Baby, it’s cold outside — but global warming has not taken a Thanksgiving break

By Tom Yulsman | November 22, 2018 11:07 am

President Trump falsely uses frigid weather to cast doubt on human-caused warming

An Arctic blast may have brought cold Thanksgiving temperatures to parts of the U.S., but the long-term trend of global warming continues

This global anomaly map compares temperatures in October 2018 to the 1951 to 1980 base period. (Source: NASA GISTEMP)

It sure is cold outside — at least in the northeastern United States. In fact, some portions of the region could experience their coldest Thanksgiving on record.

Blame it on an Arctic blast that is sending temps plummeting to levels normally associated with the dead of winter, not turkey day.

It’s called weather, not climate — a distinction that the President of the United States either doesn’t care about, or doesn’t understand (or perhaps both?):

In fact, analyses released by both NASA and NOAA just prior to Thanksgiving show that October 2018 was the second warmest such month in records stretching back to the late 1880s. Moreover, 2018 is on track to be the fourth warmest on record, and the fourth in a row at more than 1 degree C above temperatures that prevailed in the late 1800s.

Here’s what the long-term trend of global temperature looks like, including a prediction for how 2018 will wind up:

The prediction is by climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences — one of a handful of agencies worldwide that track global climate.

And here’s how this year stacks up so far against the same January to October period in 2015, 2016 and 2017:

Thanksgiving

Comparison of global temperature so far this year to the same Jan-Oct period in 2015, 2016 and 2017 . (Source: Columbia University web pages maintained by Makiko Sato)

The 10 month, January-October period in 2016 was the warmest such period on record, and that year went on to be the warmest year. Temperatures received an extra boost in 2016 by a powerful El Niño, which has since faded. But as the red, orange and yellow colors dominating the maps above show, very warm global temperatures obviously have not faded with it.

And guess what? Another El Niño is very likely on the way — probably a weak one. But even so, it may well give global temperatures a bit of an upward push during at least part of 2019.

Meanwhile, we can expect weather to happen as it always does, bringing frigid Arctic outbreaks from time to time.

And politically motivated presidential Tweets notwithstanding, we can also expect the long term trend of human-caused warming to continue.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Gallilao

    You just have to love this AGW scam. They leave out the November and January data, the coldest data… and then claim it was a warm period?….
    These crooks are getting evermore desperate, to find ways to scare people.

    It is pathetic!

    • CB

      “AGW scam.”

      AGW was discovered by people who died over a century ago.

      What might have been the point of their “scam”, Mr. Lao?

      If you cannot or will not say, why should anyone believe you?

      “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

      climate.nasa.gov/evidence

      • Gallilao

        Why do you ask? You don’t want to know anything….

        • CB

          “Why do you ask?”

          …because I want to know what you believe.

          AGW was discovered over a century ago.

          If the people who discovered it were “scammers”, what might have been the point of their “scam”?

          “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

          http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

          • Gallilao

            The same as it always is, money. How stupid are you?

          • classicalmusiclover

            So, Tyndall and Arrhenius were motivated by greed, not by the spirit of scientific inquiry?

          • MaxEffectUSA

            When scientists are offered “grants” on a yearly basis to prove global warming, why would they disprove it and lose the income?

          • classicalmusiclover

            That’s not how grants work. Grants cover research expenses. They aren’t income.
            Furthermore, scientists aren’t applying for grants to “prove” something that is actually already a proven fact. They apply for funding to research issues about which there is far less certainty.

          • MaxEffectUSA

            Sorry you’re wrong, at least when it concerns the government.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about. I work in academia. I know how grants work. There is no difference in how grants are administered or what they pay for, regardless of the source. Nor are their any grants being offered to “prove” issues that are not any longer being seriously debated in the expert scientific community.

            They pay for research, not predetermined results. And government grants are subject to far more oversight and scrutiny than grants from private sources.

            Even government grants are not extra money in the pockets of the scientists who receive them.

          • CB

            You are correct about how research is funded in the year 2018.

            …but Max and Mr. Lao are talking about science that was funded in the year 1856.

            If there was some financial scam initiated so long ago, how is it possible that no one but Max and Mr. Lao know about it?

            If they aren’t both mentally ill and inventing conspiracies where there obviously are none, what explains the claims they are making?

            “Scientists Have Been Talking About Greenhouse Gases for 191 Years”

            http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-talking-about-greenhouse-gases-191-years-180956146

          • MaxEffectUSA

            I’m sure your right there are no predetermined results especially with private funding. So tell me, if global warming is a proven fact, why are they still researching it?

          • classicalmusiclover

            There are no predetermined results with either public or private funding. And, actually, the few cases of fraud that have turned up have more frequently occurred when the funding was private (and thus less accountable to oversight).

            Scientists research areas where there is less certainty. When something is certain–such as when something is a proven fact–it is redundant to research it. The existence of global warming is simply a matter of temperature readings; there is not much to be uncertain about.

            In the case of climate science, there is much that needs to be learned about particular effects, about how it affects particular ecosystems, and particular species.

          • 9.8m/ss

            There are no “proven facts” in the physical sciences. Proof is for mathematics, television police melodramas, and whiskey. All we have in applied physics is the weight of evidence, and the skill of theory.

          • Drewski

            Sorry but that is plainly ignorant.

          • MaxEffectUSA

            Somebody always has to pay. Usually the government. TAXES, the peoples money.

          • MaxEffectUSA

            I’m so impressed you smarty pants you.

          • Tom Yulsman

            As a participant in a National Science Foundation grant involving research in Antarctica I can tell you that neither I nor any one else on the grant receives any income from it. The money goes for the cost of research. This is how it works. It’s a matter of public record — you could look it up for yourself.

          • MaxEffectUSA

            You still have to find another job without the grant. How do you support yourself? Who signs your pay check. Somebody always has to pay.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Scientists who receive grants are usually salaried employees of universities or scientific research programs. They already have jobs.

          • MaxEffectUSA

            This article was about climate change. We could not exist without “studies”. The graph shown above shows a period of time from 1880 to present a relatively small period of time which infers a great change of temperature. If you look at the chart/graph in my link you see in the big picture of world history it’s a relatively small change Therefore it should be discounted.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Non-sequitur.

            “Therefore it should be discounted”

            Relative to the history of human civilization, it is a dramatic change. It is also more rapid than comparable changes in geological history.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Most of the climate history in the cartoon you posted occurred when the sun was dimmer, the day was much shorter, the continents were in different places, the chemistry of the atmosphere was different, and ocean circulation was completely different. Therefore, a rational person would realize it’s irrelevant to climate during human existence. But you go ahead and cling to it. Maybe it will protect you from embarrassment somehow.

          • MaxEffectUSA

            This article was about climate change. We could not exist without “studies”. The graph shown above shows a period of time from 1880 to present a relatively small period of time which infers a great change of temperature. If you look at the chart/graph in my link you see in the big picture of world history it’s a relatively small change

          • 9.8m/ss

            Sorry, you’re wrong about how research grants work. As a former grants administrator at a Federal science agency, I can tell you any grant application that suggests an expected outcome, any expected outcome, is denied. Fast. That’s because everybody involved knows that expecting a particular outcome is the best way to ensure flawed research, which will be destroyed in pre-pub or post-pub peer review, discrediting the researcher, his institution, and the grant making agency. Which makes it harder to justify the budget next year. Attempting the particular type of scientific corruption you allege, that your political opinion sources assure you so often is pervasive, would immediately get you fired from a research team.

          • Drewski

            Grants are hard to come by – you don’t get them by regurgitating known science but by the promise of discovering new knowledge.

          • JWrenn

            They would make money either way. You are basically saying that scientists are lazy and don’t want to do new work to find new discoveries, that they would rather rehash the same thing over and over. That ignores that they still have to add new data to the work, so it is just as hard as doing something new. Your idea only makes sense for people who would not be able to get work in their field otherwise. I am pretty sure there is a shortage of scientists right now in most fields….so that doesn’t make any sense. Sounds good though.

          • MaxEffectUSA

            When global warming blows over it will be on to something else.

          • Robert

            You could, of course – but didnt-, source some documentation.

          • 9.8m/ss

            The researcher who could overturn mainstream science related to anthropogenic global warming would be a hero, the top of his field, with more research funding than he could dispatch. The big money is where the big political power is, and there is no wealthier or more powerful bloc than the fossil fuel investors. Your question, to make sense, should be rephrased, why do climate researchers insist on defying the most powerful political bosses in the world? Why don’t they take the big money and announce that the world needs more manmade CO2?

          • Drewski

            The money is with fossil fuel companies who want to continue the status quo.
            The profits of just ONE top oil company from 1 year would drarf the COMBINED lifetime salaries of all climate scientists who have ever lived.

          • Gallilao

            Pure political horse sht!

          • Drewski

            Exxon earned almost 20 Billion in 2017 with 6 Billion in profits.
            Lets be generous and say an average climate scientist earns 2 Million in their lifetime.
            Exxon’s profits for 1 year would have paid for the lifetime salaries of 3 THOUSAND climate scientists.

          • Gallilao

            There is no such thing as a climate scientist! They are scientists in name only and are in fact the very antithesis of what science is and means.
            Climate scientists that expound AGW are frauds and crooks and should be behind bars.

          • Drewski

            Well, you are kind of right. Climate science is a combined effort drawing on more than 2 dozen fields ranging from atmospheric chemistry to paleo temperature reconstructions. That is why the IPCC exists – so all the more recent studies from all the far flung scientists can get together and compare notes.

            BTW, did tou know the IPCC is open to the public? You can even apply if you wish to contribute although it does help to understand how science works.

          • Gallilao

            You’re out of luck then.
            Climate science is anti-science but to understand that you would have to understand what science is in the first place and you have no clue!

          • classicalmusiclover

            Climate science is no more anti-science than, say, evolutionary biology, geology, or astrophysics.

            Do you consider those fields “anti-science,” too?

          • Chris Golledge

            So, if there is no such thing as a climate scientist, why are you not arguing with Max about his presentation of material from someone who self-identifies as a climatologist?

          • Gallilao

            What are you babbling on about?

          • classicalmusiclover

            Argument by assertion is fallacious and idiotic.

            You claim they “are scientists in name only.” Yet they earned advanced degrees in the sciences, conduct research in accordance with the scientific method, and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Gallilao: Discover is a science magazine. So it’s fine to discuss and even debate issues on the basis of science. But I won’t tolerate blanket condemnation of an entire group of researchers, as you done with your comment charging that climate scientists are “crooks.” And I especially will not allow continued nastiness — saying, for example, that climate scientists “should be behind bars.” If you want to keep commenting here, be logical, respectful and evidence-based. Further comments like the ones you’ve made here will require me to permanently ban you from commenting here at ImaGeo.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Actually, never mind. I’ve read your other comments and I am banning you now. I don’t see any hope for a different approach from you.

          • JWrenn

            Please explain in detail how two scientists made money by coming up with this scam. Please include how the scam was better for them than their already successful and funded research.

          • Gallilao

            Why?

          • JWrenn

            It seems to be your reason for why this fake science exists and I am interested in what you believe the driving force of all of this is.

          • Gallilao

            Boy, everyone must have to ware sunglasses around you!

            Money and greed of course….

          • JWrenn

            Sorry I think you misunderstood my question. How do they make more money off of this? If they were already working scientists, and nobody gave them more money…ie they just continued their careers…how did it help them? I get that you think it was a money thing…I just don’t understand how this got them any money other than to just be the next thing they worked on.

          • Gallilao

            Did someone tell you I was a Mystic?

          • Andrew Worth

            “Did someone tell you I was a Mystic?”

            Unbelievable, you make a claim, someone asks you for evidence supporting that claim, and your reply is to suggest that you’d need to be a mystic to be able to provide the evidence.

          • Gallilao

            Evidence?
            Evidence of what?
            All of my presentation is pure scientific, historical facts. Physics IS the evidence but you need an education to be able to understand it. Something you are desperately lacking.

          • Andrew Worth

            ROFLMAO.

          • Gallilao

            You’re an uneducated idiot. I wouldn’t waist my time proving anything to the likes of you! You lack the education to understand anything.
            Get an education!

          • Andrew Worth

            Thank you for the reply, unfortunately your answer is not useful in determining if you’re deranged or a troll.

          • Gallilao

            You are welcome

          • Mike Richardson

            From what I’ve seen, I don’t think those are mutually exclusive possibilities.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Ultimately, it doesn’t matter, because the deranged are indistinguishable by their behavior from trolls.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You haven’t offered a “pure scientific historical fact” in this entire comment column. You’ve replied with a vapid insult each time you were asked for one. Are you having trouble distinguishing vapid insults from scientific facts?

          • JWrenn

            Nope, but you keep saying this is what happened, and you seem so sure that they did this I figured you had a theory backed by some facts as to why/how money and greed would play into this. I sure can’t come up with a way that it made them any money.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Spend an hour reading climate stories at Breitbart or Daily Caller. The #1 tenet of the climate science denier belief system is that mainstream climate science is corrupt, and responds to the political agenda of unseen patrons. The identities of the patrons varies with the author, but it’s usually some kind of secret society of powerful left wingers bent on destroying America or the whole world.

          • Robert Dekko

            “MUHAHAHA… we will ruin the world by telling them to STOP RUINING THE WORLD! Brilliant!”

          • JWrenn

            Yeah pretty much. This idea that mainstream ideas must be lies while ignoring that all the ideas on the other side are funded by bias’d interests like oil magnates. It is pretty horrible how hard it has become to talk about truth and how happily people use lies to muddle the water, and thus give ammo to conspiracy theorists who can point at it and say “see scientists agree with us!!!”

          • 9.8m/ss

            Peter Hadfield has a great Youtube series on climate science deniers, creationists, and flat earthers. One of them looks into who the dissenting scientists are. There are only three or four remaining who would be considered current climate experts. (Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, and maybe Curry. Hadfield counts Pat Michaels, but I disagree.) The rest either left the field long ago, or never demonstrated relevant expertise at all. And all three (or four) of them agree with the basics about how the greenhouse effect works and that manmade emissions caused most of the warming of the industrial era. The chest-beaters who cite some crackpot blog (e.g. Ed Berry, Principia Scientific) to show “scientists agree there’s no greenhouse effect” are simply mistaken, those aren’t scientists.

          • JWrenn

            Always good to learn more about these things. So sad that people who say this type of crap gets support. I think maybe to some degree the underlying issue on a lot of it is that with the internet people kind of think they are experts at all sorts of things……that they really are not.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I’ve seen that, but I also see quite a lot of the opposite. There is a variety of science (not just climate) denier who fervently believes there simply is no science to deny. That scientists just sit around in their spacious offices making up arbitrary stuff. Which means there are no experts, because there is nothing to be expert about. When there is nothing to inform an opinion, then every opinion is equally valid. The question then arises, what do they think engineers do? If there is nothing to science, why do my gadgets work? It’s hard to imagine a mind that asks no questions, but that must be how they survive.

          • Andrew Worth

            “Ware”
            You claim to be educated, evidently that education didn’t include Written English.

          • Gallilao

            When major journals and professional publishers stop having typos, then I’l worry about mine… Get a life!
            You can start by getting an education. In science, not composition.

          • Gallilao

            I’m not a religious fanatic so I don’t rely on belief. Because I have an education, I know, so I don’t need Voodoo.

            You have no idea of what has been discovered, you lack the education to be able to understand.

          • Andrew Worth

            Educated people rarely feel the need to go around telling others how educated they are, high school students pretending to be educated might try it though.

          • Gallilao

            You’re obviously uneducated.

          • Andrew Worth

            You’re obviously a teenager.

          • Gallilao

            You are obviously American, which means you are uneducated.

          • Andrew Worth

            “You are obviously American, which means you are uneducated.”

            And another miss! I’m a Kiwi.

          • Gallilao

            And do they teach you any science in school, down there in Kiwi?

          • Andrew Worth

            Great science, actually you should try learning some science, it’s an amazing feeling when you gain a better understanding of the natural world.

          • Gallilao

            Really? Then you are a leg up on the rest of these idiots. They don’t teach science in American public schools and if MIT is any indication, their first and second year university is about the same as our Canadian grade 11 and 12.

            CB here is a typical American hillbilly. She has no idea of what an education is, what it does or what it is for. She keeps pestering me to tell her my sources and I keep telling her, I don’t rely on outside sources, I rely on an education in fundamental science, Math, Physics and Chemistry. She can’t imagine that nobody tells me what to think and most of what I say, you won’t learn anyplace else. She on the other hand, has never had an original thought in her entire life and has to rely on others to tell her what to think, so everything naturally boils down to politics.

            These idiots think they don’t need an education because they can get anything they need to know off the internet. They are inbred, mental deficients.

          • Andrew Worth

            There’s a type of people in the world, who’re into conspiracies; anti-vaxers, moon landing conspiracy theorists etc. Down here we have 1080 opponents, they don’t follow a process of reasoning and impartial investigation to reach rational conclusions on which to base judgments, with them it’s more from the heart.
            In the AGW debate we get both extremes using this lack of reasoning, obviously because the subject is so politically charged.

