlighten you.

        Firstly they “ban” people who know what they’re talking about regarding Arctic sea ice:


        This thus prevents said “experts” from providing pertinent commentary on subsequent articles on the topic of Arctic sea ice:


      • Sgt Springer dispensed with RACookPE1978.

        What is needed is a detailed and explicit calculation of relative heat flux from convection / evaporation and radiation, taking all factors of geometry and day length into account. But mainstream climate science discussion of the Arctic and of climate in general seems to focus myopically on radiative fluxes, seemingly ignoring convective / evaporative ones.

        This is just utter and total bologna. Just like the accusations that climate scientists are trying to erase natural variation. It’s simply lunacy.

      • Name-calling and bolognaise aside, the question is a simple quantitative one. To repeat: what is needed is a detailed and explicit calculation of relative heat flux from convection / evaporation and radiation, taking all factors of geometry and day length into account.

      • Good morning Phil (UTC),

        To repeat: what is needed is a detailed and explicit response from you (and Javier!) to Timmermans et al. (2018):

        Summer solar heat absorption by the surface waters has increased fivefold over the same time period, chiefly because of reduced sea ice coverage……

        The effects of an efficient local ice-albedo feedback are thus not confined to the surface ocean/sea ice heat budget but, in addition, lead to increased heat accumulation in the ocean interior that has consequences far beyond the summer season.

      • Learn more about Heat Flux
        OCEANOGRAPHIC TOPICS | Thermohaline Circulation
        R.X. Huang, in Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (Second Edition), 2015
        Surface Heat Flux


        Surface heat flux is a major forcing for the thermohaline circulation; it is the sum of the four terms: the incoming short-waves solar radiation, the outgoing sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, and long-wave radiation. The net air–sea heat flux map is shown in Figure 3.

        Figure 3 shows that averaged over the whole year the Arctic seas lose heat at the surface.

        So it must be replenished by meridional ocean currents e.g. the tail end of the Gulf Stream.

      • JCH
        Thank-you, very informative.
        Interesting that the maximum rate of heat loss occurs in October, not at the ice cover maximum around March. In October sunlight is much less but there is still significant open water. In March with much colder air but more ice cover, heat loss is smaller. This shows how ice cover insulates the water below from heat loss even with colder air temperature. It therefore indicates why glacial regimes with expanded ice cover can remain stable.

  63. Although there is one estimate of an intrinsic variability of 40-50% Arctic summer ice loss over 40 years. In a system delicately balanced between thresholds.


    • Balanced between thresholds?
      Or maybe just oscillating due to the effect on chaotic turbulence of one or more feedbacks, reducing dimensionality?

      (Did you snap that photo while the car was moving?)

      • I was trying for the bales. And there is a difference between meager description of spatio-temporal patterns of climate means and variance and a magical incantation that ends in a low dimensional state space.

      • Robert I Ellison: And there is a difference between meager description of spatio-temporal patterns of climate means and variance and a magical incantation that ends in a low dimensional state space.

        Fair enough. Did the thresholds emerge from a magical incantation, or is there evidence for them?

      • RE
        No magic involved.

        Feedbacks turn high dimensional chaos-turbulence into low dimensional emergent pattern:



        Another good example is multidecadal ocean circulation oscillations like the AMO and PDO etc. BTW.

      • The evidence is extensive. A little research and reading is required. And throwing words at it to try to take the sting out of the tail of internal variability means sfa.

      • To repeat from upthread, a system exhibiting chaos and turbulence can change to exhibit a more regular oscillation if a positive feedback operates in the system. This means reducing high dimensionality of full-blown chaos and turbulence to lower dimensional borderline chaos where the more interesting pattern formation emerges, by the presence of a positive feedback. In the North Atlantic such a positive feedback exists between transport of saline water to the far North Atlantic and the resultant downwelling of the cooled and still saline deep water impelling the AMOC and further driving the saline water transport. This salinity-downwelling (deep water formation) loop provides the positive feedback to turn an otherwise chaotic Gulf Stream into an AMOC with oscillating strength.

        Another (intermittent) example is ENSO, the Bjerknes feedback linking the trade winds to Peruvian cold upwelling distills the chaotic ocean circulation there to periodic excursions of el Nino and L Nina that comprise the ENSO.

        One may even predict as a generalisation that where there are significant ocean upwelling and downwelling regions, these will be involved in feedbacks that will drive oceanic oscillations. There are some big ones around Antarctica.

  64. Dr Curry: “Large influence of soil moisture…” paper uses RCP8.5, therefore it should be discarded.

  65. Dr Curry: The physics of climate variability appears to be an incomplete product, because it skips over carbon sink performance. This is one of the subjects I’m studying this fall, and it seems to be largely ignored. Unfortunately I’m having a difficult time finding material on the subject, and what I find thus far tells me this should be an area of extreme concern and focus.

    • What ever your research turns up, I hope you are able to share it here. There are many holes in our knowledge and this is one.

      • Cerescokid, thus far I’ve found the four RCPs used very different models (they yield different carbon sequestration rates at similar conditions). I noticed Dr Curry is reading more about the subject, and sure hope this can be a future blog post.

        Going over the literature I found the models have a high degree of uncertainty, the research involved requires heavy input by biologists, there doesn’t seem to be a sophisticated and high quality center to handle the data, funding for research is measly, and those who work the problem are treated like the dogs tail, when it’s possible they are the big dog.

        I’m not nearly as suited for this, unlike the RCP8.5 issue I identified several years ago. So all I can say the way this is being neglected appears to be dangerous. And I encourage anybody who can to dig down, because there’s definitely pay-dirt.

