What Global Warming? N. Hemisphere is Buried Under Ice

Written by Pierre R Gosselin

 

We all remember how some scientists (David Viner and Mojib Latif, for example) boldly announced some 18 years ago that snow and ice at latitudes 40 – 55°N would become rare.

Yet looking at the latest data, we see that ironically it’s bare ground that has become “a thing of the past”. Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski tweeted here.

The Spiegel journalist tweeted (emphasis added):

Because there has been some commotion due to the #Snow: No snow at our latitudes is currently the exception worldwide (white shading).”

With frigid temperatures and heavy snows gripping much of the Northern Hemisphere, this is a quite an embarrassment for climate experts who earlier confidently claimed snow would become rare due to global warming.

Furthermore not only has snow returned with a vengeance, also global surface temperatures over the past 20 years have risen insignificantly.

World and business leaders should be reminded of this as they head to a snow-buried Davos.

Another eyebrow-raising anecdote is found in Montreal, Canada, where the mighty St. Lawrence River may have a U.S. Navy ship trapped until spring: “due to icy waters.”

Though we do not find ourselves in an ice age, it sure feels like it across the northern hemisphere this winter.

Read more at notrickszone.com

Comments (22)

  • Avatar

    Dr Pete Sudbury

    |

    This is a site for scientific discourse, not ignorant or misleading gossip. “Shock! Horror! Snow falls in winter! Process climate getting colder!” is nearly as stupid as “it’s really dark tonight: the sun is getting less bright”. There is a categorical difference between “weather” and “climate”, and you really do need to understand that to be able to make any intelligent contribution.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      OMG, really? .. You didn’t just say this stupid crap did you? .. Coming from the same moron that claims every “weather” event is caused by “Global Warming” “Climate Change” and every “Weather Event” is “Climate” (ie: Hurricanes, Droughts, Floods, Snow, Heat Waves, Tsunamis, etc.., etc..) as long as you have the room to spin the narrative, you will spin it.

      The problem with you and your bullshit is, nobody is seeing anything in our “climate” that you claim. None of it. You and your ilk are a laughing stock.

      I really need to come up with another, more accurately descriptive name for you as Dr. Dumbass falls markedly short of full disclosure. Where did you get your doctorate? .. Crackjacks? .. Perhaps some popular breakfast cereal box? .. You have to be one of the dumbest “Dr.” ers I have ever seen. What a dumbass you are, Dr. Dumbass.

      You are no “Dr”, Dr. Dumbass. There is no way on Earth you can convince me you are a “Dr”. Yeah, I have read your bio, I am familiar with who you are, but you didn’t earn your doctorate, you either bought it or stole it. You are far too stupid to have accomplished such a feat.

      To date, you have said absolutely nothing in any of your comments on this site that hasn’t been a simple AGW con-artist talking point. NOTHING! .. and you have been unable to refute a single presentation for which you have commented. You have provided absolutely no science whatsoever. You don’t know anything about the subject of “climate” outside of your memorized, climate con-artist, talking points.

      Keep it up, you’re quite the comic relief, Dr. Dumbass.

      • Avatar

        Dr Pete Sudbury

        |

        Dear Dr Squiddly,
        Your response above reminds me of the story about the politician’s speech: at one point, in the margin, is scribbled “argument weak, Shout!”…Or in your case, “Shout abuse”.
        To clarify, my doctorate is in Medicine, from one of the top 10 Universities in the world. I also have a science degree from another top 10 University. Where is yours from?
        I realise it is infuriating that all scientists say pretty much the same thing. There are two hypotheses. It could be that they are all too dumb for words, or that they are all describing the same reality. On climate change, I hoped for a long time they had it wrong, but I’m afraid they are (very, very) probably right, and that makes things a lot harder for all of us.
        If we look at the scientific quality of many (not all) of the postings in this site, their problem is that they confuse categories like climate and weather, or temperature at a point in time / single place, with other categories like average temperature in one place or across an area over time. That’s not trivial…at least it wasn’t when I learned science: back then, it was unforgivable, because it made the results invalid.
        I’m sorry if that annoys you, but that’s just the way proper science is…annoyingly precise.
        Have a wonderful day!

        • Avatar

          Squidly

          |

          Hi Dr. Dumbass,
          Oh, sorry;

          Dr Pete Sudbury, BM, BCH, MA (Cantab) MBA MRCPsych
          Political lobbyist at Greenpeace
          Cambridge, Oxford, Oxford Brookes Universities

          *Retired NHS consultant 12y as Medical Director. IT industry experience.
          12y as medical director. NPfIT survivor. 4y as NCAT reviewer. 3 year “Residency”​ as Hewlett Packard “Health Insider”.
          *Healthcare expert consultant to the Open Group.
          *Independent health ICT “translator”​. Understanding the potential of technology to transform health and wellbeing beyond our imagination, and putting it into plain English.
          *Trustee of Flint House Police Rehabilitation Centre.

          Publications:
          * Life Skills Training and booster sessions plus drinking reduction treatment was effective in heavy drinking women
          * Genetic and specific environmental risk factors affected comorbidity of major depression and alcoholism
          * Brief physician advice reduced drinking in older adults – Commentary
          * Brief physician advice to problem drinkers reduced alcohol intake and societal costs
          * Brief physician advice to problem drinkers resulted in economic benefits
          * Doctors who smoke. Why not exclude doctors with other unhealthy habits too?

          Looks to me like you have a drinking problem. