Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

All the indicators show that global warming is still happening.

Climate Myth...

It's cooling

"In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable." (source: Henrik Svensmark)

When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. The key indicators of global warming shown below are all moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.

Indicators of a warming world based on surface, satellite, and ocean temperature measurements, satellite measurements of energy imbalance (the difference between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere), and of receding glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets, rising sea level, and shifting seasons.

The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the light of a recent weather event - a big snowfall or drought breaking rain. Global warming is entirely compatible with these events; after all they are just weather. For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming.

Basic rebuttal written by LarryM

Update July 2015:

Here is the relevant lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Last updated on 5 July 2015 by . View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Related Arguments

Further reading


On 21 January 2012, 'the skeptic argument' was revised to correct a minor formatting error.


Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Comments 251 to 300 out of 315:

  1. According to the NCDC, last winter was the 62 coolest winter (December 2103-Feb 2014) in Vermont.  On the other hand, it was the warmest ever recorded winter in California.  Jetfuel needs to check his "facts" before he posts.  They are currently having large wildfires in California since it was so warm in the winter.  Globally (since it is called Global Warming) it was the eighth warmest Dec-Feb ever.

    I will leave the other"facts" in place as the moderator asks.

  2. <Snip>


    [PS] You have already been warned on sloganeering and cherry-picking (2% area of earth, short time intervals). If you can explain why such cherry-picking has any significance then your post will stand. The issue has been explained to you in earlier responses which it appears you did not bother to read.

  3. Jetfuel, I believe you've failed to respond to a wide range of criticisms of your posts.  Now you use 1.6% of the Earth's surface to represent the whole.  Brilliant, I must say.  Such analytical saavy will get you far in major journals such as Energy & Environment.  Snort.  Bye bye, jetfuel.  This was likely the straw--or cherry--that broke the dromedary.

  4. Jetfuel.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  5. This posts suggests that surface temps are not increasing because the energy is going to another part of earth's energy budget (the ocean). I've also seen the Kaufman, et al. arguments ( that the 'pause' in warming is due to less energy entering our system due to a variety of reasons. I'm trying to reconcile the two competing ideas: hidden warming (ocean) versus no actual warming. Can anyone shed light on the current thinking regarding these ideas?

  6. Alterna @255:

    1)  The Earth continues to warm as measured by Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST).  The so called "hiatus" refers to the fact that taken over short time periods, the trend in GMST is not distinguishable from zero.  However, it is also not distinguishable from the IPCC projected rate of warming.  If the former fact means there is no warming, then by parity of reasoning the later fact must mean we are warming at the IPCC predicted rate. That reasoning leads directly to a contradiction.  The correct interpretation is that by our best estimate we are warming at a slightly reduced rate relative to prior periods, but that because of the short term nature of the trend, we are unsure how much the trend has reduced or increased.

    2)  The unstated assumption of the talk about a "hiatus" is that 1998 (the pivotal year for claims of a hiatus) was a year with a normal, or near normal temperature.  If it was not so, determining trends from 1998, or near to but including 1998 is equivalent to a survey claiming the land slopes down as you go inland because most of the land is below the pinacle of a large hill on the coastline.   In fact, 1998 was far above the temperature trend of the time, and from 1998 it is not until 2010 that temperatures fall persistently the 1970-1998 trend, as illustrated below:

    Of the years falling below the trend after 1998, all have a low MEI score, indicateing La Nina like (or at best neutral) conditions.  Using the SOI they are even more strongly La Nina like years.  Given this the most natural interpretation is that the ongoing trend since 1970 has continued unabated, and that the "hiatus" is purely an artifact of a transition from a record breaking (or near record breaking, depending on index used) El Nino to a near record breaking (or record breaking, again depending on index) La Nina in 2011/12.  If anything, the surprise is why 2011/12 were so close to the continuation of the trend.

    The ENSO explanation of the pause is very simply confirmed by seperately taking the trends of El Nino, Neutral, and La Nina years:

    The near exact agreement of the trends show that it is the primary explanation of the phenomenon.

    It is also essentially the same explanation as the idea that the heat has been moved into the ocean (that being the effect of a shift from El Nino to La Nina).

    3)  There is also good, and independent indications of reduced forcings over the later half of the purported "hiatus".  There is no reason why these two explanations should be contradictory.  For all we know, temperature trends may have accelerated without a reduction in forcing, and the ENSO impact.  Taking the two sets of information at face value, it would have.  We therefore need to judge the evidence of the reduced forcings on its merits and not assume that it somehow renders the ENSO explanation invalid.

  7. Simpleton here with a dumb question. This has probably been answered multiple times but I'm not finding any reference in the main posts. There are 6 long pages of comments that I haven’t read through.

    Much has been made of the hiatus in warming. It seems like it is (at present) small compared to the cooling in the 40’s to 70’s. This seems apparent from your graph on the PDO post. I read that the cooling seen from the 40’s to the 70’s was due to aerosols from industrial pollution and volcanism (see New Scientist) and that the temperature began ramping up after clean air legislation in England and Europe followed by similar legislation in the US.

    Is there any new data on aerosols from Asia and India and how those may be affecting global average temperatures? Is the aerosol affect still thought to be the main culprit in the post WWII dip? Didn’t I also read that the aerosols were thought to be a factor in shifting rainfall patterns that created multi-year drought conditions in North Africa? Are people looking at how aerosol pollution from Asia may be affecting the drought in the American Southwest?