        I’m also studying the way the ocean absorbs energy, and think I found a disconnect. There are individuals looking at albedo. Others look at energy transfer within the ocean layers close to the surface. But I don’t see enough work being done to understand how much energy is absorbed when the sun is relatively low over the horizon, including the effect of plankton in the water. This doesn’t seem to be getting handled right (I studied this issue in physical oceanography 40 plus years ago, and it’s surprising it hasn’t been given that much attention).

        Anyway, I have a son coming over for Xmas vacation and we olan to download a bunch of data and refine what I did thus far. The aim is to look at carbon sink performance as per the models, then later teach an AI to engineer backwards. Then have the AI run the ensemble forward. I have no idea if this makes any sense, but I want to get more into neural networks.

  66. Matthew R Marler

    Heterodox Academy: Seizing the means of knowledge production

    It’s hard to write good short informative articles on these complex social phenomena, but that one is indeed good.

  67. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The twenty-four hour average neutrons in Oulu exceeded 6,800 counts.

  68. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Circulation in the lower stratosphere indicates further attacks of cold air from Canada in the north-central US.

  69. There is no chaos and feedbacks in climate. Chaos is what emerges from complex and dynamic feedbacks. Phil reckons it can be chaotic just not too chaotic. He’s waving a paper on a chemical analogy .


  70. Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action
    “More than 300 scientists have endorsed a civil disobedience campaign aimed at forcing governments to take rapid action to tackle climate change, warning that failure could inflict “incalculable human suffering.””
    They’ve had every advantage. Deployed wind turbines and solar panels. A consensus. A global agreement. Every sicentific organization. Every large corporation including oil companies. Youth. H.S. teachers. Universities. Governors. All the Democrats. Germans. Danes. Swedes. California. New England. Google. Microsoft. Amazon. Crying children. The Guardian. Skeptical Science. Main stream media. They failed. Civil disobedience. Fine. It’s not going to help. They’ve all ready turned everything up to 11. That doesn’t work.

    • Nothing will work. For as long as humanity insists on not acknowledging the woods it is not going to see the trees.
      REI above blames land use as one of the primary drivers that trigger change. However Nature has been at it to a much greater degree and with far greater effect. But that is not visible, as long as we insist that there is nothing unusual and changing beyond our noses.
      A taste, or a peek, form the Holocene: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/beyond-the-heretic-reality/

      • melitamegalithic

        Thank you for your reply and question. You asked:

        “As per your second para, the hunter gatherer’s energy demand must be seen with respect to land required for his methods. Schwanitz’s 6000 used an optimum ratio that was sustainable (or meant to). Is today’s sustainable?”

        I believe the answer is yes. Energy, water and food are the basic requirements to sustain human populations. All are sustainable with a much larger than current world population and per capita energy consumption, IMHO.

        First, there is sufficient uranium at eventually economically recoverable concentrations to power a world of 10 billion people using the USA’s average per capita energy consumption for around 20,000 years. Then there is four times more thorium than uranium. Then there’s fission. And gasoline/petrol, diesel, jet fuel, etc. can be produced from seawater using electricity. So, no shortage of energy.

        Second, fresh water can be desalinated from sea water, so no shortage of fresh water.

        Third, the amount of land needed for producing crops has decreased over the past century or so. There is a vast amount of land suitable for producing food. And productivity can be improved enormously. Consider the productivity of hydroponics, hen farms, pig farms, etc. Agricultural productivity will improve as the demand dictates. So, there will be no shortage of food.

    • After reading “Thinking Fast and Slow” I think we may be doomed. Maybe technology(genetic engineering, geoengineering) can avoid the worse outcomes.
      I can’t vouch for this biologist logic or his calculations but there must be some optimal ratio of humans to the planets carrying capacity. Based on his studies of eco-systems he thinks we are about 100,000x over the natural ratio of humans vs. the rest of the biosphere. He claims the optimal number of homo-sapien apex predators should be around 700,000 but there are already over 7 billion with projections of 10 billion by 2100.

      If you want to see what a controlled experiment of over population looks like then check out the research by John Calhoun.

      • I recall reading similar in the late 60’s, except that the incumbents that were the target of the experiments were rats. The social breakdown and the forms of violence that followed were really ugly. But we get brief glimpses of such among humans where there is social breakdown mainly due to wars. But it can get much uglier.
        However those were rats -four legged plus tail-. Without any social organisation except the natural fight for survival of sorts. Humans have – or should have – the foresight and the competence (of the gifted) to organise society to turn what may be overcrowding into a social productive system. It would be necessarily ‘highly leveraged’ and breakdown (due to war, pandemic, or natural upheaval which would be immediately followed by famine) would likely be of high attrition.

      • If you look at some apes, it’s not the strongest. It’s the ones that recruit allies. Three lesser apes can take down the leader. So most ape leaders know this. So the fight for survival in that case involves forming social relationships. Not that I have a point other than sometimes it’s not just strength and it is social organization. I also think that rats set up a social organization.

      • One thing is sure different, if the rats had social media they might have gone suicida1 even sooner.

      • As Ragnaar says, it is all about social organisation. However, like chickens, rats have a pecking order. Fundamentally such social setups do not improve or maintain the habitat they live on; they are more likely to deplete it.

        Franz Schwanitz in “The Origin of Cultivated Plants” says that the importance of agriculture to the human race and to civilisation in particular, can be seen by the fact that a hunter or forager needs in general around twenty square kilometres to sustain him. That same land under organized cultivation can support a society of six thousand persons working together.

        Pressure on land for cultivation did not start yesterday. For the ‘Heretic’ it is how one may interpret why biblical Cain the agrarian killed, or had to, Adam the pastoralist. It is the elimination of one step in the food pyramid, because the higher one goes, the lower the number that can be supported. The ratio of lions to available prey is always low.