            Personally I accept AGW is real and significant, the scientific foundation is well built and the main stream position on it has changed little over the last 20 years, the extremes have slowly moved towards the center, there’s no one (almost no one) claiming we’re going to end up with a runaway GH effect (Venus) and there are only a few nutters claiming that AGW is a hoax, that 20th century warming is not real.
            My position, I think, is less political: It’s happening, but that the extremist’s certainty is not well based. While it’ll take a century for sea levels to rise a metre, in the past century we’ve completely rebuilt our cities, we’re likely to do so again in the next, no matter what sea levels do, so the economic damage, to the human world, should be easily mitigated, technology is changing at an ever increasing rate, far less than a century, if need be, I expect we’ll be able to launch sunshades to reduce solar insolation.

            Having said that there are going to be significant effects that could be very damaging, if you look at Anthony Watt’s sea ice page there’s a graph showing the decade on decade decline in Arctic sea ice, the rate of that decline is consistent and it seems inevitable to me that we will see the September sea ice minimum reach zero within 2 – 3 decades.
            Will the decline in sea ice have other effects? Will the thermohaline currents remain stable? There’re still a lot of serious issues that remain uncertain.

          • Gallilao

            In other words, you know nothing about science and chances are you are just an American poser… but no matter, you obviously are as scientifically ignorant as a typical Yank!

          • Andrew Worth

            I guess that makes you one of the nutters I mentioned.

          • Chris Golledge

            Ok, let’s pretend your claims of expertise have any merit. Name the research which you think refutes Arrhenius 1896?

          • Gallilao

            What good would that do you? You still would have no clue. Until such time as you are willing to go to school and learn something, you will continue to have no clue…

          • Andrew Worth

            Just because you’re still in high school doesn’t mean you’re more educated than those who’ve gone on to further education Gallilao.

          • Gallilao

            You still have nothing of any value to add. If you got an education you could remedy that…

          • Chris Golledge

            Well, it would be some evidence that you aren’t just another nutter on the internet, assuming what you provided hadn’t itself been refuted decades or a century ago.

          • Gallilao

            Your an uneducated twit. Why would I care what you think?

          • classicalmusiclover

            So you can’t name the research that, in your view, refutes Arrhenius 1896.

          • Popcorn Joe

            Mad Magazine, November 1968.

          • MarcusR

            And agent X & Y are the representatives of the evil global conspiracy !

          • 9.8m/ss

            Mr Lao here will never take a quiz. That would be the end of his game.

          • classicalmusiclover

            “if MIT is any indication, their first and second year university is about the same as our Canadian grade 11 and 12.”
            –what is your evidence for this preposterous claim?

            I have taught undergraduate and graduate students in Canada.

            You are full of crap.

          • classicalmusiclover

            “I don’t rely on outside sources, I rely on an education in fundamental science, Math, Physics and Chemistry.”
            –in other words, equipped with a high school-level education in the sciences, you feel perfectly free to pronounce judgment on the work of specialists who have devoted their entire lives to the study of the climate.

            Here’s a hint: the ability to cite sources is a fundamental requirement of anyone making claims; it isn’t a sign that one “has to rely on others to tell her what to think.”

            Indeed, I have rarely seen a balder statement of narcissistic anti-intellectualism anywhere on the internet.

          • Americana

            Yep, it’s pretty crazy the global climate change denialists are claiming the original physicists who conducted experiments and postulated about what the addition of such greenhouse gases would do to the lower atmosphere had something to gain from the anxiety over global climate change a century later on. Maybe the climate change denialists are thinking those physicists travel through black holes and expect payoffs from the Koch brothers in 2019? Otherwise their claims about the original chemists and physicists who discovered such effects would be all for naught.

          • MaxEffectUSA
          • classicalmusiclover

            Why do you think that Cliff Harris knows more than most other climatologists? He gets some basic things spectacularly wrong, particularly in his overvaluation of CO2 from volcanic eruptions.

            For that matter, why are you appealing to a website run by Larry Ball’s lawyer friend, a non-scientist who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

          • James Owens

            Simple figures are worth a thousand words.
            1. take a look at the overall global average – yes, Northeast US has the cold anomaly for the week, but other parts of the globe are indeed warming in the first figure
            2. using the global temps through September of this year … the 2018 prediction in green added to historical data.
            Upward trend is still there amongst the ENSO bounces in 2nd figure
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e2e720438e6853abc8a796491b9fec057c959db184576daf4d43a28e6e9396c.png
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f3dfe40aa8c4356a3bb0d2bce709b682cedce2ce15a072ac905ebc0e56e10e0f.png

          • classicalmusiclover

            Thank you.

          • James Owens

            You’re most welcome.

          • Drewski

            And a pedophile to boot.

          • classicalmusiclover

            He writes what the denialists want to read, and makes them feel good about themselves, particularly in their demonization of Mann.

          • Damn Nitpicker
          • classicalmusiclover

            Yes, thank you for repeating a common way of demonizing Mann.

            For a climate reconstruction that has since been demonstrated more than three dozen subsequent times in the published, peer-reviewed literature.

          • MaxEffectUSA

            I am a “minion” to no one.

          • classicalmusiclover

            What’s that supposed to mean?

            Are you a sovereign citizen, immune to the requirement of having to substantiate your claims?

          • JWrenn

            These arguments always go this way. A ton of science minded academics roll out all the findings of all of the scientists and then someone shows up with a denier, who usually is backed by the oil companies in some way, and then we go round and round trying to explain the science.

            Look, if 98 people are in a room and they call the color of the paint on the wall blue, and 2 say it is green….those two are probably color blind. If you want to believe the 2 are right and everyone else is wrong that is fine. Just realize that they are probably not seeing the whole picture. That is how numbers generally work.

          • MaxEffectUSA

            Some of us have more than a college education (brain washing) We have lived through a time when the government, that again through the media. (research magazines from the late sixties and early seventies) professed that we were all going into another ice age. Funny how that never happened. Now they’ve switched to global warming. If all of this were true Al gore, John Kerry and many others would not have built their mansions on the coast and they would not be using 10 times the fossil fuel the normal person does. They would not have objected to windmills being placed in their view off the coast of Massachusetts. (which they did). Gore and others are (or were) making money hand over fist giving speeches to any that would listen. Even if global warming were true the United States gives off a miniscule amount of CO2 as compared to China, India and the USSR. Don’t take my word for it, use a search engine and read articles that you don’t at first glance agree with.

          • classicalmusiclover

            1. Equating college education to brainwashing suggests ignorance of college education.
            2. There were no peer-reviewed science journals indicating “that we were all going into another ice age.” You are confusing popular media with the expert scientific literature.
            3. Al Gore’s west coast mansion is not a beachfront property.
            4. Nobody “switched to global warming.”
            5. If you have no prior factual knowledge and cannot distinguish a science website from an opinion website or a fossil-fuel funded “skeptic” website, using a search engine is as or even more likely to yield nonsense as it is to yield facts.

            You seem remarkably unversed in this topic.

            I suggest you consult the climate report released yesterday by the Trump administration before you dig a deeper hole for yourself

          • MaxEffectUSA

            Well I guess we’ll have to call it a draw because you’ve presented no evidence to disprove the chart I posted which has mysteriously disappeared. and I’m not going to waste any more time arguing.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Actually, I will have to accept your surrender, because your grasp of the grant process is utterly incompetent and divorced from reality.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            “Let’s call it a tie!”

            I love that one.

          • classicalmusiclover

            They really have as much difficulty following an argument as they have supporting their own claims.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            None of that would be so hilarious if they weren’t so completely arrogant and confident in their ignorance.

          • Mike Richardson

            It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect, and you see it displayed in abundance on these blogs by science deniers, typically motivated by political beliefs that don’t yield to facts.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            Yep. I’ve been referring to the Dunning Kruger presidency for two years now. They elected a 70-something goofball who thinks an east coast cold spell in November refutes science.

            The election of ‘16 emboldened the stupid.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝There were no peer-reviewed science journals indicating “that we were all going into another ice age.❞

            Rasool, S. Ichtiaque, and Stephen H. Schneider 1971. “Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate.” Science
            http://sciencepubs.com/content/173/3992/138.full.pdf

            “our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 K … in the average temperature of Earth, … believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

            Rasool, Ichtiaque & Schneider 1971: ”••• For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase, by only a factor of 4, in global aerosol background concentration, may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

          • classicalmusiclover

            A problem of aerosols that was solved through regulation.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Nevertheless, it was a journal-published, peer-reviewed paper, in Science no less, warning us that we were all going into another ice age … One paper, is enough to prove you wrong in your contention

            ❝There were no peer-reviewed science journals indicating “that we were all going into another ice age.❞

            … and, there are more.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Definitely in the minority, though. I apologize for having overstated the case, but the handful of papers that did discuss cooling were all concerned with the aerosol particulate question. The overwhelming majority discussed warming.

          • JWrenn

            There was never a global scientific agreement that any of that was going to happen. There were plenty of papers and studies all over but most of them were refuted or torn apart in peer review.

            Uhm we are the second highest producer of CO2. We produce about 5.3 billion metric tons. China is first with 8.1 billion. India and Russia are about 1.8. So that part of your post is just factually incorrect.

            As for conspiracies about who made money where and when none of the scientists have made more than a normal scientists living off of this stuff. They get tons of money to build a program, kind of like a manager has a budget, but they don’t earn that money. They just get a salary usually equivalent to a professors…especially because they are usually also professors.

            Gore from what i have seen made a lot of money in other things but donated everything from his movies about climate to climate change groups. You have a lot of incorrect information.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I remember that ice age scare. It was all over the tabloids at the supermarket checkout. A cable TV show that covered things like Bigfoot and UFO abductions did an episode about it, narrated by Mr. Spock himself! It even leaked into magazines like TIME and Newsweek. But it wasn’t in the science journals. Is that where you get your science news, Max? UFO shows and the National Enquirer?

          • 9.8m/ss

            Is there something like Godwin’s law for climate discussions? Over time, the probability that some fool will cite Principia Scientific as a science reference approaches 1.

      • socalpa

        The AGW scam was found by a brave whistleblower ,right before Copenhagen ..
        .
        The “point” of the scam is the usual … Money,and or ,power .

        • classicalmusiclover

          Who was that “brave whistleblower,” socalpa?
          Are you claiming that the so-called “Climategate” kerfuffle actually showed malfeasance by scientists?

          Or are you claiming that nobody had clearly demonstrated AGW before then?
          Going to trot out your “Arrhenius’s lab bench” inanity again?

    • Andrew Worth

      Do you mean this: “And here’s how this year stacks up so far against the same January to October period in 2015, 2016 and 2017”?
      this year isn’t finished, so they’re comparing this year so far with THE SAME PERIOD in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Are you really that thick?

      • Gallilao

        Comparing annual records is meaningless to begin with but comparing an arbitrary segment of a year, has to take the cake for meaningless nonsense!

        • Chris Golledge

          Nonsense. If you want to see if winters are warming faster than summers, you would compare those segments year over year for a series of years.

          • Gallilao

            Completely meaningless!!!!
            It is impossible to tell what the climate is doing at any present, time. All you are talking about is the weather and if you don’t like it, just sit tight, it’s gonna change. The weather changes. That is what weather does.

            Get over it!

          • Chris Golledge

            No, I am talking about changes over time. Now, granted 1 year-over-year change does not carry a lot of weight when we are talking about climate, but it is completely wrong to say that it carries no weight.

          • Andrew Worth

            It carries no weight, you should remember that of the 4 years being discussed, 2015-18, 2018 is the forth warmest, decade on decade temperature change does carry weight and each decades mean global temperature has been warmer than the previous for the last 7 decades.

          • Gallilao

            That is pure horse sht!
            I am 69 years old! … That is pretty close to 7 decades and I have lived within 100 kms of here most of the time. And I can tell you from personal experience, that there is no difference, discernible to the senses.

            If the change isn’t even intelligible to a person after 70 years, there doesn’t appear to be much of a threat. But then, … that is exactly what the Physics has been telling us from the start: there are no GHGs, so neither we, CO2 nor solar energy, have anything, whatsoever, to do with climate.

          • Andrew Worth

            “there are no GHGs”

            Wow, you claim that education makes you some sort of authority on climate change (or the absence there of) but you’re totally ignorant about the radiation physics involved, you’re out there on the flaky fringe with John O’Sullivan and his Sky Dragons, on the spectrum of skeptics there’re the Luke Warmers, Moderate Skeptic (still relatively sane enough for discussions), Rabid Skeptics (totally nuts and convinced that it’s all a hoax) and the Sky Dragons (don’t even understand the basic physics) even the Rabid Skeptics like Watt and Singer are sane enough to laugh at the Sky Dragons, because everyone accepts, even the Rabid Skeptics, the basic physics that GH gases are opaque to IR radiation, a property those gases have that is easily demonstrated in a high school lab.

          • Gallilao

            You are an uneducated twit, with no grasp of the sciences.
            What is the definition of the GHE?
            What is the range and extent of the solar, electromagnet spectrum?
            You lack even the most primitive understanding.

          • Andrew Worth

            “What is the definition of the GHE?”

            Here’s the one I use, what definition do you use?
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

          • Gallilao

            No,no,no,… Sunshine !
            In your own words!
            I have no interest in trying to understand what goes through your tiny little mind or trying to fathom what it is that an ignorant person like yourself, might find compelling on such n such website. The internet is rife with disinformation. Disinformation that the unwashed masses like yourself, lack the education to be able to tell, the truth from the lies. Unless you are bringing in the actual authors, who are willing to defend their claims in real time,……who cares?
            Now, if you have something to say, please do!

          • Andrew Worth

            So once again you have nothing of substance to offer to support your contentions, just empty bluster and ad hominems, no evidence, no facts.

          • Gallilao

            As I said, you are incompetent to discuss the subject.
            Get an education!

          • classicalmusiclover

            “you are incompetent to discuss the subject.
            Get an education!”
            –Says the clown who parts with literally every widely used atmospheric physics textbook in claiming that there are no such things as GHGs.

            Are you claiming that Tyndall, Arrhenius, and Plass were frauds?

          • Andrew Worth

            I found this comment from you on another site: “The Physics is quite unequivocal, a GHG must be transparent to solar IR and opaque to terrestrial IR. No such gases exist! There are no GHGs, so solar energy has no affect on climate!”

            So now I understand the basis of your misconceptions, it’s a good thing you’re so well educated, it’ll enable you to calculate what the mistake in your logic is. LMAO.

          • Gallilao

            Get an education!

          • Andrew Worth

            You’re utterly incapable of introspection aren’t you?You’d make an interesting case for a clinical psychologist.

          • Gallilao

            If you got an education you might be able to actually discuss the subject instead of constantly trying to derail and misdirect the conversation.
            You are pitiful.
            Get an education!

          • Andrew Worth

            Looking back over your comments with your boasts about being educated just makes your mistake in understanding the physics involved all the more hilarious. There have been so many great thinkers who’ve said, in one way or another, that when you think you know everything, that’s when you actually know nothing. And here’s Gallilao, barreling in with his rampant narcissism, convinced he understands the physics better than all those physicist and all of us “unclean”, when in fact our Gallilao’s confidence is build on a simple mistake, one that just about everyone else here will see quickly given your claim that: “The Physics is quite unequivocal, a GHG must be transparent to solar IR and opaque to terrestrial IR. No such gases exist! There are no GHGs, so solar energy has no affect on climate!”

            Poor little narcissistic Gallilao, you don’t have a clue just how stupidly you cocked it up when it comes to understanding the physics do you?
            ROTFLMAO.

          • Gallilao

            Get an education!

          • classicalmusiclover

            So, you are claiming that the wikipedia page on the greenhouse effect is disinformation–“lies,” to use your words.
            Huh.
            Did you notice its sourcing? What precisely is incorrect on that page?

            In my experience, Wikipedia is no worse than the average print encyclopedia and has the advantage of being kept up to date, with thorough, updated sourcing, and proctored against tampering by unreliable outside editors, particularly on subjects that attract high interest and traffic. I never let my college students use it as a primary source (any more than I would let them use Britannica), but encourage them to pursue the sources indicated on the pages.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I think that’s the value most (normal) people understand Wikipedia provides. If you need the pinout of an Ethernet plug, it’s there. For things much more complicated, it’s a list of the best references on the subject. Same thing with Skeptical Science, except the references are most often distributed in the comments.

          • Andrew Worth

            You’re not a Flat Earther by any chance?

          • Gallilao

            Is there absolutely nothing of any value, that you can contribute to the discussion?

          • Chris Golledge

            And the years in a decade do not contribute to the aggregate measures of that decade?

          • Andrew Worth

            If you want to start arguing that the declining trend from 2015 to 2018 is significant go for it.

          • Chris Golledge

            That’s not the point. Every measurement adds confidence to the result. To say that two measurements mean nothing is the same as saying 200 years of measurements mean nothing. From a mathematical perspective, it is incorrect.

            Actually, if you have a long series of measurements with a certain standard deviation, and then you get even a single measurement several standard deviations from the mean, you can have reasonable confidence that something different happened.

          • Andrew Worth

            We can probably agreed on Tamino’s way of looking at it here:
            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/you-bet/

            Which I see as one year, or even several years, as usually being not statistically significant.

          • Gallilao

            It carries NO weight. Climate is constantly changing and any trends are only visible over a minimum of 1000 year intervals. To suggest that anything is discernible in under several hundred years of data, is nothing more than snake oil.

