Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Claim: Solar, AMO, & PDO cycles combined reproduce the global climate of the past

We find that 2 cycles of periods 200+ years and ~65 years determine practically completely the climate changes. All other cycles are weaker and non-periodic processes play no significant role. ( See Fig. 4 )


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/...ce-the-global-climate-of-the-past/#more-99397

 

Maybe the Romans had mass transit?

 

2013... one of the biggest temperature drops in history.



Before NASA and NOAA start tampering with the data, 2013 is one of the ten coldest years in the US since 1895, and has had the largest year over year decline on record.

NOAA of course won’t talk about this, and will massively tamper with the data before releasing it.

The graph below is the monthly average of all daily high and low temperatures at all NOAA USHCN stations.

ScreenHunter_437 Dec. 19 17.16 ScreenHunter_439 Dec. 19 17.20

Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/

December isn’t complete yet, but is running far below normal and forecast to get colder.

MonthTDeptUS

MonthTDeptUS.png (688×531)

NOAA will reporting something very different, because they subtract up to 1.7 degrees from older temperatures. Essentially all reported US warming is due to a hockey stick of temperature adjustments, which makes the past appear to be much colder than what the thermometers measured at the time. (They of course do not mention this in their press releases.)

ScreenHunter_461 Dec. 20 10.44





http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...history-with-the-largest-drop-in-temperature/

 

"Oil companies no longer deny what is happening; they are exploring in the arctic, where snow-covered ice, until recently, used to be. As Julian Cox headlined on 2 June 2013, "Exxon Mobil CEO: We're Going In, Can't Pull Up, Brace For Impact." Cox's ultimate sources in that news story were the AP and the Houston Chronicle. Exxon's CEO Rex Tillerson was reported in those two news stories to have told his stockholders, on May 29th, when challenged about global warming:

"What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers? ... We do not see a viable pathway with any known technology today to achieve the 350 [parts per billion atmospheric carbon] outcome that is not devastating to economies, societies and peoples' health and well-being around the world. ... You cannot get there. ... So the real question is: Do you want to keep arguing about that and pursuing something that cannot be achieved at costs that will be detrimental? Or do you want to talk about what's the path we should be on and how do we mitigate and prepare for the consequences as they present themselves?"

"In other words: he said that we'd all better just eat, drink, and be merry now, because hell is coming soon, no matter what we do. He is saying: We've held off and delayed for so long, that things are now hopeless, and that the only thing to do is thus party while we can, if we care at all about "peoples' health and well-being around the world." And his stockholders backed him, 3 to 1, in their vote on that. But they are the ones who are actually partying. "Exxon Mobil is coming off its second-biggest profit ever, having earned $44.9 billion in 2012."

Global Warming Is Rapidly Accelerating
Posted: 12/31/2013 1:31 pm

"The many scientific links in this comprehensive article about global warming, by Dahr Jamail, on December 22nd, make clear that climate change is accelerating, and that our planet will probably be unlivable by 2100, if not by 2050.

"The best explanation of the process that's occurring is in this link within one of those scientific links: "The collapse of Arctic sea ice will change the reflective properties of the Arctic from 90% reflection of the sun's rays to a 90% absorber of the sun's energy. A vicious cycle of Arctic warming started between twenty and thirty years ago, when currents from the Atlantic and Pacific, warmed by greenhouse gases, carried their extra heat into the Arctic to initiate an accelerating decline in sea ice and increase in Arctic temperatures."

"The global warming that was previously predicted to occur within 2,000 years, is now predicted to occur within the lifetimes of some people who are alive even today.

"This article by Jamail includes the following instructive timeline (with links provided there, to each of its scientific sources):"

More>>

 

signs of the coming ice age?

ships can get through southern ice is the summertime and now this?



Snowy owl invasion of US extends to Florida


Robert Boehringer uses the head of his daughter Hannah, 10, as a tripod to take photos through his binoculars of a snowy owl at Little Talbot Island State Park Thursday afternoon, Jan. 2, 2014 in Jacksonville, Fla.One of the Arctic birds has been spotted since last week in Little Talbot Island State Park. It's only the third-ever sighting of a snowy owl confirmed in Florida. The Florida Times-Union, Will Dickey / AP Photo

Fullsize previous | nextImage 1 of 5

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A snowy owl has made a rare appearance in Florida.

The Florida Times-Union reports that one of the Arctic birds has been spotted since last week in Little Talbot Island State Park. It's only the third-ever sighting of a snowy owl confirmed in Florida.

Park services specialist Peter Maholland says bird watchers have been flocking to northeast Florida to catch a glimpse of the white bird.

Snowy Owls are familiar to children as Harry Potter's pet. They are the largest North American owl, and they're typically found in Canada and the Arctic.

Experts say snowy owls fly farther south when their population spikes or their food source becomes scarce. An invasion of snowy owls has been reported this winter across the Midwest, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/03/3850232/snowy-owl-invasion-of-us-extends.html#storylink=cpy

 

intersting study which showed the difficulty of gathering of temperature records from govts...

and

which seems to show...
that areas unaffected by warming oceans show no temperature change.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/the-original-temperatures-project/#more-100605

 

......and CO2 is a greenhouse gas

.......and we have raised levels of it by 40%

 

And it's still only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

 

Could this study on honesty and government service explain the EPA climateer fraud and ‘Climategate’ ?
Posted on January 8, 2014 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...-climateer-fraud-and-climategate/#more-100768

A new paper published the National Bureau of Economic Research has given an insight that may explain some of the personal decisions that led to the recent EPA corruption fiasco Massive fraud at the EPA from agency’s top paid climate official (where a top climate specialist defrauded the taxpayers out of millions of dollars and made wild claims about being on CIA missions) and to Climategate, since I see some significant parallels between the two and this study. Links to a story about the paper and the paper itself follow.