      • melitamegalithic,

        There is no realistic limit to the world population that can be fed. The World’s agricultural productivity is limited by governance issues, not the productivity of the land. To take and extreme example to demonstrate this, in most African countries agricultural productivity is proportional to the distance from cities and large towns. The reason is
        1. poor governance lack of security, theft, destruction, etc.
        2. problem getting labour far from towns
        3. issues with getting produce to market and getting water, seed, fertilizer, and equipment to farms
        4, etc. etc.

        Hunter gatherer’s used about 8 MJ/d of energy (food only). The USA’s average per capita energy consumption is around 1000 MJ/d (all consumption). The accelerating rate will continue.

      • OK, here is an example that disproves the idea that over population leads to collapse of a species.

        I predict that algae will thrive like they haven’t in thousands of years. Indeed, the meek will inherit the earth.

      • Peter Lang
        Agree totally. And I can add some of the worst. In these modern times the farmer is looked down upon by society at large, forgetting from where their bread comes. The farmer’s primary enemies are severe weather and government ‘mucking’.
        Franz Schwanitz, in my earlier post, was talking about sustainable societies. As per your second para, the hunter gatherer’s energy demand must be seen with respect to land required for his methods. Schwanitz’s 6000 used an optimum ratio that was sustainable (or meant to). Is today’s sustainable?

      • Related to my link to algae blooms I see some crazy scientist are trying to geoengineer the Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon:
        “The Upper Klamath Lake is a tough place to be a fish.
        The shortnose and Lost River suckers provide a case in point. The two species of fish, which look like a big-lipped cross between a carp and cod, used to be common in this southern Oregon lake. For millennia, they were an important traditional food source for the local tribes. The federal government considers them endangered species. There’s a population of long-lived adult suckers hanging on and continuing to reproduce, but virtually none of their offspring are surviving for longer than a year.
        The juvenile sucker, they’re dying off. They’re not recruiting new adults, said Mason Terry, a renewable energy professor at the Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls.”

        A solution or pipe dream?
        The team assembled a floating raft with four 310-watt solar panels that would run two compressors that push air — with all the oxygen it contains — down into the lake. Any power left over would go to charge the batteries, which are designed to power the compressors for 32 hours without sun.

        I wonder how much energy it will take to aerate the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, 6,952 square miles (18,006 square km)?

      • Re post in correct place


        Thank you for your reply and question. You asked:

        “As per your second para, the hunter gatherer’s energy demand must be seen with respect to land required for his methods. Schwanitz’s 6000 used an optimum ratio that was sustainable (or meant to). Is today’s sustainable?”

        I believe the answer is yes. Energy, water and food are the basic requirements to sustain human populations. All are sustainable with a much larger than current world population and per capita energy consumption, IMHO.

        First, there is sufficient uranium at eventually economically recoverable concentrations to power a world of 10 billion people using the USA’s average per capita energy consumption for around 20,000 years. Then there is four times more thorium than uranium. Then there’s fission. And gasoline/petrol, diesel, jet fuel, etc. can be produced from seawater using electricity. So, no shortage of energy.

        Second, fresh water can be desalinated from sea water, so no shortage of fresh water.

        Third, the amount of land needed for producing crops has decreased over the past century or so. There is a vast amount of land suitable for producing food. And productivity can be improved enormously. Consider the productivity of hydroponics, hen farms, pig farms, etc. Agricultural productivity will improve as the demand dictates. So, there will be no shortage of food.

      • Peter Lang,
        My turn to thank for the kind reply; it is appreciated.
        Again, I agree with you. But I make a reservation here; to dig deeper into one particular point, namely on energy, because it is a very weak link in the matter of sustainability.
        The question of energy needs to be dissected carefully and finely. As one who spent his life and carrier in power generation I can tell you there are as many monkeys as there are quality engineers in the field of power, from design to operation. This is said to point out that the option of fission energy (forget fusion, there is no real hope in sight) is available to only a select few, and not without great risk. And it is the furthest kind of energy from the kind required for growing our food.
        Renewable energy technology still has some way to go to provide more energy than goes into its creation/manufacture. And something seemingly forgotten, it still has to keep the industry that made it operational (ie, the cost of electricity from solar, over say 50 yrs, has to factor in the cost of the maintaining the whole process from mine to solar panel installation).
        In agriculture fossil fuel is the backbone (there is no way to bring back the old donkey to achieve today’s production). Synthesizing a fossil fuel replacement involves a major industrial cost overload. It is yet far from practicable. In the olden days making the plow-share for a wooden plow was a major collective undertaking. Things have scaled up enormously, including the risk.
        To keep within context, I agree the world has a great potential to feed the multitudes, and with the added advantage of a much better ‘quality of life’ (I can say that because I did taste what reaping wheat by hand at 03:00am in the moonlight was like). But this has made the world ‘highly leveraged’ to risk from unforeseen disturbances, especially of the natural kind.

      • Peter Lang & melitamegalithic;
        I hope you both find Andrew McAfee’s insight and optimism something to bolster your positions.
        “More from Less tells the story of an important, unexpected, and heartening change in our relationship with the planet we all live on.”

      • Melita
        biblical Cain the agrarian killed, or had to, Adam the pastoralist.

        Cain killed Abel, his brother, not Adam his father.

      • @ phil salmon: My mistake (or google’s prompt in auto correct since i use ‘adam’ quite often).
        Incidentally it is Cain (Gen4:17) who built a city for his son, a ref to a sedentary way of life as against a nomadic life of the pastoralist. As per Franz Schwanitz.

      • melitamegalithic

        Thank you for your comments. We differ on the potential of nuclear and renewables to supply the world’s energy needs in future. I’ll offer some alternative points of view to consider. Below are my brief responses to some of your points.