  8. I am a long time lurker and occasional commenter here and I need some help. I received a link to this article from my Dad yesterday and it is so full of nonsense I dont even know where to start debunking it.  I can find no outside information on the 'scientist' John L Casey.  All claims about his expertise and history seem to come from the bio on his website.

    The Dark Winter linked to reads like an elaborate scam to get money from the gullible and paranoid.  It is full or random unsourced claims, about Al Gore, Global Cooling, and scams.  Please help me out guys and gals.  If there is a more appropriate "Help Me" page 

  9. pbjamm - Given comments from long-known denier organizations like JunkScience:

    "We think he’s a scam artist trying to get his hands in your pockets but couldn’t see how he expected to do so — now he’s told us. He’s looking for ‘meaningful funding’ and he thinks the skeptic community might be eager enough to slay the catastrophic warming myth to fork over some cash"

    or blogger Tom Nelson, who thinks that SSRC is a scam, and longtime WUWT commenter Leif Svalgaard:

    "The ‘Space and Science Research Center’ and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of ‘experts’. I would not place any value on the ramblings ofthe press release."

    SSRC is not a source to be relied on. Even known loons think so. 

  10. Thanks KR.  I worked up a response and included Leif Svalgaard's comment.  It is kind of long winded but there is so much wrong information in the article that it is hard to cover it all.  If anyone is interested I can post it here.

  11. pbjamm - He's clearly a scam artist, there's probably little need to waste time on him, or to give him publicity. 

  12. Agreed but I am compelled to respond to my Dad in what I am sure will be a vain attempt to inform him.  

  13. pbjamm, if you follow the link to find out how to obtain your free copy of his book (it turns out you can obtain the free book by sending him $5 - and I doubt very much you will be sent the hard cover version shown, and suspect you will be emailed a PDF), you find a list of his basic arguments.  They are in order:

    1)  Climate Science is a conspiracy for financial gain (maintained without evidence, emphasizes the amount at stake by confusing "border protection" with customs and immigration control.  Perhaps that is an American usage, but I would have taken border protection to include the entire activities of the Homeland security department plus the military, on which basis his claims are egregiously false.)

    2)  It has not warmed.  Based solely on RSS over the last 39 years.  He makes the outrageously false claim that temperatures have only been measured for the last 39 years (news, of course, to the Hadley Center, University of East Anglia, NOAA, GISS, BEST, and the maintainers of the Japanese index, whose name currently escapes me).

    3)  Global warming has paused (based solely on RSS temperatures which he incorrectly also attributes to NOAA and NASA on the basis that those agencies use the data.  If he is a scientist, he knows that his attribution on that basis is fraudulent.

    4)  The oceans are getting colder, for which his evidence is:

    5)  Arctic sea ice extent is growing (based on the fact that 2013 had more ice than 2012)

    6)  There is no consensus (based the fact that Al Gore emits CO2, and on the fraudulent claim that the Cook et al consensus is actually 1%)

    7) Climate has changed before; based on the unsupported claim that climate change was a big factor in Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia (which is possible, but news to me), and the LIA.

    He then goes into his own version of it's the Sun,  based on mathturbation which is presumably in the book so I cannot comment further, except to note that it is not original (not even in 2007) and is definitively refuted by direct measurements of solar forcing.

    Finally he finishes with the obligatory UEA email hack out of context quotations.

    All these have been copiously discussed on SkS before, and most feature in the climate myths.  If you want a more detailed rebutal, you will need to spend $5 US for your "free" book that even the pseudoskeptics consider a scam, but I am not going to waste my money (which is better spent on one seventh of a scientific paper).

  14. A sceptic does not need to prove that some different or opposite phenomenon is taking place. Sceptics check specific theories. To the extent that observed phenomena matter, it is in whether or not the theory's *predictions* have come true.

    In the case of climate change theory, the predictions are necessarily over a substantial period of time - at least 10 years in virtually all cases. Why? Because the climatologists making the predictions claimed (and still do) that they are working with "climate" as opposed to "weather", and that the former must necessarily relate to averages taken over time (always at least 10 years' smoothing of annual weather data).

    Therefore, for enough new data to "arrive" to determine the climate (without needing to bring in annual data from years that have already happened) we have to wait that long. Thus the most recent predictions we can actually test are at least 10 years old. Or, to put it another way, the "state of the art" of *tested* climate change theory is at least 10 years old (longer for particular varaints of the theory that demand longer averaging times). Everything spoken and written since then is still just *conjecture*.

    The theories that are old enough to test speak of "global average surface air temperatures". Be careful about revisionism here - we sometimes see attempts to update the theory to something that could maybe match current measurements, but every time you check them you will find the originals are about surface air temps.

    The so-called "pause" may or may not amount to slight cooling or slight warming. But the predicitons as made in 2005 and earlier, all predicted very *large* rises by now. They really have been refuted by the pause.

    Attempts to "explain" the pause are all examples of more recent work - to be valid they must produce their own predictions, and we must wait and see (long enough for a true "climate" average to be determined that doesn't depend on annual data already known). Maybe they will succeed (though to even get published they need to be somewhat catastrophic in nature, so unless a catastrophe actually occurs, my prediction is probably not).