          • Andrew Worth

            “To suggest that anything is discernible in under several hundred years of data, is nothing more than snake oil.”
            Wow, you’ve just gone from teen to toddler.

          • Gallilao

            Get an education…

          • Chris Golledge

            “Get an education”, says the person who does not understand the difference between shortwave radiation coming from the sun and longwave coming from the earth.

          • Chris Golledge

            Apparently you don’t know anything about statistical analysis. While it is possible that hundreds of thousands of thermometer readings have produced a 150-year warming trend out of random noise, the odds are infinitesimally small. Nevermind that the effect was predicted by physics long before it was detected by instrumentation.

          • Gallilao

            If the changes are undetectable to those experiencing them, then it is irrelevant. Of no more concern to the common man, than the mating habits of the June Bug.
            In my 70 years I can detect little or no change in local climate, so who cares? I don’t see any Islands disappearing into the oceans. By all account it seems some are rising.

          • Chris Golledge

            What you see and what the rest of the world sees are two different things.

    • Derpitudinous_Neologism

      The lies are so laughable, you have to ROFL! They leave out the November and January data, the coldest data… and then claim it was a warm period?..

  • Gallilao

    Notice that the Mean Surface Temperature maps are contrived. If you look at the temperature-colour scale, you might notice that the temperature intervals are not even. They are incremented in an irregular manor ( 0.6 instead of 0.5 which would have been the logical choice but would have made the maps look completely different). The whole thing is a contrivance designed to scare the ignorant and gullible!

    • Apurv Puri

      That’s based on statistical distributions of the temperature data. Do you understand how data distributes itself. So you set scale based on the statistical distribution of the temperatures and how far away from historical means they are. Do you understand what is even being shown on the maps?

      Distribution intervals for non-normally distributed data won’t be the same. In fact, you have to correct for them so you can actually see what’s going on.

      • CB

        “Do you understand what is even being shown on the maps?”

        Mr. Lao doesn’t even understand the definition of the term “greenhouse gas”. He believes it’s a gas which is transparent to infrared radiation. A normal person who knew so little about the science would probably spend a bit more time researching a subject before voicing her opinion…

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

        • Gallilao

          What meaningless garbage! Get an education CB!

        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoJUOoWF-M 1-Bodhisattva

          Nice, you present a graph which PROVES that the heat from the Earth still escapes, that carbon dioxide only blocks very narrow bands of heat radiation and the heat still manages to get away anyway, so it’s not “trapped” as you keep FALSELY claiming.

          • Andrew Worth

            1-Bodhisattva, CB has not claimed the heat is “trapped”. “Trapping” is a term often used to describe the slowing of the rate at which heat is able to travel from Earth’s surface to the TOA. This slowing has been a result of the increase in GHG concentrations. If you don’t understand how the term is being used in this context you should go and read up on it.

          • classicalmusiclover

            “the heat from the Earth still escapes.” Nobody claims that ALL the heat is trapped/blocked/reradiate/whichever term you want to use by GHG molecules–just a sufficient amount that the earth’s surface maintains at livable temperature levels and that the temperature can be increased by rapid and voluminous artificial production of GHGs.

        • dogsoldier0513

          And yet, methane, which IS a greenhouse gas, is being released in astronomical amounts via current volcanic activity, which, for some reason, alarmists never want to acknowledge, preferring to point fingers at man.

          • classicalmusiclover

            GHGs from human activity outstrip those from volcanic sources by an order of more than 130:1

            Indeed, methane is not a significant part of volcanic emissions:

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037702730700128X

          • 9.8m/ss

            That is false. Most of the gases and aerosols volcanoes emit produce short term cooling. Volcanoes emit very little methane.

      • Gallilao

        Get an education!
        That is such a stupid statement.
        Temperature data is meaningless beyond its contribution to the average.

        • http://boringskeptic.tumblr.com/ Cory Albrecht

          What, no cogent counter-arguments, only ad hominems? No wonder people always laugh at you. 😀

          • Gallilao

            Nothing of any value to add?….

          • Drewski

            Just out of curiosity, who PRECISELY profits from the global warming “hoax”.

            Names would be nice.

          • Gallilao

            What a stupid question!!!!

          • Drewski

            Sorry, foolish of me to expect you could answer something so fundamental to your beliefs.

          • Gallilao

            A stupid statement to follow a stupid question…. Wow!

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            What an obvious dodge because can’t answer!

          • dogsoldier0513

            Al Gore, to the tune of $250 million. Oh, and George Soros.

          • Drewski

            Hard to understand how Al Gore would personally profit $250 Million as it has been common knowledge that Gore donates all profits he makes from his climate books, movies and talks.

            Are you sure you are not thinking of his Google money?

          • 9.8m/ss

            They’re usually talking about the Chicago Climate Exchange that he had an interest in. Nobody told them it never really got off the ground.

          • 9.8m/ss

            There is no evidence that Gore makes a profit from his alarmism hobby. Oh, and (anticipating the usual Breitbart-sourced misinformation) he doesn’t own a jet or a beachfront mansion or a mansion in Tennessee that burns a town’s worth of electricity either.

            Gore’s done a lot of terrible things in his life. But you won’t read about them at Breitbart or Forbes. They approve of those things and they don’t want to give him credit. That’s why they have to make up stuff like that invisible “private jet.” He’s also done a few good things, for example Energy Star and his long-running Internet advocacy.

          • socalpa

            EU governments have harvested 100s of billions from their carbon taxes .. and energy poverty rates increased to ~ 20% of population .( samples UK 18%,Germany 17% ,Spain 25%
            .
            The Wind energy companies and solar . Billions .
            .
            Climate researchers in the U.S have harvested ~ 200 billlion since 1990
            .
            I will add more later ,stay tuned .

          • classicalmusiclover

            “I will add more later ,stay tuned”

            Translation: socalpa is warning us that he plans to spam the site with the same stale, poorly punctuated, deliberately distorted and cherry-picked misrepresentations of science and other denialist talking points that he uses to spam any discussion page that triggers him by taking mainstream climate science seriously.

    • Derpitudinous_Neologism

      They are incremented in an irregular manor (sic)

      This is a clown argument from almost a decade ago. Unlike most talking points that are regularly recycled, this one was deemed too moronic to ever use again.

      Why are you using it? Too far down on the totem pole to get the memo?

      • Gallilao

        Get an education!

        • Derpitudinous_Neologism

          You gave me an ouchie wif your big brain!

  • CB
    • socalpa

      Why does that graft start at 1880 instead of 1850 as Hadcrut4 does ?
      .
      Leaves out that 3 decade rise in temps 1850 -1880 .
      .
      GISS needs an audit .

      • Andrew Worth

        Here’s hadcrut4 1850 through to 1930, I went for the longer period to demonstrate that there was no temperature rise from 1850 being hidden, the coldest period in the late 19th early 20th century according to Hadcrut4 happened around 1910.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1930/trend

        • socalpa

          Cute trick !
          .
          Note the temp rise 1860 -1880 ?

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2018/normalise

          • Andrew Worth

            Note the El Nino in 1877-78?

          • Andrew Worth

            . . .there is considerable evidence that the major El Niño episode that started by the end
            of 1876 and peaked during the 1877–1878 boreal winter contributed significantly to it.
            The associated regional climate anomalies were extremely destructive, particularly
            in the Northern Hemisphere, where starvation due to intense droughts in Asia,
            South-East Asia and Africa took the lives of more than 20 million people. In
            South America regional precipitation anomalies were typical of El Niño events, with
            rainfall deficit and droughts in the northern portion of the continent as well as in
            northeast Brazil and the highlands of the central Andes (Altiplano). In contrast,
            anomalously intense rainfall and flooding episodes were reported for the coastal areas of southern Ecuador and Northern Perú, as well as along the extratropicalWest
            coast of the continent (central Chile, 30◦ S–40◦ S), and in the Paraná basin in the
            southeast region. By far the most devastating impacts in terms of suffering and loss
            of life occurred in the semiarid region of northeast Brazil where several hundreds
            of thousands of people died from starvation and diseases during the drought that
            started in 1877.

            http://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/125772

  • dogsoldier0513

    But global warming ISN’T ‘human caused’. There is ZERO actual PROOF of alarmists’ ASSertions. BTW, computer models AREN’T ‘proof’, as they can be manipulated to show any desired results.

    • Andrew Worth

      The evidence is overwhelming that AGW is real and happening, your argument over “proof” is the same as me throwing a die (singular of dice) 100 times, getting 95 sixes and then claiming that’s not “proof” that that die is loaded, I’d be right, it wouldn’t be “proof”, but the evidence would be overwhelming that it was loaded.

    • Drewski

      All earth sciences, like climate science, are based on observations. Models are simply a tool and they are useful even if it is only to learn that more data is required to improve the models. For example, modeling in the 1990s showed a need to learn more about ocean temperatures at depth thus ARGO buoys were soon developed and distributed around the world.

      Models are never perfect but that doesn’t stop them by being used by virtually every industry and scientific field.

    • JWrenn

      Models are generally used as a way to try to determine what will happen next, and to test data against holes in data. So if we have great records now, and think we know what is causing changes, we can create a model to try to test that out. Think of it as a man made climate that has no predetermined temperatures, just variables that act similarly to what we see. Like a scale model. We then sit that model in a wind tunnel as see how things react.

      • socalpa

        Might work for airplane surfaces .
        .
        But not a coupled ,chaotic planetary 60 mile thick ocean/ atmosphere open to- 25F space and floored on 71% of surface by ~2miles of heat absorbing liquid and subject to hundreds of other variables and known and unknown cycles .

        • classicalmusiclover

          Weather patterns are chaotic; climate patterns are not.

        • JWrenn

          That is why it is just part of the whole explanation and testing and also why guessing what is coming next is often wrong. That doesn’t mean that global warming is not happening. It doesn’t mean that global warming is not causing climate change. It just means we are still not great at telling the future.

          • socalpa

            No one disputes that warming has occurred since ~ 1700CE ..
            .
            The dispute is causation after 1950 .
            .
            “Not great” at telling the future ?
            .
            You show a talent for understatement .

          • JWrenn

            Yes they do. They dispute ever bit of evidence no matter what. They dispute that CO2 warms at all. They dispute everything.

          • socalpa

            Well ,having no idea who “they” are .. we’ll just have to take your word on this .

          • JWrenn

            Climate change deniers. Who did you think I was talking about?

            I am sure this is a bad idea. So what do you think is causing it?

          • socalpa

            I don’t know anyone who “denies” climate changes .
            .
            What is a “bad idea” ?

          • JWrenn

            Yeah never mind, you don’t seem to want to have a conversation about this, just to be a grammar/forum sniper. You know exactly what I was talking about.

            I was saying it was a bad idea to ask what you think has been causing global warming….I stand by that idea.

          • socalpa

            Ok ?
            .
            If you think it a bad idea to ask ..
            .
            Don’t .

    • 9.8m/ss

      What would the “actual PROOF” that you demand look like? Is there “actual PROOF” of the Special Theory of Relativity? Howabout the Germ Theory of Contagion? Those are “only theories” too.

  • Mike Richardson

    It’s amazing how this well-researched article has attracted the handful of vocal climate change deniers who pop up all over the internet. Particularly amusing is seeing one of the repeat the phrase “Get an education” like a parrot, while denigrating the work of those who have clearly done just that. At this point researching climate change is not about proving something which is already known. It is instead necessary to refine models and our understanding of the phenomenon, as scientists to study and refine the theory of evolution, or seek to more fully understand gravity. More importantly, it is necessary to know what we can do to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, and to give a timeframe in which we must act. The climate change deniers promote ignorance and inaction, which may ultimately doom our civilization and billions of human lives.

    • socalpa

      Sorry ,but after 50 years and imminent disaster from from either sign of climate change .. warming lately and cooling in the 60s and 70s.
      .
      Time to pull the plug on >90% and maintain observations .
      .

      • Mike Richardson

        Sorry, but not happening. As these reports illustrate, the need for a greater understanding of global warming and its impact on human society is only growing in importance. Time to pull the plug on denier nonsense, for the good of humanity.

        • socalpa

          I beg to differ .. 200 Billion has produced nothing of value for the public financing received . Failed predictions ,moving the “danger” out decades etc..
          .
          “Good of humanity” ?
          .
          Nonsense

          • Mike Richardson

            I know you think the idea of the good of humanity is nonsense. You wouldn’t be a climate change denier otherwise. Now try selling mass suicide somewhere frequented by less scientifically literate folks. You might fertile ground at Brietbart.

          • socalpa

            Well , we seem to have a different view of what is good for humanity it seems .
            .
            May I suggest that you explain your “mass suicide” assertion ?

          • Mike Richardson

            Deliberately failing to address climate change and its effects, which are causing, and will increasingly cause, needless deaths. Or, since it will affect people other than just deniers, negligent homicide. At this point, I refuse to believe that climate change deniers are unaware that they are wrong, which means you are deliberately seeking to cause harm. Shameful.

          • socalpa

            Humanity has been “addressing” climate change since we evolved .. We deal with 100F swings in temperatures in mid and high latitudes each year now .
            .
            And all the data indicates warmer ,CO2 enriched periods beneficial for humanity.,without exception ..
            .
            Cold killls 20x warm each year , and the solutions “proposed” to “address” climate change like carbon taxes and restricted access kills 10s of thousands each winter .
            .
            More later .and links

          • Mike Richardson

            Save the links. I’m well aware of the talking points from the Heritage Institute and Cato. It’s utter garbage to assert that fossil fuels are the only way to keep warm in the winter. We aren’t living in Dickens’ 19th century London, you know. Most folks have electricity, which does not need to be generated by fossil fuels.

          • socalpa

            Well ,clearly you are uninterested in any viewpoint but your own . That is a pity,but I suppose you consider it necessary for political purposes .
            .
            I never asserted FFs the only way to keep warm in winter ,but they are the primary source of heating in winter in developed societies . Saving billions from freezing and starving as well since 100% of food transport is FF powered ..
            .
            “Most folks” in the developed world have electricity ,but not electric heating .
            .
            Dickens’ wrote during the depths of the Little Ice Age ,and we should all be grateful for the warming,and energy sources developed since then..
            .
            I suggest you read a little more than Grist ,or “skepticalscience” onthe topic .

          • MarcusR

            Clearly, he is interested in science.

            I just wish I could say the same for You.

          • HandOfGod137

            I get the impression that Mike Richardson is well informed as regards science, socalpa. whereas you appear to still be the semi-literate ignoramus that you have always been.

            I’ve missed your asinine, poorly formatted and randomly punctuated messages from the derp side. Still not prepared to say exactly which part of the physics supporting AGW you have a problem with? I wonder why…

          • socalpa

            Well well well !
            .
            If it isn’t the Ayatollah of Telegraph Trolls , that Pope of Pomposity.. …
            .
            Readers ,allow me to introduce the… HandOfGod137 !
            .
            Say ,HOG has Dr.Soosoos ceased his “weeping” over “lost” ice since NASA determined Antarctic sea and continental ice has been increasing for decades ?
            .
            How about that Arctic summer sea ice ? Extent and greater than 2007 for the next decade per NSIDC ?
            .
            Did you console him with the news ?
            .
            As to the “Physics” supporting AGW ,no problem at all .. the observations don’t match the predictions .
            .
            So ,indeed, your entertaining posts have been missed !

          • HandOfGod137

            Nice attempt to avoid the question, so I’ll just ask it again.

            Please state what part of the physics that supports AGW you disagree with and why. And I’m not interested in your misrepresentation and lies regarding the data, I want to see if you understand what you are talking about, so talk about the theory.

          • Anaussieinsingapore

            Hey, Mate.
            Been away?

          • HandOfGod137

            Hi man! Just been avoiding the forums, as continual exposure to the likes of socalpa is wearying. And one does worry that the stupid might rub off onto one.

            Good to see you!

          • Anaussieinsingapore

            I was MIA for most of the last 12 months after “retiring” back to Australia, getting bored and deciding to set up again in Asia.

            Coming back after a break has been fun but most of the deniers who aren’t just dumb trolls seem to have shuffled off.

            All we’re left with is the flotsam, Socalpa Realoldone and Malwot (as he’s been rechristened).

          • HandOfGod137

            Ah, the crème de la crap of denialism. How very splendid. One can only assume that having large portions of the world catch fire has forced the less stupid denialists to finally admit that something may be up, leaving only the aforementioned anti-thinktank. But Malwot – I like it!

            Good to see you here, man. Let’s have some fun with these cretins. Maltloaf in particular is always good for a laugh, especially when his lower lip starts to quiver and he begins calling people “divs”. Not to mention denying the moon landings, lol. And socalpa’s brand of barely literate ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving.

          • socalpa

            Speaking of laughs ;
            .
            ” having large portions of the world catch fire ” ?
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! Hee ! Hee ! Hee !

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝ Most folks have electricity, which does not need to be generated by fossil fuels.❞

            but it is generated by fossil fuels. All the attempts to meet global energy needs, thus far, by adding in solar, wind, and other added stuff, amounts to less than 1%.

          • Mike Richardson

            And that is changing, despite the contrarian efforts of folks like you. I wish you continued failure in your future endeavors.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Nuclear Power’s Carbon-free and capable.