        1. “But I make a reservation here; to dig deeper into one particular point, namely on energy, because it is a very weak link in the matter of sustainability.”

        I may have misunderstood what you mean by energy “is a very weak link in the matter of sustainability.” Energy is essential to the sustainability of human civilisation. It is essential for food and water production and production of all the things humans need to live at standards of living above hunter-gatherer.

        2. “ the option of fission energy (forget fusion, there is no real hope in sight) is available to only a select few, ”

        I disagree with this. I suggest that nuclear power will be available to all and essential for providing most of the world’s energy in the future. The time scales involved need to be considered.

        I suggest we have wasted 50 years and caused up to 9.5 million deaths as a result of delays to the development and deployment of nuclear power – due to the unwarranted fear of it, and the resulting regulatory impediments that have drastically stalled progress (
        https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm ).

        3. “and not without great risk.”

        Nuclear power is by far the safest way to generate electricity and has been since the first power reactor began sending power to the grid in 1954.

        4. “And it is the furthest kind of energy from the kind required for growing our food.”

        Nuclear power can produce effectively unlimited quantities of the fuels required (petrol/gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc.). The estimated cost from currently available technologies is $3 to $6 per gallon, but this would reduce as production increases and development progresses in future.

        5. “Renewable energy technology still has some way to go to provide more energy than goes into its creation/manufacture.”

        Renewable energy is a dill’s dead duck. It can never supply much of the world’s energy needs.

        6. “In agriculture fossil fuel is the backbone”

        Refer to response to point 3 above. Further, fossil fuels are severely limited. But nuclear can supply the world’s hydrocarbon fuels needs from electricity and seawater for millennia – at about half the current cost estimates if the hydrogen component is produced by high temperature nuclear reactors instead of by hydrolysis.

        7. “Synthesizing a fossil fuel replacement involves a major industrial cost overload. It is yet far from practicable.”

        True that it is not cost competitive yet, but is likely to be within a few decades – see cost estimates in the links in reply to point 3 above.

        8. “But this has made the world ‘highly leveraged’ to risk from unforeseen disturbances, especially of the natural kind.”

        I agree with “risk from unforeseen disturbances, especially of the natural kind”. However, I’d argue these have always existed, yet humanity is handling them and is progressing very well.

      • http://www.isamurats.co.uk/rats-interacting-with-other-rats.html

        “Rats naturally live in complex social groups, this contains a set hierarchy where a rat knows their place. A rat with a stable hierarchy is generally a happy one, problems usually occur when the social structure changes for some reason, whether this be the addition of new rats, illness, a surge in hormones triggering one of the rats to want to change it’s status or some other environmental disruption.” Yes my support for this is weak. So we wonder, are the rat’s problems the result of capitalism and the unequal distribution of wealth? With these two things caused by a hierarchy imposed by male rats?

      • Peter Lang
        Interesting followup; thank you. Food for thought.
        Not to flog this further, a small comment on the last paragraph. I began to suspect humanity is ‘partying’ in the good-times, and is oblivious of possible change. Globally we have become centralised because efficient transport and communication, and up to now no limit to available energy, have made it a ‘small world’. Too much interdependent. All in about 70 years. Is it the fast exponential rise before the big shift? Nature works that way. Ibn Khaldun foresaw such collapse a long time ago, but he did not foresee the mule-kick from Nature.
        Looking way back in time, change came every ~500yrs (half an Eddy cycle). We are at such a point now – about- . Looking soberly beyond our noses we definitely are not prepared, especially where energy and agriculture are concerned. Pharaonic Egyptians who, when seen through the Hebrew bible, were organised and prepared for hard times, had many workers and a few scribes, We seem to have many scribes but few workers, maybe because city life and sitting in front of a laptop screen is easier than striving outdoors; and pays better. That will not serve us good if and when it comes.

      • Ragnaar
        I recalled the rat experiment in the 60’s for one particular outcome. In rat overcrowding where the pressure for food began to be felt adversely in the group, there were instances of cannibalism. Way into the experiment it was found that those rats turned cannibal retained the habit later when enough food was available. In fact a spin-off from the result was how to turn it as a weapon against rats.

      • “Rats are said to establish an order of hierarchy, so one rat will be dominant over another one.[42]”

        And we have:
        “Rats exhibit group behaviors similar to human social behaviors. For example, when overcrowded, male rats have been known to form gangs and exhibit dominance over other rats.”
        So such behavior would seem to be evolutionary. Including the part about being male.

      • Thank you for your comment regarding my last paragraph (my response to point 8). I offer some more thoughts for consideration.

        The world is a very different place than it was 500 years ago. We now have large, fast ships, planes, trains and communications. So, we have international trade to move goods and produce to where they are needed, the ability to immigrate to get from disadvantaged areas to advantaged areas, and to communicate to resolve problems. Therefore, I do not fear global catastrophe from nature (other than from an unlikely bolide impact or a deadly, rapidly spreading infectious disease, or an unlikely abrupt severe global cooling).

        I suspect the highest risks are of a major international conflict such as WWIII, or to a lesser extent a further breakdown of the WTO and of free trade, and the impact of the UN’s ‘progressive’/socialist agenda.

        To reduce the risks of WWWIII and of social disruption we should focus on:

        • revamping the UN so it focusses on its original mandate and not on pushing its ‘progressive’/socialist agenda – and Agenda21, UNFCCC, IPCC and Extinction Rebellion
        • getting all nation states to adopt good democratic processes
        • improving the WTO and free trade
        • improve governance, education, health, infrastructure, free press especially in developing countries
        • improve the culture of academia – e.g., removing the ‘progressive’/socialist bias

        I agree with Michael Cunningham’s oft repeated point that the best thing humanity can do to prepare for future shocks is to build resilience. The way to do that is to implement policies to increase global economic growth and per capita income and wealth.