    Certainly, deep ocean heating is nothing to do with what was predicted. Does deep ocean heating imply an equivalent conclusion? Well, even if it did, that does not make for a successful prediction. If I predict apples will grow but instead get oranges, I am not a successful fruit predictor!

    Does deep ocean heating mean we should immediately accept a new kind of global warming based only on current data? In other words, is the fact alone support of a new alarmism without the need for successful predictions? Of course not. Like the surface temperature warming before the pause, deep ocean heating has other explainations including random natural fluctuations. 

    Oh and finally, why not check how they know the deep oceans are heating. I think you'll find they don't. It hasn't been measured and is only an extrapolation based on an "overall energy budget" theory which itself has no experimental confirmation as well as being heavily reductionist in nature.

  15. A.R.S.Says @ #264 :

    Alas, you have got your thoughts into a terrible tangle.

    Please read through the educational material on this website, which will help you gain a scientific understanding of the real situation.

    (btw, I must commend your sense of humour in choice of your nom-de-plume ~ the abbreviation is priceless.)


    [JH] Inflamatory & off-topic.

  16. A Real Skeptic would note that if you wish to test a theory, you test whether the data falls within the uncertainty range of the prediction.  If you did so for the last 18 years to date (Sept 2015) on GISTEMP, you would find a trend of 0.118 +/- 0.104 C/decade, giving an upper bound (0.222 C/decade) that includes the model predictions but a lower bound that excludes the possibility of a zero or negative trend.  Ergo the model predictions have not been falsified.  

    It might be claimed that the HadCRUT4 trend (0.079 +/- 0.105 C/decade) falsifies the model predictions, but a Real Skeptic would realize that:

    1)  HadCRUT4 is not a global index, as it excludes the Arctic (plus parts of Africa and Asia), so the correct comparison would be with a HadCRUT4 mask of the model predictions (which I do not have available);

    2)  That cherry picking a year in which annual variations have lifted the temperatures well above the trend variation at the time as the start point (such as 1997 or 1998) distorts the statistics, so that the normal statistical test will generate a excess of false negatives relative to the standard case; and

    3) That even apart from such distortions, 5% of "failed" statistical results will be false negatives (of which 2.5% will be false negatives showing to low a trend).

    Therefore a Real Skeptic would always apply their test across a range of years and compare the resulting PDF to the prediction, rather than just using a small number of cherry picked starting points.  Doing this clearly shows the predictions to have not yet been falsified.

    Finally, a Real Skeptic would know that the shortest period referred to as a climate normal is 20 years, and the typical period is 30 years.  Therefore they would never use less than a 20 year period to test a climate prediction.  They would recognize the attempts to use 15 year periods (three years ago) growing up to 18 years (now, so as to carefully keep 1998 as the start year) represent carefull propaganda rather than actual analysis of the climate trend against the climate prediction.

  17. ARRS

    You don't define what you mean by deep ocean. 

    If you mean the true Abyssal ocean, below 2000 meters then there has seemingly been little warming.

    If you mean the ocean down to 2000 meters there has been warming And it is not an extrapolation of anything. It is a measurement using the ARGO system.

  18. In April in the NE,USA there was a 'white easter', during the month there was 16 feet of snow in PA, even more in colorado..and it's STILL cold even as of middle of May.. it has snowed for the first time in many tropical area's.. as these agencies claim 'this is the hottest ever' .. they actually said this april was the hottest ever..and april in which it was freezing everyday..makes no sence!  There were more hot days in the 30's than there is today  here even your friends at nasa-goddard admit there is global cooling:

    you can't say there is global warming when the ice is increasing!  Ice is increasing in greenland.. and i been tallying the mini-ice age as it progresses..lets take a look..isn't it about time you briliant scientists admit that the greehouse effect has been greatly exagerated:

    Partial List of extreme cold weather anomalies since 2014

    2014 ALL US states below freezing RARE
    * 92% ice cover on the great lakes US
    * cold records broken in NZ


    * 2014,15 heavy snow in Atlanta and Houston RARE
    * 2015 Cappricotta Italy one day snow record
    * 300 year snow record in Hokkaido, Japan
    * 2015 snow fall record broke in Nova Scota
    * Hallifax snow 18X higher than normal
    * 2015 Boston 270 snow record broke
    * Buffalo New York ALLTIME snow record
    * Snow in Huntington Beach ca RARE
    * 2015 great lake USA ice cover lasting until June, months longer than normal
    * 2015 Heavy Snows in Syria & Libya + many other ME countries, very RARE especially so widespread
    * Snow last 2 years in Vietnam RARE
    * Snow in July in Hawaii at 10,000 feet RARE
    * Snow in August in Calgary Canada RARE
    * Snow in August in SOUTHERN China RARE
    * 2015 August Snow is Montana, and Wyoming
    * 2015 August cold records for Billings MT, Denver CO, Mitchell SD, Watertown SD, Shrevepost LA, Monroe LA, Texarkana AR, El Dorado AR, Tyler TX, Longview TX + many others, Broke.

