Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

WARNING!!! I’ve been Informed Facebook has blocked this article or at least parts of it. If you are a safe-space seeking, participation trophy collecting Snowflake,  please avoid reading any further. The information may be dangerous to your health. The truth can be very very painful.

I tried to post on Facebook. Got this message: “Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content

This has been one very very very strange week for the self-defeating and self-destructive political left-wing. The first bizarre event was public comments made by Dr. Farkas — the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense specializing in Russia. She basically admitted on The Morning Joe Show that she led/participated in a conspiracy to leak sensitive information in an effort to undermine President Trump.

Dr. Farkas — the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense specializing in Russia, who said “get as much information as you can” to persons inside the intelligence apparatus — for the purposes of preserving intel on the Trump team in an effort to hide it from the incoming administration.

Listening to here comments I just kept asking myself, “does she understand what she is saying?” She was so blinded by her delusion that she didn’t even seem to grasp that not only what she was saying was highly unethical and most likely illegal, but also epically wrong. She seems to be suffering from “Noble Cause Corruption.”

Noble Cause Corruption seems to be endemic to the left-wing as Michael “Capone” Mann gave an absolutely catastrophic testimony to the US Congress, during which he as not caught lying but he also provided the answer to how best to address the climate change issue. The following graphic is an actual clip from Michael “Emasculated” Mann’s written testimony.

Denier 3


First the lying part. Michael Mann, playing the victim, made the absurd comment that “statements that have been attributed to me are not correct, and I don’t believe I called anyone here a ‘denier.” Dr. Judith Curry immediately interrupted by snapped back with the epic humiliating smackdown of “it’s in your written testimony, I’ll read it again.” This is an actual screenshot of Michael “Homer” Mann’s facial reaction. I would say this measures about a 100 on the “pucker factor scale.”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Ironically Michael “Slick-Willy” Mann may have been technically correct, much like Bill Clinton may have been technically correct when he stated “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ ‘is,'” but people expect much more ethical behavior from “Nobel Prize Winning” scientists than they do from developmentally arrested politicians. Michael “Silver Tounge” Mann’s comment is at best an unethical and deceitful half-truth and at worst criminal perjury.

Michael “McCarthy” Mann is the ring leader of a cabal of climate bullies who’s MO is to threaten, intimidate, censor and smear scientists that dare to question their climate orthodoxy. While Michael Piltdown Mann may have not actually verbalized in written testimony, his tactic of smearing others with the “denier” label is well documented. He wrote an article for the Washington Post titled “Deniers club: Meet the people clouding the climate change debate,” where he published the equivalent of a scientific black-list, naming names, and smearing the “heretics.” He also recently wrote a book titled “The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy.”

Michael “Drama Queen”  Mann’s attempt at feigning outrage and playing the victim, however, is the real gift that he gave his critics. Climate change is and always has been a political movement, using “science” as guise to fool the gullible. Up until now, real scientists have fought Michael and his ilk using scientific arguments, attempting to debunk the countless stream of nonsense that flows out of the climate “science” departments of our government funded universities. The problem with this approach is that the climate alarmists have almost limitless resources and a complicit educational system, media and until recently government. People seeking the truth simply don’t have the resources to debunk every piece of garbage produced by the climate alarmists.

The problem conservatives have arguing this issue is that we are conservatives. We look at the facts. We look for the truth. When the NYT or ex-President Obama makes a series to erroneous statements, we respond with rebuttals. The NYT and ex-President Obama reaches millions with their nonsense, conservatives reach very few with their rebuttals. Liberals are propagandists, conservatives are seeking the truth. Conservatives are only winning this battle because 50% of America lean right and their views are influenced by politics, not science.

Michael “Hollywood” Mann has his left-wing talking points rehearsed and can recite them in his sleep. Others are coached to recite similar talking points. The MO is obvious, appeal to authority, refer to the “consensus,” and never ever ever mention the results of the climate models or application of the scientific method. The climate alarmists are very very very comfortable with this approach, and challenging the climate “scientists” on the science plays to their strength. Not because the science supports their position, but because the left-wing propaganda machine favors that approach. To win the scientific argument, you have to have an extremely scientific literate public and congress, which simply doesn’t and won’t exist. It is unlikely the public will ever understand or even care about the difference between linear and logarithmic, and its relevance to global warming, but they can easily understand and have already accepted that being a bully isn’t good. Lion portrait

While Michael “Pope Urban VIII” Mann may be able to fool the public with his sophistry and intimidate the climate “heretics,” it is unlikely he and the climate alarmists can win a political war, and his actions prove it. Michael “Smoke-and-Mirrors” Mann has no trouble at all holding his own when it comes to reciting his focus group tested “scientific” talking points. Even his critics admire the ease at which they spew from his mouth.

For a scientist he speaks very well, very little equivocation that one would normally associate with having personal or professional doubts about the subject, seems to transition smoothly from one topic to the next, almost glib

Michael “The Bold” Mann is king of the jungle when it comes to scientific sophistry, but when the inquiry turns political he flees the battle and resorts to pathetic attempts of deceit, deception, half-truths and outright lies. In this video Louisiana Rep Mr. Higgins asks Michael “The Lamb” Mann about his affiliation with groups calling for the prosecution of climate “skeptics,” he behaves as if he was being accused of being a member of the Communist Party.

The other video evidence is his denial of smearing others as “deniers” which was already covered. If conservatives want to win this political war, they need to execute a two-front battle plan. The first front is to continue fighting the scientific arguements,  and the second front is to fight the political fight. Michael Mann’s actions have exposed the Achilles’Heel of the climate alarmists’ approach. Their support structure remains in place as long as they can maintain the illusion of moral and scientific superiority. All that comes crumbling down once Michael Mann and his ilk are exposed as the modern day equivalent of the black-listing Senator Joseph McCarthy and fear mongering Wizard of Oz. This most recent congressional testimony demonstrates how climate realists can take the offensive and finally put the arrogant, condescending, smug climate bullies on the defensive. It is time for Toto to pull away the curtain, and expose the climate “science” as the fraud that it is. In this “social media” world of hyper-sensitive safe-space seeking snowflakes, no one wants to be labeled a “bully.” The quickest way to get “unfriended” is by being outed as a bully, and if there is any label that truly fits Michael “Scott FarcusMann, it is bully.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate


Northern Atlantic Storm Shows How Natural Causes Affect Arctic Sea Ice

A few years ago the climate alarmists were going hysterical about the sudden loss of Arctic Sea Ice. Alarmist claims of an ice free North Pole dominated the headlines.

It’s been a little over four years since an “Arctic expert” claimed the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2016.

That never happened.

When I dug further into the issue, I discovered that an Arctic Hurricane was responsible for the sudden loss of ice. I didn’t even know Hurricanes occurred that far north and the media did nothing to inform me of the event.

Monster Storm Becomes Strongest on Record for Alaska

A powerful storm has moved into the Bering Sea and has become the most intense storm to ever impact the region.
The former Super Typhoon Nuri has tracked northward into the Bering Sea, located in between Alaska and Russia, and has lost all tropical characteristics.
The system has undergone rapid intensification, producing howling winds as the central pressure plummets to near record levels.

1988-1996_oldice21 (1)Storms in the Bering Sea are most damaging because they tend to push ice out of the Arctic and into the Northern Atlantic.  Russia and Alaska create a natural barrier for the ice, so when the wind blows from Iceland towards the Bering Sea, the ice tends to get trapped and thicken. When the wind pattern reverses, the ice gets blown out of the Arctic, reducing the ice extent and thickness. The phenomenon has everything to do with wind patterns, and absolutely nothing to do with CO2. Just last year in 2016, two storms hit the Arctic, shrinking the extent and thickness of the ice. Never to allow a “good crisis go to waste,” the alarmists used the opportunity to try to influence the election.

Pair of Arctic Storms Sparked Severe Polar Warming, Sea Ice Melt for November 2016
Folks — we’re in a climate emergency. Tell everyone you know. — Eric Holthaus

There are weather and climate records, and then there are truly exceptional events that leave all others in the dust. Such has been the case across Earth’s high latitudes during this last quarter of 2016… — Bob Henson at WeatherUnderground

Global warming doesn’t care about the election. — Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS

This weather pattern, however, has been shifting, and the winds are now blowing in the direction that bodes ill for the climate alarmists. The winds are now resulting in the accumulation of Arctic Sea ice, as with wind pattern is now blowing from Iceland towards Alaska.N_daily_extent-8

While I’ve written about this event in the past, I wanted to post an update because the Weather Channel published a fantastic video demonstrating how a storm in the Northern Atlantic is pushing the ice towards Newfoundland and the Arctic. Here is the link to the video.