          • Mike Richardson

            And where have you seen me argue against it? I’m for anything that can reduce greenhouse gases, if it can be done safely and the waste can be disposed of in a responsible manner. Certainly better than coal, which actually does release some radioactive elements and other carcinogens when burned.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝And where have you seen me argue against it?❞

            I haven’t seen you argue for it, either. In this cyber-world, we just “met”. I haven’t perused your on-line disqus history.

            You are correct, in that a tiny fraction of natural radioactive material is in coal. When it is burned, that radioactive material is entrapped in the fly-ash. 99% of the fly-ash is captured, but 1% of that tiny amount of radioactive material per tonne … multiplied by a whole lot of tonnes, means, a sizeable amount of radioactive material escapes into the environment … Plus, what do they do with the (now, somewhat concentrated) fly-ash?

            Overall, the comparison must be made to the natural background radiation that we all receive. What percentage increase, in total dose, does one receive, living near a coal plant, as opposed to someone living many kilometres away, upwind … Most people have no idea of the magnitude of the natural background radiation they receive.

          • Damn Nitpicker
          • Mike Richardson

            But in the other blog weren’t you trying to argue an ice age is on the way? Which is it, Nit? Is the world going to freeze or is it going to get warmer, but be good for everybody? Well, everybody except those killed by extreme heatwaves in areas without air conditioning, those displaced or killed by flooding from sea level rise or massive rainfall events, those killed or left homeless by more frequent and severe wildfires, those impacted by increasingly severe droughts and resulting famine, and those who become casualties or refugees as nations go to war over dwindling water sources. Everybody except those folks.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Oh, so scary! The coming new-Maunder minimum has been named. Eddy. I see no signs of it, yet, but, it has a name. The Earf is warming, slightly. Evidence exists to show that. We can argue about how much, as, the thermometer record has been tinkered with, and the Paleo-Proxy-Holocene record has been quite selectively analyses

            ❝… by more frequent and severe wildfires,… ❞

            The west coast of North America, like California, and BC deserve separate a separate discussion, but … Globally, wildfires are less frequent, and burn less area … There is no such thing as more frequent or more severe wildfires, compared to the last 3000 years or so. Easily, since about 1960, fires have been getting worse in some areas, and especially since 1980 … but, how about, since 1700?

            ❝… increasingly severe droughts an…❞

            Earf has had, and will have, droughts. However, during the present warm period, globally, drought has been less severe.
            Most “famine” exists due to politics, not a lack of food. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cdfff3b2b8d1ace151857ca77e0e4edbfce2fe7806c1472e6d6c938082d9b07.jpg
            https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-and-famines

          • Mike Richardson

            “Earf? “. Well, that explains it. You don’t inhabit the Earth on which the rest of us live, but apparently a bizarre looking glass version of the world called Earf. The delusions make more sense in that context. Carry on.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            To actually call it “EarTH” would draw attention to those who drop their “T”s. I spell it that way, for those who actually pronounce it that way. Lighten up. Wildfires in the mediterranean Europe https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcea2a7bc2926231a84e57db30693c576b63a5c2bf4ed92be165e522bc3999d4.jpg A steady pattern of fewer fires, burning less area.
            France: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/10a49082c86631ccf5d9b0fb65bfe162fadf933633afac02dcf34594a4719399.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ace69b443b9f463c07e34594e6607959c39a2d792cd23cd30a8da7f5676c154.jpg

          • Popcorn Joe

            Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa….

        • Damn Nitpicker

          ❝… the need for a greater understanding of global warming … is only growing in importance.❞

          Yes, quite true. That’s because, we don’t understand it, now.
          Ohmura 1998: ”While a small change in irradiance at the earth’s surface may cause a profound change in climate, the previously existing radiometric network is not capable of arriving at the required accuracy for climate research. In fact, our present understanding of the radiation distribution both in horizontal and vertical extent is not sufficient to understand the present climate.” Now, I would venture a guess, that Ohmura and pals would not say that they have an understanding of the previous climate, either. That, logically, would conclude that these scientists have never understood any climate.

          Donohoe 2014: ”In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO₂, high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top-of-the-atmosphere, not through a reduction in out-going long wave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing— [“heat trapping —”] but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR).”

          Donohoe 2014: ”Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO₂, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus energy accumulates in the climate system [“heat trapping”] and the planet warms. However, climate models, forced with CO₂, reveal that [simulations of] global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR).”

          Donohoe 2014: ”Trenberth and Fasullo … increasing radiative forcing is driven principally by increasing GHG concentrations, OLR changes little over the 21st century and global energy accumulation is due nearly entirely to enhanced ASR—seemingly at odds with the canonical view of global warming via reduced LW emission to space, …”

      • classicalmusiclover

        At this point, with the need to understand the earth’s climate better more urgent than ever, the notion of reducing climate research funding by more than 90% suggests that you are either ignorant, a buffoon, or evil.

        The expert scientific community was not obsessed with “global cooling” in the 60s and 70s. You have it confused with popular media sources. Indeed, a literature review of that time frame found that the overwhelming majority of papers that discussed climate change discussed it in terms of warming, with the issue of cooling seen as a temporary variation driven primarily by aerosol particulates in the atmosphere.

      • David Katz

        Funny … the first time *scientists* released a report indicating anything close to “imminent disaster” was … October 2018!

        Climate change is going as predicted and as modeled by scientists around the world based on CO2 emissions. Only now we are living with the consequences – more extreme weather and such. High powered hurricanes, wildfires throughout Europe and California, tsunamis …

        The only thing missing from earlier models was the severity of the impact the melting of the ice caps would have on the rate of warming. In addition to releasing CO2 that has been trapped in ice for 1000s of years, millions of tons of methane, another greenhouse gas, are suddenly being released as well. Methane contributed to warning more than CO2 short term, but fortunately doesn’t hang out in the atmosphere for more than a few decades.

        • socalpa

          You need to do some fact checking ..the 1974 CIA obtained by FOIA report predicted the return of Little Ice Age conditions .
          .
          Global tropical cyclones and hurricanes ,all categories ,have declined since the mid 90s ,no trend since 1970 .
          .
          Antarctic sea ice extent has increased since 1979 per NASA ,as has continental ice .The opposite of the models .
          ..
          Arctic sea ice extent has been increasing at Sept Minima since 2007 and 2012 lows . and has been tied to ocean current swithching to cool phase .
          .
          CH4 in parts per Billion is not a significant contributor to climate change .
          .
          I will add links later .

          • MarcusR

            Just look here for some facts regarding ice, regardless of it is mass balance of sea ice extent:
            http://imbie.org/about-the-project/imbie/
            http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
            https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html

            And so on and so-forth.

            Increases in CH4 IS in ppb and it is absolutely a contributor to global warming. Do not spread lies:
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

          • JWrenn

            Even in the 70s the concensus was that there would be warming. Most of the papers that thought something else were destroyed in peer review.

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

            Your comment on Antarctic sea ice just proves climate change, it does not disprove global warming. It is also very disingenuous and cherry picky…especially considering 2018 has been lower than 79 all year…and the median has been lower than 79 for all but the winter months…and it is only antarctic.

            From Nasa’s info
            1979 max antacrctic and arctic sea ice 34.8 million square km. Min 9.9 million square km.

            2018 max antacrctic and arctic sea ice 32.6 million square km. Min 6.8 million square km.

            Difference between 1979 to 2018 max total? -2.2 million square km. Minimum totals? -3.1 million square km.

            Arctic sea ice has not been increasing since 2012.
            2012 max 19.4 min 3.2.
            2018 max 18.4 min 2.8.

            Stop cherry picking and massaging numbers to try to make things look the way you want

          • socalpa

            You got your poles mixed up . fix it .

    • 9.8m/ss

      “The climate change deniers promote ignorance” and that is why demonstrating that they are mistaken is worthwhile. The cost of ignorance is rising fast. We can’t afford it any more.

      • Abby L. Hansen

        You try to remember the SUV you want to buy as well as the house you loved the a lot ? Every one of us have somethings in our life which we want to fulfill . We put in the effort in the direction of it. Still usually we miss a chance, but definitely not any longer . This excellent on the net program made in the best way that it will help you you to get paid noticeably fantastic income . Do the job constant and give your job a small amount of hours and get to as much as $32000 per week . It offers you chance to work in your place space with extremely flexible amount of time . You are going to be your very own boss . It is really a life changer on the net job opportunity designed to help you to definitely gather everything you always wanted in life . Right away proceed and also check out , amazing things waiting for you >>> LEXYIANS.TUMBLR.COM

  • socalpa

    This was a highly amusing article . Like most of the general public,I noticed the headlines claiming every individual ,local storm , heatwave, etc.. promptly claimed as a symptom of climate change/global warming..
    .
    A week or so of cold however , is always “weather” ?
    .
    How about 25 years of colder winters across Eurasia and Eastern N. America ?
    .
    Article | Published: 10 October 2016

    Twenty-five winters of unexpected Eurasian cooling unlikely due to Arctic sea-ice loss
    Kelly E. McCusker, John C. Fyfe & Michael Sigmond
    Nature Geoscience volume 9, pages 838–842 (2016)
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2820
    .
    .What is that a symptom of ? Why is NASA GISS so much warmer than Hadcrut4 ? Hadsst3?
    .
    Appears an audit is long overdue .

    • CB

      “Eurasian cooling unlikely due to Arctic sea-ice loss”

      Do you the difference between Eurasia and the world, Pa?

      psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

      • Gallilao

        The question CB is, do You, know the difference between Eurasia and the Arctic Sea?
        There you go again, showing things you don’t know the meaning of.
        Get an education!

        • classicalmusiclover

          What does your formal science education consist of, Galilao?

          • 9.8m/ss

            Of course you know these politically motivated climate science deniers will never answer that question. And the full time professionals answer it falsely, see “34 years professor of climatology” (not) Dr. Tim Ball.

          • classicalmusiclover

            I know that, but the fact that they so often harp on the asserted educational deficiencies of those they converse with renders the question inevitable.

          • Robert Dekko

            They wouldn’t want to come off as too professional, now, it might blow their cover as “concerned citizen”.

      • Popcorn Joe

        ~~socalpa~~ doesn’t know the difference between his elbows and his butt.

        • socalpa

          Popcorn doesn’t know if he is a Ken ,Pat or Joe .. posted under lots of IDs ..
          .
          Posts misinformation and fraud all the time ..

      • socalpa

        Nice display of the inflection point in Arctic sea ice volume past decade as the AMO/AMOC reverses to cool phase after 2005 ! I”ll link the data showing that far from the headlined “{ce free Arctic summer by 2013/14/15/16/17/18/.. Arctic sea ice at Sept Minima has been 1.2 Million sq kms greater than 2012 ,and ~ 500,000 sq kms greater than 2007
        .
        But ,I digress ..

        The studies focus was on Eurasia , but the data showed winter cooling on much of the Northern Hemisphere .
        .
        The point was , if a few weeks of regional cold is “weather” , what is over two decades of hemispheric cooling ?

        • Andrew Worth

          Here’s a very much more informative and honest source of information on the trend in Arctic sea ice extent than your cherry picked figures:

          https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

          Every decade, since we’ve had satellite coverage the sea ice extent has been significantly lower than the decade before, including for the 2010’s to date

          • socalpa

            My source was the NSIDC data .,which showed that Arctic sea ice extent at Sept Minima has increased since 2007 ,and by over 1 Million squ kms for several years after 2012 low ..
            .
            The rapid decline of 1980 -2005 ended as the AMO/AMOC flipped to cool phase .
            .
            Headlining the lows of 2007 and 2012 wasn’t “cherry picking” ?

          • Andrew Worth

            The graph I linked to is from the National Institute of Polar Research (Japan), I don’t get your argument, the trend of a decline in sea ice extent at the September minimum continues, you’ve offered no data that says otherwise.

          • socalpa

            The trend in Arctic sea ice extent at Sept Minima since 2007 is flat to increasing if you remove the anomalous (storm caused) drop of 2012 .
            .
            Statistically ,2007 was the inflection point in the quasi 60-80 year Arctic sea ice cycle .
            .
            Your link confirms the NSIDC findings .
            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2018/10/Figure3.png

          • Andrew Worth

            I see a graph with the expected fluctuations around the trend line, I’ve seen a lot of similar graphs, and just as we can say there was no hiatus in GW after 1998 we can say the link you offer is not statistically valid evidence that there’s an hiatus in the Arctic ice decline.

          • socalpa

            Who is this all knowing “we” you speak of ?

          • Andrew Worth

            I and others who’ve commented on such denialist nonsense.
            Here’s Tamino on the GW “hiatus” fiction.
            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/you-bet/

          • socalpa

            I see you ,a Discover commenter , unnamed other posters …
            .
            And an anonymous blogger .
            .
            Impressive/s

          • Andrew Worth

            You’ve offered nothing supporting your claim that there’s a change in the Arctic sea ice trend.

          • socalpa

            I think readers might disagree on that point .
            .
            With the exception of 2012 , all years after 2007 had higher ice extent at Sept minimum . A decade .
            .
            Want the NSIDC data again ?

          • Andrew Worth

            “With the exception of 2012 , all years after 2007 had higher ice extent at Sept minimum . A decade .”

            That’s of no consequence, all you’re doing is cherry picking a convenient low year as a start date, it’s the “no warming since 1998” claim all over again, the readers have seen the cherry picking method before, they won’t be fooled, they weren’t fooled by such an obvious deception on other occasions either.

          • socalpa

            “That’s of no consequence, all you’re doing is cherry picking a convenient low year as a start date, ” ?
            .
            Well , one consequence the past decade of higher sea ice extent at Sept minima than 2007 completely refuted the predictions headlined for years of an “Ice free Arctic summer” by 2013/14/15/1617/18 , didn’t it ?
            .
            I doubt readers will believe that bit of the “Arctic Death Spiral” hysteria promoted by the press , don’t you ?
            .
            You do know the satellite record is a “cherry pick” as well don’t you ?
            .
            Arctic sea ice extent is a cycle , a quasi 60 – 80 year cycle of positive and negative ocean current phases .
            .
            The positive (warm) AMO phase began ~ 1975 ,the negative phase began 2005 .. stay tuned ..

          • classicalmusiclover

            How can the “predictions” have been “completely refuted” when the clear trend is one of ice decline?

            The satellite record is hardly a cherry-pick.
            However, what you have been doing in trying to segment out just a few years is the very definition of cherry picking.

          • Andrew Worth

            Have you seen The Escalator, if it turns you on you can do the same thing with the NSIDC graph, pick any year that’s well below the trend line and hey presto, it’s followed by several years of Arctic sea ice “recovery”.
            https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

          • socalpa

            Did you see Ghostbusters ? You should,especially Dr.Venkmans speech to the mayor about “disasters of biblical proportions”. Many alarmists sound just like him .
            .
            Figures you would cite the “skepticalscience” blog run by a former cartoonist turned climate psychologist . Not very impressive ,nor is your argument .
            .
            “it’s quite likely to take more than a decade before we have another such anomalous sea ice minimum” .. I agree ! Perhaps several decades since the primary driver of Arctic sea ice extent was recently determined to be the AMO/AMOC ocean cycle phases , not ,ghgs . The positive (warm) to negative (cool) phases can last 3-4 decades each ,and the negative phase began in 2005
            .
            You should enjoy this ;
            Atlantic Sea Ice Could Grow in the Next Decade
            Changing ocean circulation in the North Atlantic could lead to winter sea ice coverage remaining steady and even growing in select regions.

            SOURCE: Geophysical Research Letters
            https://eos.org/research-spotlights/atlantic-sea-ice-could-grow-in-the-next-decade

        • classicalmusiclover

          That would be great, if there actually were “two decades of hemispheric cooling.”

          You might like to include the Arctic circle, west coast of the US, Canada, and much of Europe in your calculations.

        • classicalmusiclover

          It is strange how you find a brief variation, ignore the obvious trend, and discover an “inflection point.
          I bet you didn’t even notice that the summer sea ice has been lower than 2014 over the past few years.

          From the Nov. 6 update of the NSIDC:
          “Over the Pacific side of the Arctic, a pattern of unusual warmth noted in last month’s post continued. While sea ice extent in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas remains below average, extent remains especially low on the Atlantic side of the Arctic in the Barents and Laptev Seas. October sea ice extent in the Arctic was the third lowest in the satellite record.”

          “Arctic sea ice extent for October 2018 averaged 6.06 million square kilometers (2.34 million square miles), the third lowest October extent in the 1979 to 2018 satellite record. This was 2.29 million square kilometers (884,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, and 170,000 square kilometers (66,000 square miles) above the record low recorded for October 2012.”

          • 9.8m/ss

            “It is strange how you find a brief variation, ignore the obvious trend, and discover an “inflection point.”
            Again, could be motivated cognition, could be deliberate deception.

          • socalpa

            A decade of increasing Arctic sea ice at minima is a “brief variation” ?
            .
            The Sat record is 25% of the entire record ..
            .
            Desperate flail !

    • Gallilao

      Because, like Michael Mann, NASAs’ climate scientists are frauds.

      • classicalmusiclover

        What’s your evidence that any of those people is a “fraud”?

        More argument by assertion from someone who is clearly ignorant?

        • 9.8m/ss

          Because the nice man on the radio said so. Same guy who warned me not to ingest tap water because fluoride is a communist plot.