    • I compared emissions from land use to fossil fuels. If an asteroid hits they’ll televise it.


      • My 2nd cousin who actually farms described some program land he had next to a ditch. Root mass deep into the ground. Compared to his fields. Those are pulverized soil. Until recently is was plow to black dirt every year. I’d call it a structural change to the soil compared to when his land was prairie grassland around 1850. My grand vision is take 10% of the farmland and put if into grasslands. Would this do anything? It would help the overall environment. We cannot afford much more at this time as these Rednecks still need to get paid. It’s low tech. It’s doable. Some program land runs cattle. I have another relative who is in one of those deals. And of course, all the spin off benefits. You target the land near creeks and our massive drainage ditches that are already in place. The beauty of this is Red states would get on board. Long term, the soil improves. You can put it back into production with a plow. Tree control is important for that reason. And as a boy, I did some of that on my relative’s program land, with a chainsaw. You get the trees when they’re an a couple inches thick and just leave them where they fall.

      • Massively restock prairies and grassland with scientific grazing. Develop deep, rich, water retentive soils to buffer wetlands. Both in flood and drought. As it was.

      • Around 200 miles to the west we were doing no-till corn in the 1970’s.

      • JCH:
        “Around 200 miles to the west we were doing no-till corn in the 1970’s.”
        So, does that help retain moisture? I would thinking turning the soil would dry it out and that the trash not tilled would lower wind and increase snow capture.

      • Yes. First year we did it we had practically the only green corn in the country. Two reasons: one, moisture; two, some sort of earless silage corn my Dad got talked into trying. Drought browned out almost everybody else. Now those same fields are frequently very wet all summer.

  71. Pingback: WATERY GAIA – Keeping Earth Fit for Life, Non-Heat Energy Storage by H2O an Overlooked Factor in Earth System Science? – Neelu

  72. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The problem with the temperature in the lower stratosphere during a minimum of solar activity is due to the increase in ionization by GCR in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. This increase in ionization is particularly visible in winter and is consistent with the geomagnetic field.
    Below you can see a temperature anomaly in the stratosphere that occurred in January 2019 over the northern polar circle.

  73. Ireneusz Palmowski
  74. Somewhere above I thought there was a plot of the Arctic sea ice that started around 1979. Here in figure 1 we have this:


    From this: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071941

    So, there can be problems with an about 1979 start date. What I think the plot shows is that post 1950, there was ice building. Could’ve have been natural varioation that reversed itself sometime since 1950.

    I would appreciate any comments that I am misleading or wrong about what the plot means.

    • In general there is agreement about 1920-40s Arctic warming and sea ice declining and recovering after for the next few decades. There are many, many sources for this, in spite of the nit pickers who want to deny natural variability.
      This is a graph which represents ball park estimated sea Ice history. There are others showing essentially the same idea.


      • What makes this one study the final arbiter. Others show Variability. I go with Variability.

      • That one, it’s fine. Walsh… The ice retreats in Summer more. And absorbs more. Then refreezes when it loses what it absorbed, not before. Now this isn’t quite true. Because surface ice is not a perfect barmometer of the all the water down to depth. But all the water down to depth, eventually impacts the surface. So we have both increased absorption and release. Can we to get the thing to cycle more? As it cycles it moves warmth. Like it doesn’t move more warmth when it cycles less. What if I argue it melts more to eject more warmth from the oceans in a place where the path to the TOA is easy because water vapor is less up there. This makes sea ice a switch that turns off or on based on what should happen to moderate temperatures.

      • Gordon Robertson

        ragnaar…”What if I argue it melts more to eject more warmth from the oceans in a place where the path to the TOA is easy because water vapor is less up there”.

        What warmth? Adventurers walking to the North Pole have observed a vapour-like fog rising from the Arctic Ocean in place where the ice has parted. Of course it would, The water can’t be below freezing point and the air is at -40C or so. Yes, the ocean is warmer, at about 0C, than the ambient air, but can one call that warmth?

        Water vapour absorbs terrestrial infrared, which is off the low end of the solar spectrum. I doubt if it absorbs much from direct solar energy. In fact, the nitrogen and oxygen making up 99% of the atmosphere are likely to absorb far more short wave incoming solar.

        The TOA solar radiance is not a good parameter at such an angle. Someone argued earlier that even at a very low azimuth, the Sun delivers as much solar energy as anywhere else on the planet. That is wrong. It delivers the same energy to a plane perpendicular to solar rays and that does not apply to the Arctic.

        The TOA applies to the entire sphere surrounding the planet at the limit of the atmosphere, Solar energy enters the TOA from one direction only and the 1360 W/m^2 at TOA applies only at a point perpendicular to solar rays. The intensity received at the surface depends on the angle of incidence (due to Earth’s tilt) with which solar rays contact the surface and the degree of rotation of the planet at a particular time of day. Also, on the location of the planet in its orbit.

        If you have ever stood in a Northern clime in a late autumn day, when the Sun is low in the sky, you can barely feel it. The surrounding environment is cold and although the Sun does warm a smidgen, you need to be well dressed against the cold ambient air. In the same region in summer, you can walk around in a T-shirt, if you don’t mind being eaten alive by bugs.

        And you would not want to be anywhere on the Arctic Ocean for 6 months of the year when the Sun is very low in the sky or absent. When the Sun is that low in the sky, it delivers barely any energy to the Arctic Ocean region. If it did, the ocean would not freeze to a depth of 10 feet.