Massive North Atlantic Storm Sends Surge of Ice Into St. John’s, Newfoundland Harbornewfy-storm-31mar17-explain

My bet is that once the Arctic Sea Ice begins to increase in both extent and thickness, Arctic Sea Ice will simply disappear completely from the liberal media, and the only way you will hear about it is by visiting blogs like this one.


Scientists Not Served Here; Real Scientists Need Not Apply


Real science is a process, a process that follows the scientific method. The scientific method is designed to standardize the process on which scientific conclusions are based. In essence,  it establishes a common language for scientists.

The Scientific Method (as I was taught in 2nd Grade)

  1. Make an Observation
  2. Formulate a “Hypothesis” (Note: This Hypothesis is Different from the Status Quo/Null Hypothesis)
  3. Collect Relevant Data
  4. Test the Data Using Standard Statistical Techniques
  5.  Analyze the Results and Either Accept or Reject the Null Hypothesis
  6. If the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, Return to Step #1

Notably absent from the scientific method is taking a poll of one’s peers and joining a “consensus.” In real science, the “consensus” is the null hypothesis and represents what is called the “Tyranny of the Status Quo.” The other aspect that is inherent but unmentioned in the scientific method is that it establishes a means to verify the conclusion through reproducibility. If the conclusion is valid, other scientists can INDEPENDENTLY repeat the same experiments and get the same results. The process of reproducibility does not include running an identical or slightly modified computer model using the same “adjusted” data on a different computer by a different like minded researcher. Computer models are computer models, they are simulations, they are forecasts, they are estimates, they are not scientific evidence. Bernie Madoff had a wonderful computer model that fooled a lot of people, but it didn’t reflect reality.

The scientific method also requires a falsifiable hypothesis. Contrary to popular belief, science doesn’t prove anything, real science disproves. Science never “accepts” the hypothesis, it either rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis. Because of this, science never allows situations like “heads I win, tails you lose,” or CO2 can cause both hotter and colder winters, more droughts and more rain,  higher crop yields and lower crop yields, more snow and less snow, etc etc etc. You simply can’t apply the scientific method to a hypothesis where the answer can be the mutually inclusive yes AND no AND maybe. The scientific method needs a hypothesis where the conclusion is based upon the mutually exclusive yes OR no, never both or maybe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that is why it is called the “Tyranny of the Status Quo.” Failed computer models based upon “adjusted” data and bogus experiments don’t qualify as extraordinary evidence.

Lastly, the scientific method assumes the hypothesis is based upon a causal relationship. The “cause” is the independent variable, and the “effect” is the dependent variable. In any properly designed experiments, all exogenous factors (outside forces) are controlled for, allowing for a pure reading of the impact changing the independent variable has of the dependent variable. The term “ceteris paribus” means “all else held equal,” and is essential to any real scientific experiment to accurately quantify the cause and effect relationship between the independent and dependent variable.

It is with that understanding of how real science works that the fraud of climate science is easily exposed. Climate “science” is the only field of science that doesn’t apply the scientific method to reach its conclusions. The field of climate “science” doesn’t rely on data gathering, empirical evidence, experimentation, reproducibility and falsifiable hypotheses, it relies on computer models, consensus, outright threats and intimidation, half-truths and outright lies, and “peer/pal review.” logo2

Even if one accepts the degenerate and corrupt form of “science” embraced by the climate alarmists, they still don’t succeed in making their case. Under further scrutiny, the climate “science” pillars of computer models, consensus, “peer review” and claims of being a “real science” crumble.Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PM

Remember, in real science, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This is especially relevant when the conclusions reached are used to influence public policy that may result in the spending of trillions upon trillions of dollars. This isn’t a game, every public dollar spent on fighting climate change is a dollar not spent on building roads, hospitals, schools, bridges, and dams. The misallocation of resources has real consequences for society, especially given that societies thrive during warming periods, and will collapse during the next ice age.

In order for the climate change hoax/fraud to be perpetuated, one must first corrupt the critical centers of power. Eisenhower realized this threat and warned America about the threat of a “technological elite” in his farewell address.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Evidence of this was just published, exposing that applying of the scientific method isn’t a requirement for federal research grants and publication in “Scientific” Journals. What taxpayer dollars are going to fund is what is called “advocacy research.”