As readers know, in a nutshell, Climategate was about the stonewalling of FOIA requests so that independent researchers (such as McIntyre) could not replicate the scientific work. That access for data to allow scientific replication was unreasonably blocked, and someone who was in a position to see what was going on behind the scenes decided that they would do something about it. Virtually every person involved in Climategate emails had some connection to government, either being directly employed by a government agency, or a government funded university.

On 17 November 2009 a large number of emails, together with other documents and pieces of code, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were posted on a Russian web server, and announced anonymously at the Air Vent blog, Climate Audit, Real Climate, The Blackboard, and WUWT with the comment:

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

Of note, was the immediate deletion of the comment at Real Climate, and then a campaign by Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS to convince Lucia at the Blackboard that the release wasn’t to be trusted.

In that release from the “FOIA” leaker, we saw revelations like “Mike’s Nature Trick“. Here is a list of some of the emails and their content.From this Google document page: http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/climategate

===========================================================

Massaging the presentation of data:

942777075.txt the infamous “trick” to “hide the decline” in tree-ring data
939154709.txt “They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960″ (also referring to tree-ring data)
1225026120.txt “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down” (referring to recent temperature data).
1254108338.txt “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean” … “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip”. This relates to the rapid warming before 1940 followed by cooling after 1940, which the ‘scientists’ would like to remove because it does not fit with their theory.
Attempting to get papers with a sceptical view on global warming rejected from journals, and not referred to in the IPCC reports:

1089318616.txt “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
1054756929.txt Ed Cook discusses with Keith Briffa how to get a paper rejected even though the mathematics is correct
1054748574.txt where Briffa says “I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting”
1080742144.txt where Jones “went to town” rejecting two papers that had criticised his work.
Refusing to provide data and supporting information when requested, and deleting emails (all quotes from Phil Jones):

1107454306.txt “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”.
1109021312.txt “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”
1182255717.txt “Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.”
1211924186.txt Tim Osborn informs Caspar Amman that an FOI request has been received from David Holland about papers included in the IPCC report (May 27 2008) ….
1212009215.txt Jones suggests what “Keith could say” and “Keith should say” (May 28 2008) …
1212073451.txt “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? … We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” (May 29 2008). [Under paragraph 77 of the FOI Act it is an offence to delete information subject to an FOI request].
1228330629.txt “When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise” … “About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.”
=============================================================

This LA Times story from November 2013 suggests that there may be a connection between dishonesty and government employment.

Cheating students more likely to want government jobs, study finds

November 18, 2013|By Emily Alpert Reyes

College students who cheated on a simple task were more likely to want government jobs, researchers from Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania found in a study of hundreds of students in Bangalore, India.

Their results, recently released as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, suggest that one of the contributing forces behind government corruption could be who gets into government work in the first place.

 

increasing greenhouse gases may reflect more energy back into space.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/upwelling-solar-upwelling-longwave/


Upwelling Solar, Upwelling Longwave
Posted on January 7, 2014 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The CERES dataset contains three main parts—downwelling solar radiation, upwelling solar radiation, and upwelling longwave radiation. With the exception of leap-year variations, the solar dataset does not change from year to year over a few decades at least. It is fixed by unchanging physical laws.

The upwelling longwave radiation and the reflected solar radiation, on the other hand, are under no such restrictions. This gives us the opportunity to see distinguish between my hypothesis that the system responds in such a way as to counteract changes in forcing, and the consensus view that the system responds to changes in forcing by changing the surface temperature.

In the consensus view, the system works as follows. At equilibrium, what is emitted by the earth has to equal the incoming radiation, 340 watts per metre squared (W/m2). Of this, about 100 W/m2 are reflected solar shortwave radiation (which I’ll call “SW” for “shortwave”), and 240 W/m2 of which are upwelling longwave (thermal infrared) radiation (which I’ll call “LW”).

In the consensus view, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave (LW) radiation decreases because more LW is absorbed. In response, the entire system warms until the longwave gets back to its previous value, 240 W/m2. That plus the 100 W/m2 of reflected solar shortwave radiation (SR) equals the incoming 340 W/m2, and so the equilibrium is restored.

In my view, on the other hand, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave radiation decreases because more is absorbed. In response, the albedo increases proportionately, increases the SR. This counteracts the decrease in upwelling LW, and leaves the surface temperature unchanged. This is a great simplification, but sufficient for this discussion. Figure 1 shows the difference between the two views, my view and the consensus view.

equilibrium consensus and my view sw and lwFigure 1. What happens as a result of increased absorption of longwave (LW) by greenhouse gases (GHGs), in the consensus view and in my view. “SW” is reflected solar (shortwave) radiation, LW is upwelling longwave radiation, and “surface” is upwelling longwave radiation from the surface.

So what should we expect to find if we look at a map of the correlation (gridcell by gridcell) between SW and LW? Will the correlation be generally negative, as my view suggests, a situation where when the SW goes up the LW goes down?

Or will it be positive, both going either up or down at the same time? Or will the two be somewhat disconnected from each other, with low correlation in either direction, as is suggested by the consensus view? I ask because I was surprised by what I found.

Continue reading →