    * 2016 January snow for the first time in central Vietnam, heavy snow all over vietnam unbeleivable picts: Okinawa-first snow ever. Hiroshima-55 inches of snow, Hong Kong records 3rd coldest day on record.
    * 2016 March: cold records broke all over US and more snow in tropics, NY and Boston have coldest March in 100 years. Vietnam had 1 foot of snow 300km south of hanoi.. Heavy snow again in central mexico. New York's Whiteface Mountains reached an insanely cold minus-78.88C ; Taiwan and Kuwait receive first snow on record.
    * CROP FAILURE wheat crop fail from intense lanina late colds:
    * 2016 Pakistans meteorological dept. issues a report predicting global cooling as a result of solar activity. Pakistan is 2nd government so far to issue global cooling warning after Russia did earlier.

    * 2016 March 22 wheat crop damage in US due to freeze.

    * 2016 Russian wheat crop damaged by ice.

    * 2016 April snow in PA,USA in april, media refers to phenomenon as 'snow-showers'. The forcast is then upgraded to 3-12" of snow blanketing PA & MW, and NE region. NY and other states record their coldest April day on record. Heavy snow in Colorado-between 15"-32" snow in April. Snow records for April broken in CO & WY.

    * 2016 April 1st snow reported in the Carribian. Guadelupe snow in April described by Dominica News as "extrodinary weather phenomenon"

    * 2016 April, less than 5% of wheat and oat crop planted as of mid-April; cold and wind preventing fieldwork

  19. way more ice in 2015 than there was a few years ago..oh i know, it's just 'rebounding'  yea rebounding from the solar minimum:

    2112: LINK

    2015: LINK


    [RH] Shortened links that were breaking page formatting.

  20. Sam  @268 and @269 , you've gone to some trouble to list an impressive number of "cold events". But have you been genuinely skeptical enough to draw up a comparable list of "hot events" occurring during the same 2014-2016 timespan ?

    Since sea-levels are rising, and rising at an accelerating rate . . . the obvious conclusion is that your "cold events" are very much smaller in effect than the hot events.

    Cherrypicking only what you want to look at, is a tempting occupation, but you should keep the overall picture in mind.  And the overall picture is that the Earth is warming. In other words, the NASA and NOAA scientists are correct in their assessment of global warming.  You have misunderstood the data and science.

  21. Eclectic @270 No I didn't list 'warm events' because they seem to be in decline, for example off the top of my head from what I have seen on the tony hellar blog: There are less days over 90,95,and 100*F now than there were in the 30s and in the 60's.. the 1930's were very hot..117F in melbourne australia at 8am, 1 year in the 30's (i forgot which one) 45 days over 100*F in Indiana.. so 'hot events' are days that are over 100F, there are less of those now than there were in the past using US HCN weather stations.. and this purported 'sea level rise' is measured in milimeters; I feel that such a thing is easily fudged.. how much could it possibly be if even nasa.goddard is forced to admit (in that link i copied) that ice in antarctica is increasing over time, and you can see from those 2 photos of greenland, also from nasa, those photos there is clearly much more ice in 2015, than there was a few years ago..just another 'rebound'?  I think the real culprit are the solar minimums that seed clouds, increase volcanic activity. bend the jet-stream, and radiate less heat toward earth.. that's alot for the greenhouse effect to overcome.. so as of right now, we got more ice and less hot days, intense winters with superblizzartds and winters that drag can only imagine what its going to be like in 2019-24 when the current solar cycle finally reaches it's minimum


    [RH] This is running very thin here with cherry picked materials. I'd highly suggest you spend some time looking at actual scientific research over climate denier blogs.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  22. Sam, I am happy to give you a detailed reply to your latest posting, which has been "half struck out".

    In collecting anecdotal evidence and a scattering of selected events, it is all too easy for the human brain to be influenced by unintended bias and subconscious prejudices.  That is why a careful and thorough scientific evaluation is the only way we can come to realistic conclusions on a complex and worldwide phenomenon such as climate measured over time.

    The most straightforward approach here, is to look for an aggregator which compiles all the net effect of the cold & hot events you are interested in.  Such an aggregator is the "global mean sea level" over time.  ( You can find recent graphs of Global MSL via the University of Colorado website. )

    3 or 4 mm per year may not seem very much when you are standing on the beach on a particular day - but think about what it means over the oceans of the whole planet.  Each 1 mm of rise represents the melting of approx. 360 Giga-tons of ice, coming from the ice-sheets of Antarctica, Greenland, and so on (and even from the sadly-depleted Glacier National Park ! ). 

    360 cubic Km of ice is a colossal amount - try a mental picture of 360 blocks of ice measuring each 3,300 feet tall and wide and long.  And don't forget that part of each year's rise in MSL on top of that , is caused by thermal expansion of water in the oceans (thermal expansion because the oceans have been warming up more every year).

    Allowing for some minor fluctuations from retention/release of surface water on land (and similar changes in ground-water) , we find that MSL shows a strong upward trend during the 20th Century - as measured by tidal gauges and in recent decades, by the more accurate satellite measurements.  And the rising sea level rate has been even stronger during the past 20 years.  Look at the Global MSL, and you will see an even more impressive rise during 2015.

    These findings all point in one direction - and they are entirely inconsistent with the idea of a preponderance of cold events and more build-up of snow & ice-sheets.