      • Drewski

        Not accoding to the National Academy of Sciences, the preminent science authority.

    • Andrew Worth

      From the abstract that socalpa links to:
      “We conclude that the observed cooling over central Eurasia was probably due to a sea-ice-independent internally generated circulation pattern ensconced over, and nearby, the Barents–Kara Sea since the 1980s. These results improve our knowledge of high-latitude climate variability and change, with implications for our understanding of impacts in high-northern-latitude systems.”

      There are a couple of points that should be noted:
      1. The paper does not claim cooling of the Eurasian land mass, but over “central Eurasia” which I interpret as the paper meaning a small part of the Eurasian land mass covering Scandinavia and North Western Russia.
      2. The paper does not suggest this regional cooling is evidence that contradicts AGW, but suggests rather that it is perhaps due to “a sea-ice-independent internally generated circulation pattern” ie a local climatic phenomenon.

      • socalpa

        If you continue to read the paper , the data shows greatest winter cooling over central Eurasia , and less cooling over a much larger area in winter .
        ,
        But still cooling ,the opposite of predictions , Thus “unexpected ” Eurasian cooling .
        .
        The point of my post ,you missed entirely .

        • Andrew Worth

          What’s your point? That the science says there won’t be unexpected regional variations around the global trend? Wrong, such variations would be expected, even if we can’t identify them individually.

          • socalpa

            Two points ;
            .
            1. The obvious bias and duplicity of the press on this topic ,headlining individual storms or heatwaves as climate change and ignoring a multi decade cooling trend in a hemisphere .
            .
            2 The fact that an “unexpected” trend developed that is the opposite of predictions on a near hemispheric basis ( as is also the case on other major predictions) indicates the global forecasts are likely to also be highly unrealiable decades to centuries out .
            .
            That clear it up for you ?

          • Andrew Worth

            So your main point is that you don’t really have a point. Some of the press does what you describe, most of that which I watch emphasis that individual weather events have no weight, other elements like to follow denialists in claiming that every cold spell is evidence against AGW.

            There is no multi decade cooling trend over any hemisphere.

            Climate is not an exact science, no climate scientist ever claimed that it was. We can expect unexpected regional trends and events.

          • socalpa

            Not a point you are willing to accept ,obviously . I suggest you reread the paper as to extent of cooling winters .
            .
            I agree ,climate is far from an exact science ,but some media,politicians activists and scientists ignore that fact and seek Trillion dollar taxes and dangerous energy rationing s as a response to what may be an exaggerated threat or even benefits .
            .
            I must also point out that CO2 has never prevented cooling in the past 55Mys ,2.5Mys ,12.5kys or past 150 years ..
            .
            Not once .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Ultimately, your arguments boil down to the kind of greenhouse effect denial that is banned even at the otherwise science-denying WUWT site.

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com Plutarchus

            What we deny is the unscientific notion of a catastrophic greenhouse effect caused by the harmless but provenly beneficial emission of anthropogenic CO2.

          • classicalmusiclover

            the greenhouse effect is not “harmless” nor “provenly beneficial,” as the report released on Friday clearly demonstrates.

            The greenhouse effect does not refer to the role of CO2 in the natural respiration cycle.

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com Plutarchus

            So where is the greenhouse effect harming us in ways that are different from past interglacials, or cyclical warming periods like the MWP or Holocene Thermal Max?

    • Andrew Worth

      There is no great divergence between the GISS and Hadcrut global temperature graphs, you have been misled. There is a small difference due to GISS not excluding polar regions, which experience polar amplification.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification

  • David Katz

    If climate change is a big scam, how is it that independent studies done by scientists around the globe have all drawn the same conclusions? Where is the science that proves them all wrong. You can’t deny facts. Fact – the global average temp has gone up. Fact – extreme weather patterns are the norm rather than the exception. Fact – there is a direct relationship between global temperatures and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

    • socalpa

      Well ,to begin with, not all scientists have drawn the same conclusions .
      .
      Yes ,the global avg temp has risen slightly ,since ~ 1700CE ,lowest temps of the Holocene and 200 years before any significant rise in CO2 ..Entirely beneficial, longer growing seasons ,enlarge arable latitudes and altitudes .
      .
      “Extreme” weather patterns are not the norm , global tropical cyclone and hurricane activity has declined since the mid 1990s (all categories). Flat trend since 1970
      .
      Yes , 800,000 years of ice core records show that CO2 rises and fallls long after temps increase or decrease . This does not mean CO2 causes temp changes ..

      • Drewski

        In the 1960s, when climate science was in its infancy, there were a handful of scientists who predicted global cooling. Nowadays, the number of studies that predict cooling can be counted on the left hand of an epileptic butcher.

        • socalpa

          First ,the numbers of scientists involved does not determine the validity ,or invalidity of a hypothesis or theory .
          .
          This 1974 CIA report obtained bu FOIA disputes your claims as well .
          .
          Summary
          .
          The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850)-an era of drought, famine, and political
          unrest in the western world.
          .
          Note ;
          “Western worlds leading climatologists”
          https://www.governmentattic.org/18docs/CIAclimateResearchIntellProbs_1974.pdf
          .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Actually, when there is as high a level of consensus as exists on the reality of global warming, of scientists working independently in different countries and institutions, the likelihood that they are wrong or pursuing an invalid course is vanishingly small.

            You have been misrepresenting that CIA study for years. The fact remains that literature reviews of the period in question show that the preponderance of papers supported global warming and that discussions of cooling were concerned with the particulate problem.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Socalpa has been misrepresenting that CIA study for years, and has been informed of that fact in great detail many times. There are two possibilities. 1. Socalpa is suffering from “motivated cognition” and does not perceive information contrary to her beliefs. Therefore does not recognize much less understand the corrections so patiently offered. 2. Socalpa is lying about it intentionally, in pursuit of some political agenda.

          • classicalmusiclover

            At this point, considering that she does this with every one of her attacks on mainstream climate science, I think the option is 2, and the political agenda is a combination of virtue-signaling (to use her term) aimed at her fellow conservatives and a feeling of cheap and petty power that arises from “dominating” message boards.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I’m not so sure. I’ve met a lot of science deniers over several decades now, both in person and online. Some simply can’t let go of a failed hypothesis they obsessed over in their youth. The ego trauma from realizing they’d been mistaken for years would be too much to bear. (That even happens to professional researchers.) There are lots of conspiracy nuts, and the great false climate science cabal is just one more conspiracy. Some are beating their chests to fit in with the jeering crowd at Breitbart or Townhall or some Facebook circle. Some have developed a (oneway) relationship with a late night talk radio whisperer. At least two seem to be recruiting “investors” in a perpetual motion machine. But some are simply talking to themselves, like that guy in the park with a shopping cart full of dirty old papers who never makes any sense. There are a lot more of those guys out there since Reagan dismantled the mental hospitals in California, and the VA isn’t doing anything for insane veterans any more. Socalpa may be in that last category.

          • HandOfGod137

            I’d tend to agree. He’s just a brain-damaged idiot who is incapable of constructing a well-punctuated sentence and who understands literally nothing about science.

            I’ve now spent a couple of years trying to get him to state what part of the theory supporting AGW he disagrees with, but he simply cannot answer.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I can’t tell whether she refuses to answer, or can not. I suspect it’s the former. False science is always inconsistent, and the experienced science denier quickly learns to recognize and deflect any question which would lead to revealing the inconsistency. Science denial resembles religion, and religion allows contradictory ideas to coexist.

          • HandOfGod137

            Both. socalpa doesn’t understand science at a funcamental level, but is aware that any attempt to bumble through any sort of explanation would just expose this ignorance.

          • socalpa

            Gossiping with the Girlz about that evil socalpa again ?
            .
            You go .. Girlz ! Dish that dirt !
            .
            How … scientific !
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • Robert Dekko

            Like with most things, it’s probably a combination of multiple factors. I think true insanity is a rather tall order, even senility, coming from someone who spends quite a bit of time himself down at the Phoenix VA’s mental health facility.

            Someone with dementia that could follow a thought, concept and relationship with other over time? No, that’s beyond senile stubborn.

            These people are proud followers of doctrine, that cannot be questioned and is infallable……… that’s “infallible babble” for the grammar nazis.

          • socalpa

            I think all of that applies much more to those “believers” in a coming Thermocalypse that read every storm and heatwave as a “sign” .
            .
            All believe the weather/climate/sea level conditions of 2100 can be accurately predicted .
            .
            They used to carry sandwich boards claiming the The End is Nye and Repent !
            .
            Now ,they post drivel on comment boards and blogs ..

          • ROO2

            Socalpa has been misrepresenting…

            …in other news bears defecate in the woods.

          • socalpa

            Ho ! Ho !

            9.7m/s lashes out again after being embarrassed by the contradiction of his lie that the global cooling fear of the late 60s and 70s was only a tabloid claim .
            .
            Keep up that Gossiping Girlz ..fun to watch !.

          • HandOfGod137

            Soryy, socalpa, but it is you who is categorically wrong. The “global cooling” fear is well explained in the following link, but essentially you are in the position of someone using phlogiston as an attempt to disprove modern chemistry.

            You may be stupid, but thye people watching your illiterate flailing here aren’t.

            https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

          • socalpa

            Funny , you are in the position of reading chicken bones to forecast weather in 2100.
            .
            The story switches from global cooling ,to global warming ,back to global cooling .. same old academic churn .
            .
            1974 CIA report obtained by FOIA
            .
            Summary ;

            “The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850)-an era of drought, famine, and political
            unrest in the western world ”
            https://www.governmentattic.org/18docs/CIAclimateResearchIntellProbs_1974.pdf

          • Chris Golledge

            I don’t suppose it occurs to you that a system of global agriculture optimized for one set of conditions becomes less than optimal for another? That does not matter if it is warming or cooling, or how precipitation patterns change.

            Meanwhile, this part is still true, “The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. “

          • socalpa

            They were talking about neo boreal or Little Ice Age conditions .
            .
            Not “global warming” ,which has the opposite effect .

          • HandOfGod137

            Stop avoiding the question, socalpa. Please explain how changing the climate from a mode that all our infrastructure is based around w3ill not have a detrimental affect on agriculture etc.

            Go on, give it your best shot. We all know you can’t explain the GHE or give a scientific refutation of it, so let’s try baby steps for a baby mind.

          • socalpa

            I am not avoiding anything HOG .
            .
            Changing climate from Little Ice Age conditions to warmer moister current conditions produced higher per acre yields, longer grow seasons and increased arable latitudes and altitudes .
            .
            Global crop yields have been increasing at 1-3% year since 1960 per USDA .and other sources ;
            https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Ffpepdataslidesearthpolicyinstitute-121016142416-phpapp02%2F95%2Ffull-planet-empty-plates-data-slideshow-4-638.jpg%3Fcb%3D1350397597&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fearthpolicy%2Ffull-planet-empty-plates-data-slideshow-14755212&docid=SQNL_FaOZf8wjM&tbnid=dB9ThxbzDec9jM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiY2uiM5PPeAhWK-lQKHYCpDB0QMwhEKAYwBg..i&w=638&h=479&bih=697&biw=1304&q=graphics%20%20global%20wheat%20production%201960%20-2017%20USDA&ved=0ahUKEwiY2uiM5PPeAhWK-lQKHYCpDB0QMwhEKAYwBg&iact=mrc&uact=8
            http://worldfood.apionet.or.jp/graph/graph_n.cgi?byear=1960&eyear=2009&country=INDONESIA&article=rice&pop=0&type=e1
            http://archive.gramene.org/species/zea/maize_maps_and_stats.html

          • Chris Golledge

            Calling BS. Substantiate your claim that somehow global warming is the good for agriculture.

            Was the heat wave in Russia 2010 good for their agriculture?
            https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.html

            What about the 4 years of drought in the Middle East prior to 2010?
            https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/climate-change-contributes-worst-drought-middle-east-over-900-years-487878483

            Was the heat wave of 2012 good for agriculture in the American Midwest?
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715300360

            What about Europe 2003?
            https://www.unisdr.org/files/1145_ewheatwave.en.pdf

          • socalpa

            UNFAO and USDA all report record global crop yields past decade .
            .
            Global warming since 1850 has increased growing seasons by ~ 1 month , increases in arable latitudes and altitudes .
            .
            And NASA reports CO2 enrichment and warming are greening 25-50% of land mass ,and marine phytoplankton are increasing in the oceans past 50 -80 years .
            .
            Plants , terrestrial and marine love warmer ,higher CO2 conditions ..as do mono culture crops .
            Heatwaves are transient weather events ..weather ,not climate ..Look it up .

          • Chris Golledge

            You don’t even know the difference between C3 and C4 photosynthesis, do you? Even the plants using C3 photosynthesis, like wheat, which would benefit from more CO2, do not benefit from high temperatures. BTW, plants that use C4 photosynthesis, like corn, do not benefit from more CO2.

            “Study finds climate change may dramatically reduce wheat production”
            “…wheat yields are projected to decrease by 6 percent for each degree Celsius the temperature rises…”
            https://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html

            What do you know about wheat that the agricultural biologists from Kansas do not?

            BTW, extreme heat wave events like the kind that I mention above used to cover less than 1% of the globe in a typical year, prior to 1980. They cover over 14% of the globe in typical year now.

            So, now, produce whatever you can that shows that climate change will have an overall positive effect on agriculture. Not your own opinion, you’ve already given that.

          • socalpa

            You are just making things up again .
            .
            Show any global data that shows yields of Wheat,corn ,rice, cereals have declined past 60 years ?
            .
            What is your source for your claim drought impacts went from 1% to 14% of global area ?
            .
            Which of the below shows declines in yield ?
            .
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08214-4/figures/1

          • Chris Golledge

            I said heat waves.
            What do you know about wheat that Kansas State researchers do not?

          • socalpa

            Heat waves are weather , transient local weather events .
            .
            Think globally .

          • Chris Golledge

            Globally, the area covered by heat waves has increased more than ten fold. Think.

          • socalpa

            “Globally, the area covered by heat waves has increased more than ten fold. Think”.
            .
            Source ? Cite ?

          • Chris Golledge

            http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109

            Now, what part do you think I made up?

          • socalpa

            “used to cover less than 1% of the globe in a typical year, prior to 1980. They cover over 14% of the globe in typical year now.” ?
            ..
            No one claims this ,and 10x 1% is not 14% .
            .
            That 2012 paper by James “boiling oceans” is dubious ,to say the least
            .
            Regardless ,yields reached records past 2 decades ,no declines and the world is greening fro CO2 enrichment and warmer temps .
            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
            .

          • Chris Golledge

            Please read my links again, and while you are at it try to understand that 14 or 15 percent is more than 10%, which is what I said.

          • Chris Golledge

            You claimed I made things up. Now what do you think I made up?

            What part of Russia’s 2010 heat wave declining yields by 30% did you not understand?

          • socalpa

            What part of record yields past decade do you not understand ?

          • Chris Golledge

            What part do you think I made up? Be specific.

          • socalpa

            Show any global data that shows yields of Wheat,corn ,rice, cereals have declined past 60 years ?
            .
            What is your source for your claim drought impacts went from 1% to 14% of global area ?

          • Chris Golledge

            Try reading the links I have already posted.

          • socalpa
          • Chris Golledge

            Russia lost 30% of their grain harvest in 2010. Russia is part of the globe. You will find similar losses in the other areas I mentioned if you bother to look.

            “During the extremely hot summer of 2010 drought caused grain-harvest losses in Russia of 30%, leading the Russian government to ban wheat exports (27).”

            https://www.climatechangepost.com/russia/agriculture-and-horticulture/

            Now, what part do you think image up?

          • socalpa

            Anecdotes .. transient ,local events .

          • Chris Golledge

            Increasing in frequency and extent.

          • Popcorn Joe

            Good work Chris… Looks like socalpa has learned a lot from you… Finally he is coming around… Great work…. LOL… ^..^

          • socalpa

            More anecdotes ?

          • Andrew Worth

            socalpa. of course production has increased over the last ~60 years, the worlds population has increased, farmers would have looked pretty dumb producing 3 times as much food in 1960 as the world could eat.
            Production/ha has also increased as a result of wide use of artificial fertilizers, plant breeding, better technology and better educated farmers, the point you’re trying to make is silly because no one is claiming that global agriculture (as a whole) to date has felt severe impacts from AGW though there are reasons to believe that there have been major regional impacts.

          • Chris Golledge

            Maize. You understand that maize is corn, no? Were you not paying attention when I pointed out that corn uses C4 photosynthesis, and does not benefit from more CO2?

            So, given that maize/corn does not benefit from additional CO2, and you have used that as your first example of how you think the world’s agriculture is benefitting from more CO2, that implies you have no idea what you are talking about.

            But hey, why stop now? You have already demonstrated so much that you don’t understand, let’s keep going.

          • socalpa

            Where did you read this ?