“The problem in journals, with government research, and with universities is that nobody asks them to follow [it]. I’ve been publishing for 55 years and can’t ever recall anyone saying ‘you should follow the scientific method.’”

“What’s happening now is, government research, universities — they’re asking for what I call advocacy research. They have something, they want you to prove it, make sure you prove it, you do, you keep getting paid.”

“Advocacy research is the bulk of these 99 percent of non-scientific studies, and they’re not done for scientific development, they’re done to support a political idea. If you want to make money in universities these days, you publish papers that support global warming and you live handsomely.”

This provides clear evidence of the claim made on this blog that climate “science” isn’t science at all, and is simply a cleverly disguised political campaign.

For conservatives to really put this issue to bed, they need to accept the hard truth that climate “science” isn’t science at all, it is a giant ruse used to promote an anti-capitalism agenda. Facts aren’t what is important to the supporters of climate change, the benefits promised them by politicians is what is important. The benefits of “believing” in climate change are measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, the benefit of seeking the honest truth is a huge pay cut and drop in their standard of living.

What kind of Orwellian world have we created when the magazine “Science” doesn’t require the application of the scientific method for publication, and what does that say about the validity of “peer review” and the value of reaching a “consensus?” But wait, there is some hope. Science magazine, at least for biological research, is requiring “reproducibility.” The strangely worded policy mentions only “preclinical studies,” with no mention of climate science research. Given drug companies are favorite targets of the political left, this isn’t surprising, nor is the failure to address climate change.Capture10

From the following headlines, one has to ask, “what took so long?” Nature was clearly aware of the problem.

About 40% of economics experiments fail replication survey

Rigorous replication effort succeeds for just two of five cancer papers

Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers’

Another “highly respected” journal “Nature” discovered similar issues.

Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.

According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.

“What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened,” he says. “The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results. “What I think of as high-risk, high-return results.”

“It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”

“Everyone has to take a share of the blame,” she argues. “The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes.”

The journal Nature is going to begin requiring reproducibility of submitted papers as well, but once again, the wording is very strange, failing to address climate change.

 “The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process.”

Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper’s central hypothesis before publication.

“Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don’t know if the facts out there actually represent what’s happening in biology or not.”

In the Nature article “1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility,  Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research” climate “science” is suspiciously never mentioned. Ironically, almost all these factors are highly applicable to climate “science.”reproducibility-graphic-online4

What “Nature” and “Science” failed to mention, and the reason climate “science” is conveniently overlooked is that transparency is a fundamental requirement for reproducibility. The field of climate “science” is notorious for not releasing its data, methods and models. After the “Hockey-stick” fiasco one can understand why.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case…

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”.

Fortunately for real scientists, things appear to be changing for the better. Just this week, “HOUSE APPROVES BILL TO FORCE PUBLIC RELEASE OF EPA SCIENCE.” The question that really needs to be asked however is “why was this “science” kept secret from the public in the first place, and why did 194 Representatives vote against it?”

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency, targeting the way officials use science to develop new regulations.

A bill approved Wednesday by the GOP-controlled House would require that data used to support new regulations to protect human health and the environment be released to the public.

The bill was approved 228-194 and now goes to the Senate.

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate

Climate Change Caused the Pre-Industrial Bronze Age Collapse


File this under: “Damned if I Do, Damned if I Don’t.”

In a fascinating video about the collapse of the great Bronze Age Civilizations, it is revealed that the most likely cause was climate change. What should we call that? Catastrophic Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change? I also find it interesting how all the events being caused by CO2 today, including the fracking caused earthquakes, also happened back in 1177 BC without coal burning power plants, SUVs and fracking. Funny how the exact same observation can get totally different explanations, but then again, if you aren’t looking for the real answers, it is unlikely you will find them. Also, how do we know that CO2 hasn’t prevented a reoccurrence of the climate change of 1177 BC?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pollen Study Points to Drought as Culprit in Bronze Age Mystery

Study solves a 3,000-year-old mystery with pollen

Bronze Age Collapse: Pollen Study Highlights Late Bronze Age Drought

Climate change may have caused demise of Late Bronze Age civilizations

Drought Led to Collapse of Civilizations, Study Says

Drought May Have Doomed Bronze Age Civilizations

300-Year Drought Was Downfall of Ancient Greece

How globalization and climate change destroyed ancient civilization

The Collapse of Civilizations: It’s Complicated

A similar event occurred later in the Bronze Age in Europe around 800 BC. While scholars debate if the climate change caused the population decline, they all agree on the fact that the climate dramatically changed in a relatively short period of time without the influence of anthropogenic CO2. Also, cooling, not warming has historically lead to downfalls of society. There were no great civilizations during the ice age, great civilizations emerged as temperatures increased and crop yields reached the levels needed to sustain the great ancient civilizations.

Historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and scientists often find that connections between climate and human activity are particularly clear, and especially well-documented, in times of crisis. It is no surprise, then, that scholars have sought to link the Bronze Age collapse to climate change…They found that, in Northwestern Europe, populations began to decline more than a century before the late Bronze Age climate started to cool. Collapse in this part of Europe therefore cannot be tied to climate change.

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate

Climate “Science” on Trial; Give a Climate Alarmist Enough Rope They’ll Hang Themselves

Title Hang 'Em High (1968)Ask any real scientist to examine the factors impacting climate and they would almost certainly identify the most significant factors, those being solar radiation and water vapor. A simple input/output model focused on the most powerful/significant variables. The problem with the field of climate “science” is there is no incentive to seek the truth, in fact, there are tremendous costs to do so.

If you aren’t looking for the answer, you will never find it, especially for a question as complicated as the global climate. Ask any climate “expert” the cause of the drought and there will be a universal canned answer of “man-made CO2.” Ignoring the fact that droughts have occurred in California throughout history and some of the worst were before the industrial era. The answer is easy, and the media will never challenge it. The problem that answer has been proven 100% wrong.

The problem with the field of climate “science” is they are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. By doing so it opens them up to accidentally exposing the truth, which is what Nature Magazine recently did. The theory goes that 1) man increased CO2 2) CO2 traps heat and 3) the extra heat melts the Arctic ice. Pretty simple, but wrong, and Nature proves it. In the Nature article abstract, it claims that:

A tendency towards a stronger anticyclonic circulation over Greenland and the Arctic Ocean with a barotropic structure in the troposphere increased the downwelling longwave radiation above the ice by warming and moistening the lower troposphere.

In other words, warm moist air brings extra heat to the Arctic. That warm moist air melts the ice. No CO2 needed. Those aren’t my words, those are the words of Nature.h2o-and-temperature-cross

Blaming CO2 for the downwelling longwave IR doesn’t make any sense. CO2’s only impact there is with 13 to 18 micron IR, which is consistent with a blackbody of temperature -50 to -110 Degree C, whereas H2O traps IR radiation across most of the IR spectrum. IR wavelengths shorter than 10.5 microns are associated with blackbodies warmer than 0.0 Degrees C. CO2’s absorption doesn’t fall within that range. Visible light starts at 0.78 microns.absorption

Real scientists look for “ceteris paribus” situations, and one exists between the poles. Both the North and South Poles have 400ppm CO2, but the atmospheric water vapor is much different. As the Nature article highlights, warm moist air, air with 400 ppm CO2, is pumped into the Arctic. The Arctic is also ice floating on water, so ocean currents can also import extra heat. The same isn’t true about Antarctica. Antarctica is a continent and has very very very dry air. Water vapor is a non-issue in Antarctica, but, like the Arctic, has 400ppm CO2. Because both poles have 400ppm CO2, the Arctic isolates the impact of water vapor, ocean and wind currents. The result is that Antarctica, impacted only by CO2, shows no warming at all, and has gained ice. The Arctic, impacted by water vapor and other natural factors shows sea ice loss and a slight temperature gain. To any real science, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and gain of Antarctic sea ice rules CO2 out as the cause.MSU UAH ArcticAndAntarctic MonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage

This slideshow requires JavaScript.



Speak of the Devil; Nature Confirms the Arctic Sea Ice Atmospheric Circulation Theory

Just a few days ago I published an article detailing the theory that Arctic sea ice loss was largely due to Arctic wind patterns. Here is the article.

The first hypothesis is that the recent decline in Arctic ice is due largely to natural phenomenon related to the direction of the polar winds. The theory goes that when the Arctic winds blow in the direction from Alaska to Iceland, the Arctic ice is blown out into the Northern Atlantic, resulting is a reduction of the Artic ice. It has nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with the direction of the Arctic winds.