        The source of the energy, the Sun, delivers the same amount of energy, but the angle at which that energy is received determines its intensity. It’s obvious that Equatorial regions receive much more solar energy than the Arctic because solar rays impact the Equatorial regions directly whereas the Arctic receives them with a cosine/sine multiplier, depending on which angle of impact is considered.

        There are presumptions made in the following article but the trig is accurate.


      • Gordon,

        Sea water is salty. The usually quoted figure for the freezing point of Arctic Ocean water is -1.8 °C:


        For more scientific information on “solar energy [which] MUST be converted to heat” please see:


    • Here is what I think is the best reconstruction of September Arctic sea ice since 1935.


      A new time series of September Arctic sea ice extent: 1935-2014

  75. WATERY GAIA – Keeping Earth Fit for Life, Non-Heat Energy Storage by H2O an Overlooked Factor in Earth System Science?


    The above is pingback I noticed on this page. This is now the new article of the week.

    Explain water. Really.

    “…life on land is a further extrusion of the ocean, of ocean life, aggregating together to mutually provide nutrients and create survivable, mobile pockets of oceanic presence on dry land.”

    So what’s missing is biology and life. Water made life. It also made the climate. Water is not something whipped up in a lab like margarine. It is everything. The reason we are here. Water does this you say. You forgot the most important thing is does. It made us to figure out what all water is responsible for and is.

    You have to understand the system. I don’t want Bill Nye with a pendulum. I want answers. You can’t understand the climate by treating water as an inert gas. That’s not what it is. It’s more than a unit of mass that moves around and changes phases.

    • Gordon Robertson

      ragnaar…I confess to skimming the article but I picked this paragraph from it:

      “Question is, if ocean surface water has been continuously storing solar energy through this coherent form, is the energy transferred at some point, into some other form, or not (sound, heat, fluorescence…)? ”

      This represents a misunderstanding of solar energy, which is electromagnetic energy, and confuses it with heat, which is thermal energy. Moreover, it fails to understand that the only possible conversion in water is from EM to heat. The article suggests that solar ‘energy’ is some type of mysterious energy other than electromagnetic energy that has magical properties. Not so.

      Why would the author mention that solar energy MIGHT be converted to heat? It MUST be converted to heat because there is no other energy into which EM can be transformed in this instance.

      The word energy is thrown about in a generic sense and that leads to confusion in climate science. Some use the generic energy to contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, claiming the 2nd law is satisfied as long as a mysterious ‘net’ balance of ‘energy’ is positive. Therefore, they claim, it is possible to transfer heat from cold to hot under those circumstances. Here, energy is presented in a meaningless generic form.

      Energy as a word is meaningless. It describes something we think is there yet no one has ever been able to explain what it is. It makes no sense to talk about a generic energy because no such entity exists. There is thermal energy, mechanical, energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, electromagnetic energy, etc., but speaking of a generic, all-encompassing energy, such as solar energy, means nothing unless it is specified that solar energy is electromagnetic energy.

      The same applies to kinetic energy, which is not an energy per se, but a descriptor for ANY energy in motion. The kinetic energy of atoms is heat, by definition, and it is measured by temperature. Temperature is a human invention, heat is a natural phenomenon.

      On that basis, this article is confused as to what the word energy means. Solar energy can only be converted to thermal energy because the converting agent is the electrons that bind the oxygen and hydrogen atoms that make up the water molecules. Heat is produced when the absorbing electron increases its kinetic energy due to the absorption. No other energy can be produced by this action.

      The molecules are bound by hydrogen bonds which are a dipole action produced by the relative electronegativity of the electrons in the oxygen and hydrogen atoms. The resulting dipole action binds the water molecules together. The article presents hydrogen bonds as something mysterious that could possibly create other forms of energy.

      In the article, they also present entropy as a measure of disorder. Clausius, who invented the word and named it defined it as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at the temperature T at which the changes take place. Therefore entropy is a measure of heat, not disorder.

      Clausius added the notion of disorder after he defined entropy as a result of an irreversible process. In a reversible process, entropy = 0. In an irreversible process, entropy > 0. He added that an irreversible process leads to disorder but he did not define entropy as disorder.

      The formula Clausius developed as a mathematical expression of the 2nd law is:

      S = integral dq/T

      S = entropy
      q = heat
      T = relative level of heat

      If T is held constant, as in a heat bath, T can be taken outside the integral sign and S = entropy, becomes the sum of heat changes in an irreversible process. Therefore entropy is a measure of heat, not of disorder. Disorder is only a byproduct of an irreversible process.

      I mention this only to draw attention to the vagueness of the arguments in the article. The authors are throwing around words like energy and entropy without understanding what they mean.

      BTW…Clausius intended entropy to be a measure of energy….thermal energy.

      • Let me try one thing. From what I linked: “The atmosphere as a whole slows (but also enables!) the release of energy from the ocean to space.” The very definition of water. A water jacket around your ICE. Slows the release to maintain the engine temperature in its ideal range, and transports the excess. Water does all this cooling in our inventions. It proves what water is. To say it warms, leaves out that it transports. It has to store, transport, then release. They say it stores. It transports from where it’s warm to where it’s less so. Deep ocean warming. Store, transport, release. El Nino. Store, transport, release. I am just a darn accountant. Seems simple to me. Hurricane. Store, transport, release. Midwest thunderstorm. Store, transport, release. Don’t tell me it warms, end of story.

    • Gordon Robertson

      ragnaar…”Water made life. It also made the climate. Water is not something whipped up in a lab like margarine. It is everything”.

      Water is certainly important, it makes up a large proportion of the human body. However, it cannot be claimed that water alone supports life or that it created life.

      According to the theory of abiogenesis, the basis of evolution theory, life was formed from 5 basic elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosporous. Of course, they (??) also claimed it formed in primeval muds, hence your water content. Can’t have mud without water, in general.