            ” Were you not paying attention when I pointed out that corn uses C4 photosynthesis, and does not benefit from more CO2?”
            .
            Skepticalscience , I presume ?
            .
            Read this ;
            “Three contrasting maize (Zea mays L.) genotypes- DHM-117 (single cross hybrid), Varun (synthetic) and Harsha (composite) with different yield potentials were selected to assess their growth and yield performance at ambient (390ppm) and elevated (550ppm) CO2 condition in Open Top Chamber (OTC) facility. The phenology, biomass accumulation, grain yield and HI was quantified of these three maize genotypes at both CO2 levels. The phenology of flowering was early by 1.5 to 2 days, while the anthesis silking interval (ASI) was not influenced by elevated CO2 in DHM-117 and Varun, where as it was reduced by two days in Harsha. Response of selected three maize genotypes was different to elevated CO2 (550ppm) condition in terms of biomass, grain yield and HI. The improvement in biomass ranged from 32% to 47%, grain yield 46% to 127% with 550ppm CO2 as compared with ambient control. The improvement in grain yield was due to increased grain number (25-72%) as well as improved test weight (8-60%). The overall response of less efficient maize genotype Harsha with elevated CO2 concentration was found to be significantly high especially the grain yield and its components. Elevated CO2 also improved the maize HI (11% to 68%) indicating that influence of elevated CO2 was there on partitioning of biomass of this C4 crop”.
            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290890323_Variability_in_growth_and_yield_response_of_maize_genotypes_at_elevated_CO2_concentration
            .
            Now , see the global yield increases again and note declines that occurred after eruptions in the 80s and 90s which caused global cooling events for several years after .
            http://old.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/world-production-of-wheat-corn-and-rice_2476
            .
            Stay away from blogs ,and especially blogs run by former cartoonists turned climate psychologists ..

          • Andrew Worth

            The benefits of high CO2 concentrations are greater for C3 than for C4, but plants using both photosynthetic pathways benefit from reduced transpiration as a result of their stomata not needing to be open as much.

          • Chris Golledge

            “Including the CO2 fertilization effects with climatic change scenarios had little effect on the predicted yields of maize because it is a C4 plant.”

            http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e06.htm

          • Andrew Worth

            From your link:
            Several recent symposia proceedings and reviews leave little doubt that crop plants can respond well to elevated CO2 (Rozema et al., 1993; Woodwell and Mackenzie, 1995; Wittwer, 1995). Poorter (1993) compiled information from 156 plant species and found that doubling CO2 provided an average growth increase of 37%. The distribution of weight ratios of CO2-enriched and control plants is shown in Figure 4.6. Poorter’s compilation showed a 41 and a 22% increase for C3 and C4 plants, respectively. As a group, C3 herbaceous crop plants responded more than wild herbaceous species (58 vs. 35%). Furthermore, the fast growing wild species responded more strongly than slow-growing wild species (54 vs. 23%).

            Here’s another link, confirming Earth’s “greening”:

            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

            So I assume that we are in agreement, increased CO2 levels does increase biomass production in both C3 and C4 plants.

          • Chris Golledge

            I will stand by the assessment in the FAO article, the conversation I had with a research biologist, and more recent work than Poorter 1993.

            “The nature of C4 plant responses to elevated [CO2 ] has been controversial. Recent evidence from free-air CO2 enrichment
            (FACE) experiments suggests that elevated [CO2 ] does not directly stimulate C4 photosynthesis.”

            “Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration
            and the future of C4 crops for food and fuel”
            https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3d31/869fa50a4707829392259c6343f825f54882.pdf

          • James Owens

            It more than implies he has no idea what he are talking about – more like lot’s of neon and lights on Times Square

          • socalpa

            “But hey, why stop now? You have already demonstrated so much that you don’t understand, let’s keep going.”.
            .
            Ready to admit C4 crops like maize benefit from elevated CO2 ?

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Regardless of the metabolic pathway used for photosynthesis, C3 or C4, ALL plans benefit from the increased water-use efficiency brought about by higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.

            Keeling 2017: ”This study shows that it is possible to detect changes occurring in plants using long-term measurements of the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO₂. These measurements imply that plants have globally increased their water use efficiency [WUE] at the leaf level in proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO₂ over the past few decades.”

            Keeling, Ralph F., et al. 2017 “Atmospheric evidence for a global secular increase in carbon isotopic discrimination of land photosynthesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
            http://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10361.full

          • Chris Golledge

            The research I cited talked about improvements in water efficiency, and concluded that in only mattered for C4 plants under drought or heat stress. The negatives of drought and heat stress outweigh the positives of improvements in water use efficiency.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            (!) In other words, they assumed that there’d be more drought because the temperature went up. Well, outside is the real world, and … temperature has gone up … we can argue about how much, but … it is a tad warmer, out there. So, what happened to drought, during that time?

            van Wijngaarden & Syed 2015: ”No significant global precipitation change from 1850 to present. … Stations experiencing low, moderate and heavy annual precipitation did not show very different precipitation trends. This indicates deserts/jungles are neither expanding nor shrinking due to changes in precipitation patterns.”

            van Wijngaarden, W. A., and A. Syed 2015. “Changes in annual precipitation over the Earth’s land mass excluding Antarctica from the 18th century to 2013.” Journal of Hydrology

            Sun, Roderick & Farquhar 2012: ”Importantly, these patterns show no relationship to local (Figure S25 in Text S1) or global changes in temperature”

            ”Thus, when expressed in terms of precipitation, the “wet get wetter and dry get drier” idea [Chou et al., 2007; Trenberth, 2011; Held and Soden 2006] … [Our] results confirm that, on average, dry regions [or] months became wetter and wet regions [or] months became drier over the 1940–2009 period. This conclusion holds in all available databases and also holds for 1940–1999 (Figures S18–S24 in Text S1).”

            Sun, Roderick & Farquhar 2012: ”If anything, these results constitute a slight decline in meteorological drought over the last 70 years.”

            That bears repeating:

            ”If anything, these results constitute a slight decline in meteorological drought over the last 70 years.”

            Sun, Fubao, Michael L. Roderick, and Graham D. Farquhar 2012. “Changes in the variability of global land precipitation.” Geophysical Research Letters (H/T Jimbo).

            JH: “Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.”

            James Hansen – the world’s #1 climate alarmist

          • Chris Golledge

            No, they did not. You assumed that the improvements mattered under all conditions, and they don’t.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝… and they don’t.❞

            So there!

            wait, What?

            …improvements?

            Maroco, Edwards & Ku. 1999: ”… C4 photosynthesis were studied in maize (Zea mays L.). Plants were grown at ambient (350 μL L⁻¹) or ca. 3 times ambient (1100 μL L⁻¹) CO₂ levels under high light conditions in a greenhouse for 30 d. Relative to plants grown at ambient CO₂ levels, plants grown under elevated CO₂ accumulated ca. 20% more biomass and 23% more leaf area. When measured at the CO₂ concentration of growth, mature leaves of high-CO₂-grown plants had higher light-saturated rates of photosynthesis (ca. 15%), lower stomatal conductance (71%), higher water-use efficiency (225%) and higher dark respiration rates (100%).”

            ”These data show that the C4 plant maize may benefit from elevated CO₂ through acclimation in the capacities of certain photosynthetic enzymes. The increased capacity to synthesize sucrose and starch, and to utilize these end-products of photosynthesis to produce extra energy by respiration, may contribute to the enhanced growth of maize under elevated CO₂.”

            Maroco, João P., Gerald E. Edwards, and Maurice SB Ku. 1999 “Photosynthetic acclimation of maize to growth under elevated levels of carbon dioxide.” Plants

          • Chris Golledge

            Were you not paying attention when I showed that heat wave events are increasing?

          • Damn Nitpicker
          • Chris Golledge

            Here is a summary on extreme heat events that should be simple enough for you. The newspaper said 15 because they rounded up; I said 14 because I was being more conservative.

            https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/28/climate/more-frequent-extreme-summer-heat.html

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝Study finds climate change may dramatically reduce wheat production … wheat yields are projected to decrease by 6 percent for each degree Celsius the temperature rises❞

            Actual data, from the world bank, compared to actual data from Hadley MET (Hadcrut4 GL) shows NO SUCH DECREASE IN YIELDS even when spanning a ΔT of more than 1.4°C
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0184205f4405676f2c83af0b67ef2cc847e68c1dfb8a1c27d6b0c0ea0a7d1675.jpg

            https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1961/to:2016

          • Chris Golledge

            Which cereals? Dryland or irrigated? Were there improvements in the cultivars? Changes in fertilization? Tilling?

            The research I cited controlled for such things. I don’t see any such controls or attribution in what you cited.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝ I don’t see any such controls or attribution in what you cited.❞

            Attribution: giving credit to the source, saying where the stuff comes from …
            Did you see the two URLs? The logos, on each chart? The top one says “world bank” and the corresponding URL: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG
            The temperature has a URL, is labelled with “hadcrut4 gl” and has a logo in the lower left corner, as well.

            As for controls – you’ll have to explore how World Bank filters the data. Certainly improvements in seed stock, certainly changes in fertilization … who on Earf would deliberately “hold still” when it comes to production foodstuffs? This isn’t a laboratory experiment, it is the sum-total of the entire world’s production of cereals (well, at least, what was reported).

          • Chris Golledge

            at·tri·bu·tion
            /ˌatrəˈbyo͞oSH(ə)n/Submit
            noun
            the action of regarding something as being caused by a person or thing.

            Global. As in, including places like India and Africa, which may have started using more advanced cultivars, better herbicides, etc. that have already been in common use in the US.

          • Drewski

            In the early 70s about 1 in 7 studies predicted cooling. This was before accurate imaging satellites and a whole host of unknowns were known.

            Now we have GRACE satellites to meaure the cryosphere, ARGO buoys to measure ocean temps at various depths, instrumentation in space to measure incoming and outgoing radiation and we have the IPCC which is a PUBLIC forum that allows for the dissemination of data from over 2 dozen scientific fields.

            In short, climate science has grown up.

          • Robert

            Fyi, page 31. Conclusions.
            They were hoping for advances in forecasting

            May be possible.., 1 to five year forecasts.
            Yet you cite only the intro…….

      • David Katz

        You find a respected scientist who, today in 2018, will deny CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases global temperatures, I’ll give you my first born son.

        Slight temperature changes? Climate change has already had a significant impact on the planet. The ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. Extreme weather is exactly what is happening. FEWER INSTANCES of rain, but when it rains it POURS – so droughts occur and then 16” of rain falls in a week causing flash flooding and mudslides. Sure, we have 2-3 less hurricanes than we had 1000 years ago, but we had 3 … THREE catastrophic hurricanes in on year in just the United States. That is extreme weather – long periods of on type of weather with a burst of another.

        And btw – you can actually test the greenhouse gas theory yourself at home. And since you know so much about science, you should know that, in science, a theory is not the same as a theory in every day terminology. When experimentation shows without a doubt that a hypothesis is true, it becomes a theory.

        You don’t have to use global temperature data to prove CO2 warms the earth. You can literally try this at home. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

        • socalpa

          Pretty much all hyperbolic and unsupported assertions
          .
          Sprinkled with out right false hoods …
          .
          The planet is nothing remotely like a flask on a lab bench ,there is no trend in global storm activity detected in 150 years of data per NOAA .Global tropical cyclone and hurricanes (all categories) activity declined after mid 1990s
          .
          Antarctic sea ice extent has increased since 1979 . Antarctic ice mass has increased since 1990 per NASA .
          .
          The planet has been warming since ~ 1700CE ,~200 years before any significant rise in CO2 .
          .
          I will add links later ,some already posted on thread .

          • Andrew Worth

            “Antarctic sea ice extent has increased since 1979”.
            Nope.
            https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

            I haven’t found anything that offers high confidence of the global temperature trend between 1700 and 1900.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

          • socalpa
          • Andrew Worth

            What, is it still 2014?

          • socalpa

            For some I suppose .

          • Andrew Worth

            Good to see you’ve progressed from using 2014 papers to 2015 papers,only 3 more years to go for you to be up to date!

          • Andrew Worth

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201801

            “Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent is increasing at an average rate of 1.8 percent per decade, with substantial inter-annual variability.”

            Make sure you read that right “1.8 percent per decade,”

            I suspect that means there is as yet no meaningful trend, though the variability certainly appears to be increasing.

          • socalpa

            “Suspect” whatever you like . The trend is up,significant and almost 4 decades in duration .
            .
            The opposite trend predicted by the GCMS .
            .
            Antarctica is 90% of global ice ,and it has been increasing in sea ice extent and continental ice for decades .

          • Andrew Worth

            Where does the IPCC claim that Antarctic sea ice was expected to decrease through to ~2014?

          • socalpa

            I didn’t mention the IPCC . I wrote GCMs (General Circulation Models) .
            .
            There are numerous discussions of this contradiction by NASA NOAA and many explanations have been proposed ..
            .
            “Seek ,and ye shall find” ..
            .
            CO2 is apparently having no ,or the opposite of predicted effects on Antarctica .

          • Chris Golledge

            “Antarctica is 90% of global ice ,and it has been increasing in sea ice extent and continental ice for decades .”

            You are confused. East Antarctica has been slowly gaining mass since the end of the last glacial period. It is surrounded by a warming ocean so it snows more. West Antarctica has been loosing mass rapidly in recent decades as the warming ocean melts it around the edges. The losses are greater than the gains.

          • socalpa

            You have not been keeping up with the science ;

            Oct. 30, 2015
            NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

            Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”
            .
            And ;
            “Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods.”

            .https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

          • Chris Golledge
          • socalpa

            Who to believe ?
            .
            A multi discipline ,multi decade ,multi year NASA Icesat 2015 study by NASAs top glaciology team ..
            .
            Or a complaining letter by 2 researches ,Scambos et al ?
            .
            I’l take NASA IceSat ….

          • Chris Golledge
          • Anaussieinsingapore

            Lol

            Once again Soccy is caught with his pants down as a link he introduced to the thread shows the opposite of what he claims.

          • Andrew Worth

            socalpa: I’l take NASA IceSat ….

            Great!

            Checkmate!

          • socalpa

            NASA IceSat says Antarctic gaining mass .IMBIE says Antarctic losing mass ..
            .
            Check
            .
            .If IMBIE correct < 1 inch sea level rise from Antarctica by 2100 .
            .
            If NASA Icesat correct , Antarctica reduces sea level rise by < 1 inch by 2100 .
            .
            Trivial ,either way .

          • socalpa

            Different methodology ,different result .
            .
            I’ll wait for IceSat ll .

          • Chris Golledge

            Lol, you win the Watts award for failure to accept that which you said you would.

          • socalpa

            Read my posts ,then try to gloat .

          • Chris Golledge

            Lol, don’t hold your breath waiting for Icesat II to tell you what you want to hear.

          • HandOfGod137

            To make use of your own barely-literate style

            Ho ! Ho ! ;;; Ho!

            Hoisted by your own petard there, socalpa. How very amusing.

          • Andrew Worth

            You have not been keeping up with the science
            I don’t suppose you see the irony of accusing other of not keeping up with the science while you sight an out-of-date paper to support your cause.
            This is more up-to-date:

            The Antarctic Ice Sheet is an important indicator of climate change and driver of sea-level rise. Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, which corresponds to an increase in mean sea level of 7.6 ± 3.9 millimetres (errors are one standard deviation). Over this period, ocean-driven melting has caused rates of ice loss from West Antarctica to increase from 53 ± 29 billion to 159 ± 26 billion tonnes per year; ice-shelf collapse has increased the rate of ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula from 7 ± 13 billion to 33 ± 16 billion tonnes per year. We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 1992–2017 (5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

          • Chris Golledge

            Look, here are lots of more recent studies, which somehow disagree with your imagination.

            https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2014&q=antarctic+ice+mass+loss&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

            BTW, did you ever figure out the difference between shortwave and longwave?

          • socalpa

            No ,a quick scan shows most are not more recent than NASA IceSat 2015..
            .
            I presume you mean the increases in Arctic sea ice extent and continental ice mass is NASAs “imagination” .
            .
            I did not do the studies ,those were NASAs conclusions .
            .
            Want the links again ?

          • HandOfGod137

            So you don’t understand the difference between shortwave and longwave, socalpa? Oh lol, you really are a dimwit.

            Now ask me why I give as much value to your “quick scan” as I would an insoluble suppository. Which in many ways you resemble.

          • socalpa

            I suggest you take more suppositories ,you are very obviously still quite full of *hit .
            .
            Here is a quick quiz for ya HOG , which penetrates 71% of the planets surface ,and which one does not ?

          • HandOfGod137

            “penetrates 71% of the planets surface”? Are you talking about the oceans? Why? Dop you think you’ve got some sort of slack-jawed “gotcha” waiting in the wings?

            Go on then, this should be amusing.

          • socalpa

            Getting “warmer” HOG .

            Answer the question…

          • Chris Golledge

            To be fair, I forgot I was talking to socalpa instead of his buddy Galilao (aka Mr Lao) for a second. Lao doesn’t understand that the sun emits mostly shortwave and the earth mostly longwave. What socalpa doesn’t understand is; well, the list is growing.

          • Chris Golledge

            No, that would be _your_ imagination.

          • Drewski

            Incorrect. There is no discernable trend over the past 4 decades. The past decade had the largest SPREAD of sea ice (extent) due likely to changing wind patterns but it is unclear if there was actually an increase in the overall volume of ice, HOWEVER, the past 2 southern summers has seen the LOWEST Antarctic sea ice on record.