    It may seem cold where you are : but the planet itself is telling us a different story. The totality of evidence shows that the Earth is continuing to warm up.  Nor can the scientists find any reason for it not to continue warming - and that's because there's more solar radiation entering Earth than radiation leaving Earth (the planet hasn't yet reached equilibrium from the effects of current Greenhouse Gasses - and worse, the GHG's are continuing to rise: e.g. CO2 is now above 400 ppm, and climbing) .

    Overall, it is clear that AGW hasn't paused or reversed.

  23. sam @268,

    If you wish to set out an argument that "you can't say there is global warming when the ice is increasing," it would be advisable not to link to a NASA press release which demonstrates that you actually can say it -

    “At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said. The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet... (My bold)

    Of course, some may question the authority of Jay Zwally to make such a statement, but he is the lead author of the work in question and was also clever enough to predict even before its publication that silly denialists will distort his work for their own ends.

    “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”

  24. Someone believing what they read on Tony "CO2 could fall as snow in Antarctica" Heller's blog has their critical faculties turned off completely.

  25. well ok i appreciate you replies.. I also appreciate that there can be this cherry-picking on both sides of an argument and in different ways, when something 'appears' to show something basic, like Ice-accumulation on antarctica, it can be 'viewed' in a different light.  But things like snow in the tropics, first time ever snow in tropical area's-it is what it is.. and what snow in the tropics is-is typical 'mini-ice age' conditions.  Do an image search 'gtemps' and you will see a diagram that shows the 'roman warm period' etc.  You can see that the roman empire existed during a warm period between 400AD & 500AD the solar minimums came along with their volcanic activity and there was the natural shift to a cold period..It was also about that time that their civilization collapsed.  In fact every chinese dynasty collapsed during solar minimums, these things come, agricultural production suffers-next thing you know, famine- death, the emperor's head is on a platter.

    After the 70s,early 80's ice age scare-where scientists like George Kukla and Leona Woods Libby mapped out the natural cycles, and then onto the global warming greenhouse gas movement.. what facinates me about the global warming movement is on the one hand they claim to fear the environmental destruction that (man-made) global warming can create, but in talking to the followers of this movement, they also claim that this man-made warming will 'protect' us from mini-ice ages-which have repeatedly ravaged civilizations throught the previous 10,000 year inter-glacial.  There can be this sort of 'mitigation' of a MIA.  So far the weather patterns are showing this is not the case-notice the cold related crop failures have already started.  no one can deny from a historical standpoint: global warming=good times, global cooling=bad times (despite all the wars and conquest that these good times go along with).  I believe that history will later see the GW movement as a 'collective psycosis'.  It starts with a realistic fear-fear of ice ages; from this fear a group creates a defense mechanism, a 'wrong' ideology that they think will save them, they then collectivly re-inforce it, when one doubts, the others set him strait, when others tell them that their logic is flawed-they insist that these people are evil; in this case a derogotory word is used; "deniers"  Deniers are people who secretly work for fossil fuel energy polluters and all they care about is corporate profits-that's their motive so everything they say is evil.  But all that aside, this thing (MIA) is coming, it can't be stopped, it can't be mitigated, and there is no escape.  Perhaps it could have been mitigated if these western countries had put their resources into protecting their agricultural sectors instead of middle eastern wars; but with 2019 only a few years away, i guess it's too late.


    [RH] You're becoming completely nonsensical and that's far from the intent on this website. If you wish to continue posting here you're going to have to come up with substantive scientific research to support your position. Continued speculation and supposition will not suffice. 

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.


  26. Sam your comment reminds me of this:

    It is extraordinarily unlikely that ten of thousands of scientists are wrong about global warming. Especially when the Earth continues to accumulate heat, ice continues to melt, and sea level continues to rise as expected. 

  27. sam @275:

    "I also appreciate that there can be this cherry-picking on both sides of an argument and in different ways, when something 'appears' to show something basic, like Ice-accumulation on antarctica, it can be 'viewed' in a different light."

    The way to avoid cherry picking is not to look at yet more anecdotal evidence as you are doing.  It is to look at the summary statistics.  Thus, while you quote incidents from some states in the US, in fact in 2016 to date, there have been 640 warm daily records compared to just 121 cold daily records, a ratio of 5.29 to 1 in favour of the warm records.  Globally, to date, there have been 46,542 warm daily records compared to 8,275 cold daily records, a ratio of 5.64 to 1 in favour of the warm records.

    In contrast to those record, your listing of incidents is 100% cold incidents.  When the data shows >5 to 1 in favour, but all your samples come from the 1 rather than the >5, we know very clearly who is cherry picking.

    Further, this tendency towards of warm records is something which is well known, and increasing in magnitude:

    (Data for contiguous USA, source)

    While this is in fact what you would expect from global warming, the idea that we could have global cooling while warm records outnumber cold records by >5 to 1 is an absurdity.

  28. I do not consider charts such as that,to be reliable.. I saw something on one of the news, "April 2016 was the hottest on record, and it wasn't even close"  This was the same April that was freezing all over the NE and central US with heavy snow..and it wasn't just the USA, east asia and europe were also cold, not as cold but it wasn't very spring like.. There have been April's in my life where Spring actually existed, this wasn't one of them, even May is cold.. How could that possibly be the coldest on record.  Climate Central's chart says one thing, but tony hellar puts up (3)charts, using US HCN stations that there were more days in the 30s, and 60's that were over 90,95,100*  That there were more hot days back then, then there are now.. Charts contradicting each other, ice studies contradicting each other, the charts in the 70,s and 80's showing one thing, the currentcharts showing another..  at this point I only look at weather patterns not charts.. what comes to mind ofcource is all the reliable data we had that showed Iraq had a WMD program..