Another article questioned, “How does Arctic Sea Ice Melt in Sub-Zero Temperatures.

One of the greatest symbols used by the climate alarmists is that the arctic sea ice is disappearing, presumably due to “melting. The problem is, rarely does the arctic ever have temperatures above freezing. This loss of sea ice is occurring in sub-zero temperatures…The reason the Arctic is losing ice is due to warm water bringing the heat into the Arctic, and wind patterns blowing/moving the ice to warmer oceans.

I was first introduced to this theory over on Tony Heller’s “Deplorable Climate Science Blog,” previously titled “Real Science.” Just today he published a follow-up article documenting the increase in both volume and thickness of the Arctic ice. In it he provides a graphic detailing the theory:N_daily_extent-8

As well as graphics documenting the growth in both volume and thickness of the Arctic sea ice:anigif-6anigif-6

Nature has recently published an article confirming the validity of this theory. Here is the abstract from the article:

The Arctic has seen rapid sea-ice decline in the past three decades, whilst warming at about twice the global average rate. Yet the relationship between Arctic warming and sea-ice loss is not well understood. Here, we present evidence that trends in summertime atmospheric circulation may have contributed as much as 60% to the September sea-ice extent decline since 1979. A tendency towards a stronger anticyclonic circulation over Greenland and the Arctic Ocean with a barotropic structure in the troposphere increased the downwelling longwave radiation above the ice by warming and moistening the lower troposphere. Model experiments, with reanalysis data constraining atmospheric circulation, replicate the observed thermodynamic response and indicate that the near-surface changes are dominated by circulation changes rather than feedbacks from the changing sea-ice cover. Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979.

The quote “increased the downwelling longwave radiation above the ice by warming and moistening the lower troposphere” pretty much explains it, and there is no need for CO2 at all in that equation. In reality, they have it backward, and it should read “increased the downwelling longwave radiation above the ice by moistening and warming the lower troposphere.” The moist air leads to warmth, not vice verse. The very dry air over Antarctica shows no similar warming.h2o-and-temperature-cross

Another interesting comment in the abstract is extremely telling and surprisingly honest. It states “the relationship between Arctic warming and sea-ice loss is not well understood.” So much for this being “settled science.” How could one have a “consensus” on a “science” that is “not well understood?” This lack of understanding, however, didn’t stop the world’s preeminent climate “scientist,” the one-time journalist and Divinity and Law school dropout, Al Gore from making apocalyptic claims. I guess the accuracy of his claim depends on what the definition of “may” is. I guess pigs “may” fly someday as well, but I won’t hold my breadth.b4bw0yiciaapjqb-2 (1)

Popular Science also did an article on this topic claiming “Up to half of the Arctic’s melt might be totally natural.” In the article they claimed:

But while scientists are certain that the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate, they aren’t really sure why…Although anthropogenic climate change accounts for some of the melting, Arctic ice is disappearing much faster than climate change models predict it should. A new study in Nature Climate Change sheds new light on the mystery…“There is a mismatch between the model’s output and the observation,” said lead author Qinghua Ding, a professor in the Geography Department at the University of California Santa Barbara. “Observation shows very fast, very abrupt sea ice melting, whereas the climate model cannot capture the fast melting.”
Quotes like “But while scientists are certain that the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate, they aren’t really sure why” don’t really lend themselves to spending trillions of dollars on an agenda that may have no benefit at all.
The graph they produced showed Artic sea ice falling rapidly since 1979.201703-september_artic_see_ice_extent
The problem is, during most of the year, the Artic is well below 0.00 Degree C, so to keep the ice melting year round, heat must be transported to the Arctic.
Satellite data shows no real warming trend in the North Pole over the period discussed in the articles. Temperatures in 1981 were the same as in 2015, with a great deal of variation from year to year, likely due to non-CO2 related El Ninos and Ninas. The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice starts in 1997 and bottoms in 2012. Temperatures were basically flat during most of that time period. CO2 is 400 ppm in both the N and S Poles, and the S Pole shows no warming at all and isn’t impacted by the El Ninos and Ninas, so if one focuses on Antarctica, where ice has been growing, the conclusion is that there has been no CO2 driven climate change, no CO2 driven warming, and that man-made CO2 has had 0.00% impact on the change in Antarctic ice. Only when one focuses on the North Pole can the CO2 driven climate change false narrative be supported, but the evidence points to water vapor, not CO2. Antarctica offers a much more pure measure of CO2’s impact on the climate, and that is why you won’t see it being discussed in the press. It represents the truth.  MSU UAH ArcticAndAntarctic MonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage

Climate “Science” on Trial; Only One Side Can Win

Great news for the field of climate “science.” Finally, a hypothesis will be tested. Climate alarmists have claimed that 100% of the warming over the past century is due to human causes. Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PM

Additionally, according to the climate “experts,” 100% of the rise in CO2 is also due to man.