          • socalpa

            You just made this up,didn’t you ?
            .
            Drewski socalpa • 8 hours ago
            “Incorrect. There is no discernable trend over the past 4 decade”.
            .
            .NOAA says otherwise ;

            “Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent is increasing at an average rate of 1.8 percent per decade, with substantial inter-annual variability.”.
            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201801
            .
            H/T to Andrew Worth
            .

          • MarcusR

            “Antarctica is 90% of global ice”. If You use Greenland and Antararctic icesheets as reference then you are pretty much correct.

            The second part is just misinterpretations – at best – and intentinal lies at worst:
            http://imbie.org/about-the-project/imbie/

            If it is unintentinal lies, that is Your trust sources that is not correct, then at the very least study IMBIE’s conclusions.

          • socalpa

            The IMBIE conclusions of 2012 are contradicted by NASA IceSat 2015 conclusions on Antarctica .I posted links above
            .
            DMI shows the rapid mass loss of Greenland also ended 2012 ..

          • Andrew Worth

            You’re still out of date socalpa. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

          • socalpa

            I’ll wait for NASA IceSat ll .
            .
            At this point ,the best that can be said is that after decades of study ,and billions of dollars .
            .
            Scientists don’t know if Antarctica is gaining or losing ice .

          • MarcusR

            Could you just simply read the links in order to understand the very basics for once ? (sigh….)

            First of all, Imbie (ice sheet mass balance inter-comparison exercise) is nothing more or less than a colaboration between different scientist. Imbie was formed in 2011. The latest report from the participants of imbie came in 2018
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y.epdf?author_access_token=G6bM-sEvNrsr_d3FPj8qjtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PBEKqWHTwARrIrR4OxoHFdEh63arkDNi_bORoXuP_CQqP5K8MYc-mJnNFT_QmTd-WnNN5Mp3ZqXQU1Cq6c0OT0JzMpvEGDRBCqqg_mMZ20Fg%3D%3D

            Just read it. However, don’t Cherry pick data, because regardless of what you choose to think you read the report shows that AIS lost 2 720 +/- 1 390 Gt ice between 1992 and 2017. That equals an average of 109 +/- 56 By per year.

            I don’t want to be rude here, but are you just making up things when you write ?
            http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/
            Just LOOK at the chart and tell me where it shows that the mass loss of the greenland ice sheet ended in 2012 ? The right y-axis shows the mass.

          • MarcusR

            You gave an unknown source (difficult to trace a uploaded picture from CB) for sea ice extent and before You were talking about mass balance. You do know the difference between between them ?

            Furthermore:
            “Prior to 2012, ice was lost at a steady rate of about 83.8 billion tons (76 billion metric tons) per year, contributing about 0.008 inches (0.2 millimeters) a year to sea level rise. Since 2012, the amount of ice loss per year has tripled to 241.4 billion tons (219 billion metric tonnes) – equivalent to about 0.02 inches per year (0.6 millimeters) of sea level rise.”
            https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise

          • Robert

            Also see:
            “SUMMARY
            This article has been read more than 660,000 times since it was published in May, making it Forbes’s most read article on climate in 2015. So how accurate was it?

            Not accurate at all. According to the reviewers, this article contains numerous factual errors and flawed logic. The author fails to distinguish between sea and land ice, and the Arctic and Antarctic. Taylor’s conclusion, which contradicts the observed signal of global warming on polar ice, is misleading.

            See all the scientists’ annotations in context

            If the link does not work due to the high number of ads on Forbes, install Hypothesis bookmarklet or extension in your browser and switch it on from the article page.”

            https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/forbes-james-taylor-updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

          • 9.8m/ss

            I quit following links to Forbes articles because it was just too much trouble to block all the malicious advertising scripts fighting each other. Sometimes I wonder whether they test this stuff at all, and what combination of browser, operating system, and hardware don’t go off the rails with crazy script pages like theirs. Same problems recently at Washington Times.

          • Robert

            Yeah, Climate Feedback noted same thing…

            I like how C.F. rakes a general readership article and has actual scientists walk through problems. The Forbes article was well roasted.

            Firefox seems to do a better job of rendering pages w lots of advert by leaving holes for ads to fill later. Though I think much depends on the CSS and authoring software.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I may go back to Konqueror. It was better behaved than Chromium or Firefox.

          • socalpa

            The source was Carbon Brief .
            .
            Do you think NASA Icesat 2015 knows the difference ?
            .
            Oct. 30, 2015
            NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
            https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/figure-dmdt-map.png

          • socalpa

            Antarctic ice mass increasing since 1990 per NASA
            .
            .
            https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/figure-dmdt-map.png
            Oct. 30, 2015
            NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

          • classicalmusiclover

            Still cherry-picking that study and refusing to consider that it is an outlier and refusing even to read a critique by the UK’s leading glaciologist?

            What did the author of that study say about trends in Antarctic total ice over just the next few decades?

            Have any other studies been published since 2015 that contradict your interpretation of Zwally et al 2015 or made Zwally’s statements too conservative about total ice loss?

            Or are you going to claim as you do with all your “magic bullet” studies that it refutes all other studies before and since?

          • Chris Golledge

            Question for for socalpa, why do we put salt on roads in the winter?

          • socalpa

            Question for Chris Gollledge ..
            .
            What makes the Hottentot … so ..hot ?

          • Chris Golledge

            OK, so, you have no interest in the science behind what is happening in Antarctica. You would rather spout dubious information that you think supports your view, but you really don’t care to understand if it does or not.

            If you did want to know, you might be curious about the decline in salinity around Antarctica and what role that plays in sea ice extent. You might be interested in where the fresh water is coming from that is lowering the salinity, but, of course, you are not. You might find it interesting that the lowering of the salinity has lead to some increases in sea ice despite the warming of the water. But no, that would interfere with the pleasant fiction you live in; so, you are not interested.

          • socalpa

            That’s better !
            .
            Be direct !
            .
            I am aware of the “salinity” explanation for ~four decades of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent , and ,the increasing south polar wind explanations ,several other explanations have also been proposed ..
            .
            Of course ,you were well aware that “salinity” is only one possible explanation for Antarctic sea ice increasing in direct contradiction of the GCMs .

          • classicalmusiclover

            The NSIDC provides explanations for the difference in behavior between the Arctic and Antarctic.

            Your preferred narrative–Global cooling or cyclic absence of AGW–isn’t even on their radar.

          • Chris Golledge

            It doesn’t bother you that the warming water and decreasing salinity have been measured, does it?

            Actually, there are models which predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase as these two competing effects got under way. Warming eventually wins though.

            So, if you were aware that there was warming and declining salinity, what point were you trying to make with your comment about a temporary increase in sea ice?

          • socalpa

            Almost 4 decades of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent is hardly “temporary”.
            .
            “Bother” me ?Not at all ! Nor do the several other proposed explanations for Antarctic sea ice extent increasing for decades .
            .
            My point was that CO2 is either having no ,or the opposite effects predicted for Antarctica

          • Chris Golledge

            How do you think a warming ocean contradicts the idea that increasing CO2 warms the planet?

          • socalpa

            Increasing sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere contradicts the predictions .May also contradict the claim of warming in the southern oceans
            .
            NASA reports the average yearly increases in Antarctic sea ice extent at ~7,500 sq mi year (~20,000 sq kms year) since 1979 .

          • Chris Golledge

            The ocean has been measured to be warming.

            How do you think a warming ocean contradicts the idea that increasing CO2 warms the planet?

          • socalpa

            Increasing ice cover contradicts a ” warming ” ocean. This clearly indicates a potential error in measurements .

          • HandOfGod137

            No it does not, socalpa. There are a number of reasons why a globally warmer planet can lead to local increases in ice cover and even lower temperatures (q.v. the polar vortex). The fact that you don’t understand the reasons why does not make the scvience false, it just is another indicator of your ignorance.

            https://www.livescience.com/40125-climate-change-affecting-arctic-antarctic-differently.html

          • Anaussieinsingapore

            Good link.
            Thanks.

          • socalpa

            Same old HOG ,same old excuses for observations contradicting the “theory” ..
            .
            … Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • Anaussieinsingapore

            Same old Socalpa.

            Refusing to engage on the substance for fear of being exposed as the uneducated, denier troll he is.

          • HandOfGod137

            Only it doesn’t contradict the theory, socalpa. As you would know if you understood the theoretical basis of AGW.

            Which is why you run away from any direct questioning of your understanding of the theory. Because you are ignorant.

          • 9.8m/ss

            It’s all about dominance and control. Climate trolls run away from direct questioning because answering a question means relinquishing control. As long as they’re accusing or demanding or misrepresenting, they’re in control.

          • socalpa

            Well ,readers can see I have asked you several questions on your posts with no reply .
            .
            Also , you never admitted your claim the global cooling scare was not just a tabloid or media creation .
            .
            So ,keep up the gossiping ,girl ,fun to watch !

          • 9.8m/ss

            Most of what you write deserves no response. You’re dishonest, repetitive, and dull. When I don’t reply, it’s intentional.

          • socalpa

            I know it is “intentional” .
            .
            You intend to avoid further embarrassment
            .
            “Dishonest,repetitive and dull” ? Just more impotent bile spewing .
            .
            I’ll let readers judge .

          • Mike Richardson

            Based on upvoted comments in this thread, it appears they have. How’s that going for you?

          • socalpa

            Love it !
            .
            Not here to make friends ,here to expose misinformation and frauds .

          • Mike Richardson

            And failing at both. Unless the misinformation and fraud you’re exposing is your own, in which case you’re doing great 👍!

          • socalpa

            Keep telling yourself that !
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! Hee ! Hee ! Hee !

          • Popcorn Joe

            socalpa’s insane laughter of a true babbling fool.

          • Robert

            The cs denialist argument that we can’t understand / make projections on climate because it is too chaotic seems to run counter to s.’s attempt to equate Earth’s complex currents, etc with a billiard ball’s uniformity.

          • Chris Golledge

            Lol, which leads us back to the beginning. Why do we put salt on roads in the winter?

            The fact that you are unwilling or unable to understand the chemistry of how salts affect the melting point of water does not mean thousands of measurements are all wrong.

          • HandOfGod137

            socalpa is genuinly incapable of grasping the reason why a running fridge in an insulated room will lead to a global increase in temperature whilst causing a local decrease inside the ice box. He really is that dumb.

          • socalpa

            “Dumb” ?
            .
            I am not the one who used a refrigerator as an analogue for a planet !
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • HandOfGod137

            No, socalpa, the fridge is used as a model to demonstrate how inputting energy into a system can result in local cooling whilst still resulting in a global increase in temperature.

            You genuinely don’t understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, do you? And yet you have the hubris to attempt to debate the subject.

            Dunning-Kruger, socalpa. You are too stupid to realise how stupid you are.

          • 9.8m/ss

            No climate troll ever understands an analogy or a metaphor. Even if they understand it, they’ll pretend they didn’t. Analogies simply give them an excuse to quibble about language.

          • socalpa

            Smart enough to recognize your “model” is a silly Reductio ad absurdum fallacy .
            .
            Sillier than extrapolating global climate/weather conditions in 2100 from the behaviour of a trace gas in a closed flask on a lab bench …

          • classicalmusiclover

            When was the last time you understood or accepted an analogy?

            On the other hand, the last time you accused someone of “lying” for using an analogy or a paraphrase was…several times in the past week.

          • Andrew Worth

            Ice cover (land and sea) is declining, haven’t you been paying attention?

          • socalpa

            Not lately .
            .
            NH ice cover has been increasing since 2007.
            .
            SH since 1979

          • Robert

            S.’s efforts are rather transparent when we read up a bit on the factors involved.

            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/SeaIceSouth

          • Drewski

            Perversely, the increase in sheet ice in EASTERN Antarctica is more likely the result of a warmer atmosphere. Warmer air holds more moisture. WESTERN Antarctica is the fastest warming place on earth.

          • socalpa

            NASA reported reduced snowfall across Antarctica past decades .
            .
            See ;
            .
            Mass Gains of Antarctica Greater than Losses ,NASA Icesat 2015

          • Drewski

            Do realize that your sentence 1 is contrary to sentence 2?

          • socalpa

            Take it up with NASA .

          • classicalmusiclover

            NASA’s report is fine.

            Too bad that your distortions have cornered you.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Interesting report. It seems to be an outlier. There was an excellent analysis of the challenges Zwally faced by Jonathan Bamber, the leading glaciologist in the UK, posted at realclimate.org. You know, the blog you cited when you thought it caught Marcott refutingt his own doctoral thesis.

            Also interesting what Zwally commented about existing trends in ice melt. And interesting again, how those trends have accelerated since 2015

          • 9.8m/ss

            socalpa has been following me around for years. She will never answer a question like that with anything but a deflection or an insult. The “motivated reasoning” type of climate science denier learns very early to smell a trap that leads to making it obvious that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. socalpa will raise red herrings and out-of-context quotes from random papers for as long as you keep replying, but will never engage in a discussion that would reveal her lack of understanding of the mechanisms of Earth’s climate.

          • socalpa

            “socalpa has been following me around for
            years.” ?
            .
            Correction ;
            .
            “socalpa has been embarrassing me for years” .
            .
            There , fixed .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Your delusions of adequacy are duly noted. The most idiotic trolls always claim victory when they have failed to demonstrate their case.

          • Mike Richardson

            “Delusions of adequacy…”. Love it! Quite apropos.

          • John G

            A remedy to the socalpas of the world:

            Here is some great news!!!

            Today Congress has taken up cclusa.org ‘s Carbon Fee and Dividend policy proposal, and a serious bipartisan climate bill is now in play!

            The new bill has five cosponsors – two Republicans and three Democrats. This policy will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in twenty years!

            Learn more about it, and how you can help Congress turn this into a law, here: cclusa.org/energy-innovation-act

            There is something that everyone who wants Congress to act on climate can do to help enable them to do it! Join CCL today and participate in what could become the biggest and most important grassroots effort of our generation: cclusa.org

          • Drewski

            That is actually incorrect. Major storm numbers AND intensity have increased in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans over the past 3 decades but the number of landfall events has not with the exception of a spike in recent Southern Pacific events.

          • socalpa

            NOAA report Sept 20 2018 ;
            .
            “In the Atlantic, it is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity”
            https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
            .
            http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
            .

          • classicalmusiclover

            “premature to conclude” means research is ongoing. It does not convey that there is no expectation that confirming evidence is not forthcoming.

          • Chris Golledge

            As we have been over before, there are direct observations of the increasing greenhouse effect. These observations confirm 150 years of laboratory experiments, but that isn’t surprising because heat seeking missiles exist and the same kind of technology used for them can be used to measure the greenhouse effect.

            An increasing greenhouse effect is what is causing warming.

          • socalpa

            Nonsense .
            .
            One study showed a 0.2 W/m2 per decade increase at 2 locations .
            .
            Insignificant .

          • Chris Golledge

            Why would you think a molecule of CO2 floating in the air has different characteristics from one location to another?

            The W/m2 increase that was observed fits the models that you try to discredit.

            Here are the papers citing the paper I referred to. Name the one that refutes it. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11404482823687452480&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

          • socalpa

            Only one paper proposes a detected effect ,Feldman .
            .
            Different altitudes and latitudes and CO2 concentrations affect results ..
            .
            The detected impact is insignificant at the surface . .

          • Chris Golledge

            Name the paper which refutes it.

          • socalpa

            Not necessary ..
            .
            0.2W/m2 decade is insignificant .

          • Chris Golledge

            It confirms the models you think are wrong.

          • HandOfGod137

            Tell me socalpa, what does the SI unit Watt indicate?

            This should be good.

          • classicalmusiclover

            “per NOAA.”

            You mean the report that indicates increasing confidence in a connection between increased hurricane intensity and a warming planet?

        • Popcorn Joe

          Thank you David… Perfect…. And your son is safe.

          • CB

            Here’s an even simpler demo! Pa needs to get on repeating it with no demonstrable difference in temperature stat!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

          • socalpa

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! Hee ! Hee ! Hee !
            .
            A sealed soda bottle as a model for a planet ?
            .
            Does the Earth have an impervious lid ?
            ..
            What was the proportion of CO2 in the air in the bottle”? Was it 0.04% ?
            How much did the pressure in the alka seltzer bottle cause ?
            .
            What was the change in water temp ?
            .
            Speak up !

      • Drewski

        That is like saying because cigarettes didn’t exist 500 years ago they can’t start fires.

        HISTORICALLY CO2 rose after temps which, in turn, rose temps some more. Man has turned that upside down by artificially adding more than 1 TRILLION tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere which, of course, will warm up the biosphere.

        • Derpitudinous_Neologism
        • 9.8m/ss

          And of course at critical times in the Quaternary, CO2 rose ahead of temperatures, apparently triggering a feedback process that ended the glacial period. See Shakun et al2012 (nine authors, including Shaun Marcott).

          • socalpa

            Point to one period of the Quaternary where peak CO2 prevented cooling ?
            .
            GHGs are a response to temps .
            .
            The record is clear on that and the effects of Eccentricity,Precession and Obliquity ended the last glaciation aided by the rapid and immediate rise in water vapor as the oceans warmed due to increased solar irradiance .
            .
            Learn some science .

          • HandOfGod137

            “GHGs are a response to temps .”?

            Can you explain what GHG means, socalpa? And the physical mecahnism by which they affect climate? And then explain why you disagree?