    [RH] You don't get to merely dismiss data you don't like and accept data you like. You need to show why the data is wrong if you don't accept it. If you're incapable of doing this, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about and should keep your mind open to the potential that reality may be something other than what you prefer to believe.

  29. sam @278:

    "I do not consider charts such as that,to be reliable."

    Of course you don't.  I never imagined for a second that you are one to let a "beautiful theory" be spoilt be ugly facts.  So you just cherry pick some more.

    First, when discussing the record global warmth, you cherry pick data from the USA (which had only its 18th warmest April).  And not the USA as a whole, but only two particular zones within the US.  You can guess which zones be looking at the temperature rankings by state for April 2016:

    You make a point of mentioning the North East (which was near average, or below average for the 20th century, and hence very cool relative to 21st century to date) and central US (which is a bit of a stretch, given that most states in the central region were above average, and hence below average for the 21st century todate) - but you very carefully do not mention the North West where three states had their second warmest April on record.  I'm sure that was entirely accidental, and not in any way an attempt to cherry pick /sarc.

    You also manage to mention Europe (where parts were near average relative to the 20th century record) - but no mention of Australia, or the central Meditarainian, or the Indian Ocean, or the Amazon, in all of which large tracks were the warmest on record.  Now either you genuinely believe the Globe consists of just the US and Europe, or you are cherry picking.  Outrageiously so.


    I like statistical evidence where you can see at a glance that you are not getting a biased picture.  If you say April 2016 wasn't that warm, but have to restrict your discusion to less than 5% of the globe to make your case (as you have), then you have not case.  You ought to either be honest with yourself about that fact, or leave discussion here to the grownups who are happy to look at the whole of the data, and don't start invoking conspiracy theories every time the data doesn't tell them what they want to hear.

  30. sam @278,

    If you are to get anything from your visits here, it would be best if you show your data sources. I get the impression you are rather too wedded to Tony Heller & his website, a place that is certainly packed full of WMD or Wordage of Mass Deception, so you may be reluctant to do this.

    However, data sources are always useful. For instance, if you track down the Heller post you talk of with its "(3)charts, using US HCN stations" you can also find the source of the drought chart Heller uses, which is an update of Fig 2.3a of U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3, June 2008. (PDF here) Note that it was likely sight of Fig 2.3b that gave Heller the inspiration for his post. But tellingly for us here, what else is there in that document of June 2008? I think there is some (for instance, see Fig 2.4) that makes a bit of a nonsense of this talk of yours of cooling US winters.

  31. and i think what people like tony hellar are saying is that these charts include adjusted and fabricated data.  In April I checked the weather for various cities in the US everyday, Boston, Wichita Falls, WDC,NY, everyday it was freezing, like i said there was a white easter and 16 FEET of snow in PA, everyday in the entire region it was freezing or near freezing..if it was 60* in PA then why was there 16 feet of snow, if it was so warm then why was only 5% of the crop planted?  Today is May 20 Chicago-low7*c, high 18, NY 12,21 WDC 12,21 wis 6,22 etc.   according to your chart it was warmer in april than it is now.. obviously the charts that the noaa put out are faked.. i put up photos that showed much more ice in greenland now than just a few years ago, but im sure you have charts that show opposite..

    also tonys charts that shows there are less days now that break 100*f, 95*F than in the 30's and 60's .. real or fake?


    [DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  32. oh i see, those are not temps they are 'temp. ranks'  this is exactly what im talking about.. they will always manage to slice the data in a way that shows it's 'warm'  again they are saying that April was the warmest april on record.. that's obvious bullshit when it was freezing the whole month with snow and asia and europe were also cold.. I was just watching the Rome masters with djok and murray last week, been watching it for years, this year everyone in the stands were wearing jackets and scarves, i checked the weather it was 11*c there in May.. it has been a very cold april and may..something is being seriously fudged here.


    [DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped. 

    Please see the Moderation advice given you in your previous comment.

  33. Suggested reading for Sam:

    Extraordinary Heat Wave Sweeps Southeast Asia and Points Beyond by Christopher C. Burt , Wunderblog, Weahter Underground, April 19, 2016

  34. Once when I was browsing youtube, less than a year ago (i guess) i came accross a bit like "The Dick Hartman Show" and he said he was going to interview a guest, Michael Mann(im sure you know who he is) and if I remember correctly MM was going to talk about the possibility of an extremly cold period starting around 2020, due to in his opinion, "conveyer belt shutdown" a theory used in the Denis Quaid movie "The Day After Tomorrow"  oddly enough that would be the same time the current weak solar cycle would be bottoming out.. I'm thinking pdo&amo both cold at the same time but i don't know what a 'conveyor belt is' any information anyone has on that theory? seems to be the co2 version of iminent ice age..

  35. later i was unable to find the interview..

  36. Sam,

    When you are unable to find your supposed evidence people here believe that the evidencce never existed.  It appears that you remember a lot of evidence that you cannot now find.  If you want to convince people at this web site you will have to start supporting all your wild claims with citations.  I note that Tom Curtis has provided data and evidence for all his claims, and written citations so they can be verified.  You have provided no evidence to support your wild claims.