In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.

This is really good news for one side of the argument because the International Energy Agency just released that CO2 emissions have stopped rising. In fact, they have been flat or falling for the last 4 years.GlobalCarbonEmissions2

This is really great news for those that believe man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming and climate change. After spending countless billions of dollars we have now stopped the increase in CO2 emissions.

Only one problem, one really big problem, nothing the experts tell you is true regarding man-made CO2 and atmospheric CO2. Back in 1980 man produced 17.5 gigatons of CO2, in 1985 man produced 17.5 gigatons of CO2, in 2013 man produced 32.5 gigatons of CO2, and in 2016 man produced 32.5 gigatons of CO2. Man’s production of CO2 almost doubled (32.5/17.5), yet the slope of atmospheric CO2 remains almost unchanged over that time period, and the slope certainly hasn’t doubled.kc-monthly-0600 (1)

CO2 between 1980 and 1985 increased by about 1.475 ppm/year

CO2 between 1992 and 1997 increased by 1.35 ppm/year, even though CO2 production was much higher than in 1980.

CO2 between 1998 and 2001 increased by 1.48 ppm/year, even though CO2 production was much higher than in 1980.

Recently CO2 has increased, but ironically the biggest increase occurred in 2016, an El Nino year, where CO2 increased from 3.38 ppm, a full 1.2 ppm over the 2.18 ppm increase in 2015. Emissions were flat during those years.

While man’s production of CO2 was constant between 2013 and 2016, CO2 was very volatile, increasing by 2.67, 2.13, 2.18 and 3.38 ppm/year, not something one would expect if man’s production of CO2 was the cause. But some people disagree.

CO2 between 2013 and 2016 increased by about 2.59 ppm/year, less than 2x what it was in 1980, which is what would be expected if man’s production of CO2 was the cause.

Lastly, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 doesn’t track man’s production of CO2. As noted, CO2 increased by 1.36 in 1981 when man’s CO2 production was 17.5 gigatons, atmospheric CO2 increased by 1.17 ppm in 2000, when man’s production of CO2 was 23.5 gigatons. There simply isn’t a tight linear fit, which is required to support a claim that man is responsible for 100% of the increase. The oceans have warmed over that period, and Henry’s law explains how the oceans may be the source of the extra atmospheric CO2.

In conclusion, if in fact man’s CO2 emissions can be contained or even reduced going forward, the evidence should present itself in the slope of atmospheric CO2 remaining constant, or even fall. If man is truly the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2, the annual increases going forward should be constant, if man’s emissions fall, so should the annual increase. Only time will tell, but within the next decade, we should have the data we need to reach a pretty sound conclusion.

Post Script: Ironically, Germany’s efforts to cut emission has resulted in an increase in CO2 production. It appears having to have all those backup coal powered plants to support the wind and solar farms produces a lot of CO2.


Date CO2 Increase
1980 338.75
1981 340.11 1.36
1982 341.45 1.34
1983 343.05 1.6
1984 344.65 1.6
1985 346.12 1.47
1986 347.42 1.3
1987 349.19 1.77
1988 351.57 2.38
1989 353.12 1.55
1990 354.39 1.27
1991 355.61 1.22
1992 356.45 0.84
1993 357.1 0.65
1994 358.83 1.73
1995 360.82 1.99
1996 362.61 1.79
1997 363.73 1.12
1998 366.7 2.97
1999 368.38 1.68
2000 369.55 1.17
2001 371.14 1.59
2002 373.28 2.14
2003 375.8 2.52
2004 377.52 1.72
2005 379.8 2.28
2006 381.9 2.1
2007 383.79 1.89
2008 385.6 1.81
2009 387.43 1.83
2010 389.9 2.47
2011 391.65 1.75
2012 393.85 2.2
2013 396.52 2.67
2014 398.65 2.13
2015 400.83 2.18
2016 404.21 3.38