      Post abiogenbesis, a very mysterious process apparently began called natural selection, Apparently the one-cell lifeforms created by abiogenesis evolved magically over the years guided by a form of intelligence theorized to be natural selection.

      Problem is, natural selection has never been proved via the scientific method nor has the formation of life using those elements. It was tried in a lab back in the 1950 and all they produced was a tarry sludge that did not move. The experimenters further concluded that the atmosphere required to produce such life was so severe it could not sustain it.

      I am not a Creationist but having studied basic chemistry, I know for a fact that the bonding arrangements between the elements listed above cannot produce life. There is nothing in any of the multitude of arrangements of these elements via covalent bonding, ionic bonding, hydrogen bonding, or attraction via van der Waal forces that can explain life.

      Therefore, claiming that water produced us is more a sentimental argument than fact. There is simply no proof.

      • Apparently you flunked chemistry and/or are ignorant of the chemistry we find in asteroids and the 1950 Miller experiment and dozens of other experiments. You can even find reports on Wikipedia, not exactly a deep search:

        “After Miller’s death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller’s original experiments.”

        And chirality – required for DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. – has been found in meteorites, so there are clearly processes that we still do not fully understand that produce all sorts of complex molecules.

        “Chiral molecule found in interstellar cloud
        Interstellar propylene oxide could shed light on life’s handedness
        By Elizabeth K. Wilson

        Astronomers found chiral propylene oxide in the interstellar cloud Sagittarius B2 North.
        Credit: NASA

        Astronomers have discovered the first chiral molecule in interstellar space (Science 2016, DOI: 10.1126/science.aae0328). The discovery of propylene oxide in an interstellar cloud sets the stage for astronomers to explore chemical processes that led to the preference of one enantiomer over another in the formation of biomolecules on Earth.

        All organisms on Earth build their proteins almost entirely from left-handed enantiomers of amino acids. Scientists have long searched for the reason why life picked left-handed chirality over right-handed.

        The famous Murchison meteorite, which formed around the same time as our sun and landed in Australia in 1969, contains an abundance of amino acids, a slight excess of which are left-handed. This is significant because only a few percent excess of one enantiomer would be enough to push life in a direction of exclusive left or right handedness.

        Scientists want to know how far back this chiral preference extends in the history of the galaxy.

        A multi-institutional team led by Geoffrey A. Blake of Caltech announced the discovery of interstellar propylene oxide at a press conference at the American Astronomical Society meeting in San Diego on June 14.

        The group detected the molecule in the interstellar cloud Sagittarius B2 North, in which scientists have found one-third of the 180 known interstellar molecules. They found three characteristic radio frequency absorbance lines that definitively identify propylene oxide.

        However, these observations don’t distinguish between enantiomers. So, the team said, the next step will be more extensive observations that are sensitive to circularly polarized light because different enantiomers preferentially absorb left- or right-circularly polarized light.

        “This is a very exciting discovery for astrobiology,” says Stefanie N. Milam, an astrochemist at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “The detection of complex organic molecules in the interstellar medium, comets, and meteorites gives us tremendous insight into the ubiquity of organic or prebiotic chemistry across the galaxy.”


  76. Scientists Propose Dumping Absurd Amounts of Snow On Antarctica To Curb Sea Level Rise


    I guess the weight would stablize it, or not. Still, there’s got to a be a better way.

    • About 80,000 years ago the Ice Melting stage of the last Ice Age began. As the Ice melted and by SUBLIMATION the water vapor entered the atmosphere and moved towards the equator. As the oceans rose the Ice shelf was attacked by the 35’F to 39’F water on the sides and bottom. About 20,000 years ago the New Ice Age began.
      The oceans rose and eventually the added weight of new ice and the melting of the Ice Shelves from the sides and bottom the ice shelves began to breaking off. At this time Mother Nature is breaking the Ice shelf off at the same rate She is dropping ice on the frozen poles. Soon, in Ice Age time, the oceans will start back down again.

      • Gordon Robertson

        robert…”About 80,000 years ago the Ice Melting stage of the last Ice Age began. As the Ice melted and by SUBLIMATION the water vapor entered the atmosphere and moved towards the equator”

        Robert…being a serious skeptic I have a lot of trouble with Ice Age theories, I was watching a program last night in which a geologist claimed the Great Lakes were carved from an ice sheet about a mile thick. He inferred the ice sheet acted like a glacier, depositing giant boulders along the Lakes in its path.

        I wanted to ask him a question: How would an ice sheet move? How would it carve out anything? Glaciers move from higher altitudes to lower altitudes, usually in mountain regions, so where was this ice sheet over the Great Lakes moving to and from where?

        I think claims of Ice Age ice extent are highly exaggerated. I don’t see how it is feasible for ice to pile up a mile high over the planet. I don’t see what would cause it unless Earth managed to change orbit out by Saturn then managed to return to its present orbit. Either that or the Sun dimmed significantly.

        Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see. In a geology class I took, we were told that U-shaped valleys were carved by glaciers. I accepted that theory verbatim at the time but now I question it, wondering if there might be other explanations.

        There is no proof of the Ice Age claims other than proxies. We have all seen how proxy interpretations can go wildly astray as in the hockey stick propaganda.

  77. https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/beyond-yucca-mountain

    50 years ago the USA nuclear program was buried in Yucca mountain.

    Today, the US nuclear program is buried in Yucca mountain.

    In 50 years time the US nuclear program, and the USA with it, will be buried in Yucca mountain.

  78. Posted on EM2 for my 1000’s of friends on fb. lol… This is General Atomics. They have done everything in atomics. Fuel fabrication in the early 2020’s and then a prototype.