  37. i never said i had 'evidence' i said i heard about an interview once about the theory that the movie 'day after tomorrow' was based on.. and that theory is a co2 theory (or man made warming theory), so its one of the 'establishment' science things..since they used it in a hollywood film and hollywood tends lend support to the co2 science..i'm not bent out of shape about the evidence you have posted indicating that warming is continuing.. i know that the skeptic's have questioned the reliability of some of these charts that orgs like the noaa put not going to challenge them here as anyone can goto those sites.. all i did here was to suggest that extreme cold events like super blizzards in the north and snow in the tropics 'seem' to be on the increase and that these are typically 'mini-ice age' conditions and they 'seem'to be gathering pace as the solar minimums set in.. and that possibly the global warming movement was born from the fear of an imminent ice age..  in short I am interested in global cooling and mini-ice age so i asked about any information on the theory that co2 or manmade warming can create a very cold spell.


    [RH] You're clearly not listening to anything that's being said. And you're just prattling along with your incorrect information that you can't seems to find.

    You've been given multiple warnings now. Patience is wearing very very thin. You're going to have to significantly up your game if you want to continue your posting privileges. 

  38. Suggested supplemental reading:

    India just set a new all-time record high temperature — 123.8 degrees by Angela Fritz, Capital Weather Gang, Washington Post May 19, 2016

    ‘99 Percent Chance’ 2016 Will Be Hottest Year by Andrea Thompson, Climate Central, May 18, 2016

  39. sam:

    You wrote:

    ... in short I am interested in global cooling and mini-ice age so i asked about any information on the theory that co2 or manmade warming can create a very cold spell.

    The scientific body of evidence about the impact of increased CO2 levels on the global climate system does not support such a theory. 

    In addition, the surface atmosphere of the earth is but one component of the the global climate system — see the SkS Glossary for details.

  40. Sam @284/7.

    You certainly take the prize for obtuse referencing. A YouTube interview that you once heard about which was about a theory used as the basis for a Hollywood move? The following will likely not help you one bit but for correctness sake...

    The work that led to Michael Mann being interviewed last year is likely Rahmstorf et al (2015) “Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean over turning circulation.” (Here)

    And a paper that more dramatically considers the impact of melt waters on regional temperatures is the discussion paper Hansen et al (2016) “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2ºC global warming could be dangerous.” (PDF).

    Do note however that neither fit with your considerations of 'mini-ice age' conditions or solar minimums or frosty US weather.

    The film you mention does apparently have a small role in climate science in that it is the exemplar of “scientific misinformation in movies” that it is said to have prompted Schmidt & Mann to create the website.

  41. Sam: More facts for you to ponder...

    According to the NOAA monthly temperature report (for April), much of Russia and Alaska witnessed temperatures of at least 3.0°C (5.4°F) or greater above average. South America, Africa, and Asia (with an exceptional heatwave in Southeast Asia) also had record high average temperatures.

    The April globally averaged sea surface temperature was 0.80°C (1.44°F) above the 20th century monthly average, the highest on record.

    According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during April was 890,000 square miles below the 1981–2010 average. This was the smallest April Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 50-year period of record.

    April continues record temperature streak, WMO* Press Release, May 20, 2016 

    *World Meteorlogical Organization

  42. I remember reading once that the NOAA doesn't have access to Russia, so they model the climate there?

    Anyways here's the latest on the hottest May ever.. I already assuming that in a few weeks I'll see something in the news declaring May the hottest ever..

    May 16, 2016: 4to7 inches of snow in Maine-record breaking snow for May, New England record spring snowfall 6+ inches, Vermont, PA, Michigan, Ohio 3+ inches, Tennessee US Highways closed because of Ice + snow. This is the first time there has been snow in Maine this late, last time was 1972 but that was may 2nd.. this is past middle of may. Vermont snow record for may broke by 15X.. Ohio snow during this years marathon.. Michigan cities all get snowed,not since may 13, 1912 have they had snow and that was .01 inch.. this time it's 3 inches.. Strange 'snowpellets' in PA, odd type of snow,hail combination not before seen.. Wisconsin cold and snow record broken, 5" Snow in Montana and WY, Waterloo and Dubuque Iowa record cold, Dallas FtWorth record cold.

    NE USA and Canada-glaciated during an ice age-experiences very cold conditions during a min-ice age.. solar minimums are creating the mini-ice age weather pattern..  I think I said this before..AGW or co2 warming does not stop for example, the elnino/lanina weather pattern, ie:it doesn't 'cancel' the lanina so that you get 2 elninos in a row instead of a normal elnino/lanina.  If it can't 'cancell out' a 'little' weather pattern like a lanina, then why would it 'cancell out' a BIG weather pattern like a MIA?  It won't, this thing is coming, it's coming hard and fast and we're looking at serious cold related crop damage from now thru the early 2020's as we get to the bottom of solar cycle 24..we then have somerecovery in the mid 2020's prior to the maunder minimum starting in the 2030's AND with volcanic activity already high we could have a big one like a pinatubo at any time, if/when that happens we're realy screwed!