          • socalpa

            Same old HOG !
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            .
            Sure can ,but only after you say the magic word !

          • HandOfGod137

            Ok, please explain the theoretical mechanism of the GHE and which parts you disagree with. And I expect enough detail to demonstrate that you understand what you are talking about.

          • socalpa

            No. read my history ,it’s open ..
            .
            Busy with other alarmist twits right now ..wait your turn .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Your history shows no competent grasp of how the GHE works.

          • Anaussieinsingapore

            Prediction –

            Socalpa disappears from the thread and pops up somewhere else on the page later with no apparent memory of ever having had this exchange.

          • Chris Golledge

            socalpa:
            Point to one period of the Quaternary where peak CO2 prevented cooling ?

            Lol, give us something harder. Today. Today the earth is in a phase of its Milankovitch cycle in which it should be slowly cooling. And, it was cooling up until about 150 years ago. But, it is not cooling now; it is getting rapidly warmer. It is getting warmer because of the CO2 we have added to the air. Come on, this is Arrhenius 1896; try to get with the times.

          • socalpa

            The global cooling began as peak Obliquity was reached 8.5 kya . sharply past 5kys as CO2 rose .
            .
            There have been several centennial scale warming past 5kys Minoan ,Roman ,Medieval and modern .. which began at 1700CE ,200 years before any significant rise in CO2 .
            .
            What caused those prior warmings ?

          • Chris Golledge

            Giving up on that talking point until next time, huh?

          • socalpa

            Just answer the question ..

          • Chris Golledge

            Why do we put salt on roads?

          • socalpa

            Makes them taste better ?
            .
            Read this ;
            Deep Ancient Water Is Stopping The Antarctic Ocean From Warming
            .
            “With rising carbon dioxide you would expect more warming at both poles, but we only see it at one of the poles, so something else must be going on,” the study’s lead author Kyle Armour, a UW assistant professor of oceanography and of atmospheric sciences, said in a statement. “We show that it’s for really simple reasons, and ocean currents are the hero here.”,
            https://www.iflscience.com/environment/deep-ancient-water-stopping-antarctic-ocean-warming/
            .
            Cold ,not salinity ..take a note

          • classicalmusiclover

            “Makes them taste better?”

            So you don’t know answers to basic questions, yet you expect people to take your stale, inept “AGW is fraud!” ranting seriously?

            Sad.

          • socalpa

            Did you get the reply below ?
            .
            No… comment, huh ?

          • socalpa

            Still no response ? Cooling ,not salinity ….

            Deep Ancient Water Is Stopping The Antarctic Ocean From Warming
            .
            “With rising carbon dioxide you would expect more warming at both poles, but we only see it at one of the poles, so something else must be going on,” the study’s lead author Kyle Armour, a UW assistant professor of oceanography and of atmospheric sciences, said in a statement. “We show that it’s for really simple reasons, and ocean currents are the hero here.”,
            https://www.iflscience.com/environment/deep-ancient-water-stopping-antarctic-ocean-warming/
            .

          • Chris Golledge

            So, in your mind, salt has no effect on the freezing point of water. No point in continuing this debate.

          • socalpa

            Never wrote that salt has no effect on the freezing point of water . I just pointed out that cooling of the Antarctic ocean is primary cause of increasing Antarctic sea ice since 1979 .
            .
            You just want to run ? … go right ahead . You were also wrong about CO2 fertilization increasing C4 plant productivity .

          • Chris Golledge

            Except the Antarctic ocean is warming, and it is becoming less saline.

          • socalpa

            There were several suggested explanations for the increases in the Antarctic .Winds ,salinity change,Ozone hole . and of course ,the obvious ..Cooling of the Antarctic ocean by ocean currents .
            .
            “With rising carbon dioxide you would expect more warming at both poles, but we only see it at one of the poles, so something else must be going on,” the study’s lead author Kyle Armour, a UW assistant professor of oceanography and of atmospheric sciences, said in a statement. “We show that it’s for really simple reasons, and ocean currents are the hero here.”
            https://www.iflscience.com/environment/deep-ancient-water-stopping-antarctic-ocean-warming/
            .

          • Chris Golledge

            socalpa: “I just pointed out that cooling of the Antarctic ocean is primary cause of increasing Antarctic sea ice since 1979 .”

            One more time, the southern ocean is warming.

            “Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice”

            Jiping Liu and Judith A. Curry

            BTW:
            “The very limited data available also shows no increase in C4 crop yield in FACE studies (Long et al. 2006). ”

            https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

            “Including the CO2 fertilization effects with climatic change scenarios had little effect on the predicted yields of maize because it is a C4 plant.”

            http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e06.htm

            You want to continue to live in delusion, go right ahead.

          • socalpa

            Your Curry et al paper was from 2010, the study my link referred to was from 2016 and showed the Antarctic ocean was NOT warming .

            I suggest you read your studies on C4 plants again .you missed ;
            .
            “Summary of comprehensive reviews
            Several recent symposia proceedings and reviews leave little doubt that crop plants can respond well to elevated CO2 (Rozema et al., 1993; Woodwell and Mackenzie, 1995; Wittwer, 1995). Poorter (1993) compiled information from 156 plant species and found that doubling CO2 provided an average growth increase of 37%. The distribution of weight ratios of CO2-enriched and control plants is shown in Figure 4.6. Poorter’s compilation showed a 41 and a 22% increase for C3 and C4 plants, respectively. As a group, C3 herbaceous crop plants responded more than wild herbaceous species (58 vs. 35%). Furthermore, the fast growing wild species responded more strongly than slow-growing wild species (54 vs. 23%).

          • Chris Golledge

            Fine, from 2018:

            “The Southern Ocean has, on average, warmed and freshened over the past several decades.”

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327846239_Recent_Southern_Ocean_warming_and_freshening_driven_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_and_ozone_depletion

            Let us know when you can show an attribution study showing higher yields of corn resulting from more CO2.

          • socalpa

            ” Southern Ocean” ?
            .
            The data I linked described the Antarctic Ocean .. and it is not warming . Also from your link ;
            .
            “The Southern Ocean has experienced a complex set of changes over the past several decades. There have been strong, region-ally opposing trends in sea-ice since satellite observations began in 1979, with a small but significant overall increase in sea-ice cover and an associated near-surface cooling”
            .
            You do know corn is maize ,right ?
            .
            “The improvement in biomass ranged from 32% to 47%, grain yield 46% to 127% with 550ppm CO2 as compared with ambient control. The improvement in grain yield was due to increased grain number (25-72%) as well as improved test weight (8-60%). The overall response of less efficient maize genotype Harsha with elevated CO2 concentration was found to be significantly high especially the grain yield and its components. Elevated CO2 also improved the maize HI (11% to 68%) indicating that influence of elevated CO2 was there on partitioning of biomass of this C4 crop.”
            https://medcraveonline.com/APAR/APAR-02-00042
            .

          • Chris Golledge

            “The Southern Ocean, also known as the Antarctic Ocean or the Austral Ocean, comprises the southernmost waters of the World Ocean, southernmost waters of the World Ocean, generally taken to be south of 60° S latitude and encircling Antarctica.”

            Irritatingly, your failure to understand that the southern ocean not warming as much as expected because the warming water is being driven northward, which is what your link says, does not mean what you think it means.

          • socalpa

            The link explains the answer to Antarctic sea ice growth past four decades is cold waters from ocean currents .
            .
            Colder waters mean more ice .

          • Chris Golledge

            From your own link: “…irritatingly, this discrepancy is often cited by climate change deniers as proof that climatologists don’t know what they’re talking about.”

          • socalpa

            Of course ,this “discrepancy” is used by skeptics to prove climatologists don’t know what they are talking about … because they obviously don’t know what is causing the largest body of ice on Earth ( Antarctica is ~90% of global ice) to increase !

          • Chris Golledge

            Obviously, they know a lot more than you, including the fact that the southern ocean incircles Antarctica.

          • socalpa

            They also know the Antarctic ocean surrounding Antarctica is not warming ,it has cooled producing increasing Antarctic sea ice for 4 decades .

          • Chris Golledge

            Only in your mind. FACE studies do not show a significant effect on C4 plants.

          • socalpa

            You were given papers that show this a lie .Want them again ?

          • socalpa

            Shakun et al 2012 ?
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            .
            Got anything else that claims CO2 rise precedes temp rise ?

    • CB

      “If climate change is a big scam, how is it that independent studies done by scientists around the globe have all drawn the same conclusions?”

      It’s weird, right? If all research outfits across the globe are conspiring with one another, there should be meeting notes, draft copies of cover stories, and rogue scientists who can testify to how the scam is being put into action…

      …but there’s none of that. When the Climate Denier cannot answer why, the conversation needs to turn to mental health.

      It’s not normal for someone to believe in conspiracies so preposterous. This is abnormal psychology.

      http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/long-term-warming-trend-continued-in-2017-nasa-noaa
      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/2017-temperature-announcement
      ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

  • stargene

    1) What Trump in his wisdom and others in Congress are hoping is
    that we will see local (eg: Eastern seaboard) temperature-plunges as
    proof that global warming is falsified. When the fact is that the entire
    atmosphere/ocean is incorporating the rapidly increasing heat budget
    from CO2 in a typically stochastic manner…In any randomly sampled
    region, over a time interval, there will be effectively stochastic excursions
    away from the local climate averages in temp., wind, moisture etc., and
    such changes will be both up and down, not to mention similar changes
    in wind and ocean current direction. In other words, similar to the
    stochastic changes in, eg: energy levels in a huge molecule, when it is
    zapped with energy (photons), but in a massively more complicated
    way, the vastly more complex and non-linear Planet Earth will undergo
    what will appear to be locally random shifts, in its ongoing process of
    adjusting to the increasing CO2 heat influx. It’s a whole new, brutal
    ball game.

    2) A modest query for devoted climate-change-deniers…What, as a
    principled practitioner of the scientific method, might you need to
    see as (at least very MINIMAL) evidence, which would allow you to
    wonder if perhaps your thesis might be wrong, or at least require
    revision?

    3) I have a sense of foreboding that, given such non-linearity and
    potentially catastrophic quantitative and qualitative changes..
    (Catastrophic in the sense of Rene Thom and others) in a matter
    of probably five years, no more, we will all be literally hit in the face
    by the hard fact of climate change. Not as something happening
    in another land, or upstate, but in our immediate and inescapable
    environments. Can we then count on our genius leaders to say
    “Well, jeepers and golly!..we were SO wrong. How about that?!…
    All those scientists with their agendas should have been clearer.
    Let’s all pray!!”

  • birdfish

    YES IT IS VERY COLD HERE IN CHICAGO!
    AND WE HAD A MIGHTY BIG SNOW!

    LIKE THE ARTICLE SAYS THIS IS JUST THE WEATHER!!!!!
    GLOBAL WARMING IS INDEED A TRUE FACT AND A GLOBAL EMERGENCY!!!!!!
    TRUMP HAS HIS HEAD IN THE SAND JUST LIKE THE OSTRIGES!!!!!!!

    WE MUST ACT AT ONCE AS THIS IS A PLANETARY EMERGENCY!
    WE MUST:
    BAN COAL, OIL, GAS AND NUCLEAR (TO DANGEROUS!)
    BAN CARS:PUBLIC TRANSPORT FOR ALL
    SAFE WIND (SAFE FOR BIRDS) AND SOLAR (SAFE FOR CREATURES) ONLY!
    NO MORE AIRPLANE TRAVEL THAT IS NOT ESSENTIAL

    WE MUST DO ALL OF THESE THINGS RIGHT NOW!
    YES THE PEOPLE IN THE GROUP EXTINCTION REBELLION ARE CORRECT!!!!!!
    WE MUST NOT WAIT!!!!!!

    WE MUST PUT THAT TAX ON THE RICH FOLKS AND THE OIL COMPANIES TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • 9.8m/ss

      Your caps lock key is stuck.

      • birdfish

        I HAVE WEAK EYES AND I CAN WRITE BIG SIZED IF I WANT
        IT IS NOT SHOUTINGS
        IT IS MY RIGHTS

        • socalpa

          CAN YOU READ THIS ?
          .
          THE GLOBAL WARMING DANGER IS A FRAUD ..
          .
          DON”T PANIC !!!!!!

          • classicalmusiclover

            “the global warming danger is a fraud.”

            Are you claiming that the National Climate Assessment is fraudulent?

            How so?
            Please be specific. Cite specific claims from the report that you consider to be fraudulent and explain why.

          • birdfish

            WRONG!

            IT IS A TRUE FACT.
            YES AL GORE WAS 1000% CORRECT.
            WE MUST BAN THOSE GASSES AND THAT RIGHT QUICK!!!!!!

  • socalpa

    I wonder if any other readers notice how there are no articles like the above when papers and TV headline claims individual storms ,heatwaves ,wildfires are attributed to climate change ?
    .
    Obviously ,the climate movement is quite sensitive on the subject of colder winters ,or any mention of this finding ;

    Article | Published: 10 October 2016

    Twenty-five winters of unexpected Eurasian cooling unlikely due to Arctic sea-ice loss
    Kelly E. McCusker, John C. Fyfe & Michael Sigmond
    ..
    And ;
    Increasing ( not gone by 2013/14/15/16/17/1/8 ) Arctic sea ice at Sept Minima since 2007 per NSIDC ?

    .Antarctic ( 90% of global ice) sea ice increases since 1979 . per NASA ?
    .
    How about NOAA finding no “detectable” impact of global warming and ghgs on Atlantic hurricanes or glbal tropical cyclone activity in 150 years of data as of Sept 20 ,2018 ?
    .
    See any mainstream media coverage for those ?
    .
    Trump had some fun trolling alarmists and exposed their hypocrisy !
    .
    Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

    • Drewski

      You can’t predict the result of each roullette roll either, but you can bet the casino will make money at the end of the year ESPECIALLY when they keep adding green “00”s to the wheel.

      • socalpa

        Yes ,the “casino” (UN) wants to add more “green 00s” .
        .
        The Green Climate Fund requires a rise from 100 Billion yearly by 2020 ,to One Trillion yearly after 2025 .. from developed countries .
        .
        Trillions for century ahead climate/weather forecasts ?
        .
        No .

        • classicalmusiclover

          Still conflating climate and weather?

          Still claiming that scientific theories aren’t factual?

          Still denying the greenhouse effect?

          Sad

          • socalpa

            Still stalking my posts ?
            .
            Climate IS weather with a low pass filter applied ,and there is no definition of Theory that describes it as “factual” .
            .
            Run along now ,ignoramus ,tired of humiliating you .

          • classicalmusiclover

            1. I was commenting on this thread at least 2 days before you showed up.
            2. That “low pass filter” creates the difference between making “weather predictions” and probability-based projections of climate. You might have equally said “global IS local with a low pass filter applied”
            3. Every definition of SCIENTIFIC theory describes it as a framework for or explanation of facts; ergo, it is factual.

            “tired of humiliating you”

            Sorry , lying clown, you are the one humiliating yourself.

      • 9.8m/ss

        Here’s how that Fyfe paper begins. “Surface air temperature over central Eurasia decreased over the past twenty-five winters at a time of strongly increasing anthropogenic forcing and Arctic amplification.” The authors were trying to explain that particular long regional cooling event, and decided it wasn’t due to sea ice loss, as had been suggested elsewhere. Typical climate paper, takes no position on most of the open questions in climate, and begins by accepting the general consensus on the global and the Arctic situations. For some reason our punctuation-challenged heckler here seems to imagine Fyfe et al 2016 discredits all climate related attributions everywhere.

        • socalpa

          What a supercilious fraud you are ,9.7 .. The point was that the cooling winters for 25 years received zero press .
          ..
          Why don’t you look at the figures and admit the cooling is not just in “central Eurasia”?

          • classicalmusiclover

            Why don’t you admit that you are a compulsive liar and just go away?

          • socalpa

            Flagged .
            .
            Targeted harassment .

          • classicalmusiclover

            I’m not the one who is lobbing juvenile insults at other posters and lying about scientific reports and about scientists

          • socalpa

            Flagged .. for whining .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Socalpa tries to get himself banned from yet another mainstream site. Will conservative and anti-science sites be the last to tolerate him?

          • socalpa

            More … whining .

          • rockysquirrel

            Snowflake.

          • socalpa

            Stalker . Impersonator .. fraud .

  • John G

    Here is some great news!!!

    Today Congress has taken up cclusa.org ‘s Carbon Fee and Dividend policy proposal, and a serious bipartisan climate bill is now in play!

    The new bill has five cosponsors – two Republicans and three Democrats. This policy will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in twenty years!

    Learn more about it, and how you can help Congress turn this into a law, here: cclusa.org/energy-innovation-act

    There is something that everyone who wants Congress to act on climate can do to help enable them to do it! Join CCL today and participate in what could become the biggest and most important grassroots effort of our generation: cclusa.org

  • classicalmusiclover

    I have noticed that one of the more persistent science-denial trolls, socalpa, has descended into mockery, name-calling, other puerile insults, and shameless distortions of science. [see below] He is particularly “triggered” against people posting in support of mainstream science and in general agreement with the above article.

    He does this every chance he gets.His aim is clearly to derail the discussion and make it about him.

    Discover should consider banning him. He contributes nothing to the discussion.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+