  79. Judith, there may be an answer to Greta. Some Teenagers are doing work on debunking AGW. You may want to try this experiment yourself.

    Teenagers catch NASA Concealing Data from Public
    NASA Caught Withholding Data from the Public(Short)
    NASA caught withholding data! (not a conspiracy theory but a fact)(Long)
    Original Document of Experiment
    The Case of the Disappearing Data

    • Gordon Robertson

      co2…”Teenagers catch NASA Concealing Data from Public…”

      Good for the kids. Encouraged to see they are not all caught up in the pseudo-science but discouraged that they get kicked out of class for questioning pseudo-science.

      To be fair, the chicanery comes from NOAA the source of GISS data. However, GISS does fudge it more.

      All of those stations shown in video 1 are not used. NOAA has slashed the ‘reporting’ stations by 90% since 1990 and more recently admitted to slashing the remainder of the surface stations from 6000 globally to less than 1500.

      Both NOAA and GISS use climate models to synthesize the slashed temperatures from adjacent real data stations up to 1200 km away.


  80. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Look at the forecast. This is jetstream level on 200 hPa. The jetstream runs along the edge of two different air masses. Air with ozone falls into the troposphere, air with water vapor is pushed up.
    Blocking in the Atlantic is nothing new. See the temperature anomaly in Iceland in the winter of 1708/1709.
    “This winter event has drawn the attention of modern-day climatologists in the European Union’s Millennium Project because they are presently unable to correlate the known causes of cold weather in Europe today with weather patterns documented in 1709. According to Dennis Wheeler, a climatologist at the University of Sunderland: “Something unusual seems to have been happening”.???

  81. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Blocking in the Atlantic will persist.

  82. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Temperature anomalies of the lower stratosphere above the southern polar circle have reached tropopause.

  83. “The need for ERSs has historically been met with conventional generating systems such as steam turbines, hydroelectric turbines and combustion turbines. These conventional generating systems all share the property of having large rotating masses, the inertia of which enables them to ride through short-duration deviations in electric demand. In contrast, the rotating mass of wind turbines is relatively small, and solar systems offer zero rotating inertia. It is thus more difficult and costly to provide essential ERSs with renewables than it is with conventional generation.[4]”
    I am trying to refine my argument. Back in 2016 PE brought this up. A stock answer from a renewable cheerleader is batteries. I still don’t know if batteries provide ERSs? I wouldn’t think they would.

  84. US nuclear generation cost drops significantly

    The US Nuclear Energy Institute reports that the average total generating cost for nuclear energy in 2018 was $32.88/MWh, 7.1% lower than in 2017 and almost 25% lower than in 2012. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the average cost of electricity from all sources rose 7.5% over the same seven years. The 25% reduction for nuclear comprised 46% in capital expenditure, 25% in fuel and 14% in operation and maintenance. At the same time, in 2018 the 99 US nuclear plants achieved their highest average capacity factor ever, 92.3%, producing 807 TWh – 19.3% of the US total.

    WNA Weekly Digest: https://mailchi.mp/world-nuclear-news/weekly-digest-11-18-october-2019

  85. It may interest Judith and her denizens to learn that Judah Cohen shares my alter ego’s concerns over recent events on the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean?


  86. “A paper in Nature reports that Earth’s vegetation may not be able to continue to absorb human carbon dioxide emissions at current rates, which could accelerate climate change and exacerbate its effects”

    Evergreen? Seems like this “uptake will fall soon” prediction quickly becomes the mainstream view (e.g. Hansen 1988). Maybe this time Lucy will hold the football.

    I was surprised to learn we don’t really know how big the carbon cycle actually is with much precision.

    co2 is Carbon dioxide CO2 44.01 353 ppmv* ~2.76 x 10^18 grams

     Between 10^15 and 10^17 grams (1,000 to 100,000 million metric tons) of carbon move through the fast carbon cycle every year.

    So as much as ~1/30th of atmospheric CO2 (i.e. 13ppm) may be sucked out every year in the fast carbon cycle…or as little as ~1/3000th (.13 ppm).

  87. This just in from MN:
    “Because it’s never too late to do the right thing. There’s no end point, you know. This is a constant dimension of the human experience and life,” he said. “Whatever happens to the climate, we will still be thinking about what it is to be a virtuous human being, even if the world is four degrees warmer.”
    – Hulme
    Virtuous. Who knows the context? So, I am supposed to be climate virtuous. The college where this was at was about as private liberal as you get here.

  88. Dear Judith, I have one of this nagging questions and I hope that you (or any reader) could point me in the right direction..
    It is about the Bern model and similar attempts to model the residence time.. My question boils down to how good are numbers like this:
    (a table with amplitudes and time constants modeling the CO2 decay)
    As far as I can tell these numbers change a lot between groups and over time in every group. Are these values used as inputs into GCM?
    Where do these numbers come from and if there would be a scientific progress (like new facts in the discussion if the ocean sinks are diminishing or not), that should affect these amplitudes, right?
    Also, it seems, that about 90% of all CO2 has a rather short residence time (with time constants of 15years or shorter)
    I guess you are aware, that people like Engelbeen and Eschenbach talked about a simpler model consisting of a single decay with a time constant of about 35 years..

  89. Engineers develop a new way to remove carbon dioxide from air
    “The device is essentially a large, specialized battery that absorbs carbon dioxide from the air (or other gas stream) passing over its electrodes as it is being charged up, and then releases the gas as it is being discharged. In operation, the device would simply alternate between charging and discharging, with fresh air or feed gas being blown through the system during the charging cycle, and then the pure, concentrated carbon dioxide being blown out during the discharging.”
    I like this story. There should be a lot of money if it’s not some puff piece. Google will sign up for this. Coke, for sure. Just have to see if this pans out. I hope it does.