  43. Yes, Sam @ 292 , and have you noticed that India has recorded a record high temperature in this month of May? A scorching 123.8 degrees Fahrenheit ( 51degreesC ) in north-west India. That is a scorcher indeed - making Maine & Vermont look quite temperate.

    Returning to USA April, the north-west was very much hotter than usual.  And Alaska . . . Alaska showed April as 10.0 degreesF above the 1925-2000 average figure.

    That's ten full degrees hotter, Sam.  Or 5.5 degC if you're scientifically inclined [which I gather you aren't] .  To quote NOAA : "parts of the Yukon River observed the earliest ice break-up on record and Fairbanks observed a record early 'green up', or start of the vegetation growing season.

    Some extra snow in a small part of the USA is looking rather trivial, in comparison.

    Worldwide for April, there was cooler than average weather in the Patagonia region and the Quebec region.  The rest of the world was hotter than average.  Sam, for land area, that's about 99.8% warmer, versus 0.2% cooler.

    Sam, your argument looks ridiculous and a nonsense.

  44. You mentioned SE asia earlier and according to your source, 'on the average, hot record broke, etc.'  I will take your sources with a grain of salt if you don't mind but that's irrelivant.  Mini-ice age conditions like 1816 are characterized by winter conditions that arrive when they are not supposed to be there, like May or September, and it is in that way that they ravage crop production.  You mentioned SE Asia earlier and that there were hot records broke and a high average etc.  But if you look up at my list:

    March 2016: Vietnam had 1 foot of snow 300km south of hanoi.

    This is interesting because March,April is SE asia's summer-it is when the sun is directly over that region, so that is 1 foot of snow-in the summer-in the tropics,deep in the tropics.. Thailand was also hit by that cold spell leaving everyone scratching their heads as to what was going on.

    We do not have an accurate record of exact specific temps from the previous MIA period, we just know from the history books what the weather patterns were.. maybe some records were broke or are these averages or records being influenced by localized heat island effect from human activity..that's your ongoing debate with skeptic scientists- Roy Spencer [ ] or whoever, WUWT people..

    admittedly that debate is beyond me, to study and pik that stuff apart is beyond my comprehension.. admittedly maybe you are right about that but anyone who has looked at this issue even in passing; can see that endless debate; i think its your comfort zone to make that argument; but that's not my argument..  Is it normal to have snow in the middle of May snow in the tropics etc. of cource thats not normal!  since about 2010 those incidents are increasing as the solar minimus preogress.

  45. Sam @ 294 , the "foot of snow 300km south of hanoi [sic]" was something being reported for January 2016 and in the mountains.

    I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reports . . . but you should note that Vietnam is in the Northern Hemisphere where January = winter. Also please note that it is far from unusual to get snow on mountain-tops . . . especially in winter

    Really, Sam, your comments are becoming sillier and sillier.

  46. Sam,

    According the this news article from Vietnam, it was the first time they had snow in that area of Vietnam for 40 years.  Before that it occasionally snowed, it was not close to their record cold.  It has not snowed in the last 40 years because it is warmer from global warming  You are claiming that non-record cold is unusual when cold like this was normal 100 years ago.  cartoon

    I will also point out that most of your claims are of snow, not record cold.  It can snow when it is not record cold.  Since you are interested in the USA, so far this year there have been 23,000 hot records and only 6,000 cold records source.  You have picked some of the minority of cold incidents.

    Your recollection of Russian temperature records is once again false.  Russia provides temperature data to the scientists who track global temperatures.  You are just making things up.


    it may have been early feb instead of march but it was a first ever in that region, there was also a first ever in Taiwan, Kuwait and Guadelup caribian and a few other places.. in February there was a cold that moved into se asia

    I may have gotten the dates wrong it was late january and then middle of Feb, here is some snow in taiwan in Feb.. but in SE Asia its usually very hot already as of late Jan, mid Feb.. and actually in 2011 there was a rare cold condition that left bangkok, all of Thailand and the rest of se asia in March:

  48. Eclectic @295 & Michael Sweet @296.

    There is basically folk out there like this loudmouthed fantasist using YouTube to feed any fool who is willing to listen. His Jan 2016 report is here. His Jan 2015 report of snow 300km NE of Hanoi here. The altitude of these events is likely a requirement of the snowfall. Hanoi has a January climate reported as 19ºC (max) & 15ºC (min) so add 4,000ft @ 3.3ºC drop per 1,000ft and snow in a cold winter is a distinct possibility. I did think to look out an SE Asia temperature record from BEST which show a lot of year-to-year variability but they stop in 2013 so Jan 2015 & 2016 could have been as cold or colder than Jan 2011 which (for minimum temperatures) was the sixth coldest on a record stretching to 1853. (The record cold-min Jan was 1930 with 1963 in second.)

  49. Ooops! I spot @298 that I missed the link to this loudmouthed fantasist which makes my use of a demonstrative pronoun open to alternative interpretation.

  50. Thanks for that info, MA Rodger.

    Sam's ideas and claims are certainly a joke.

    As to Thailand, Sam links us to a blogger in Bangkok [] who goes on to say that April 2016 was "sweltering" [unquote] and seemed like "the hottest year ever" [unquote] .

    It seems clear that Sam doesn't check his sources, and doesn't apply any common sense.  And accepts any second-hand "denier" guff that comes his way.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us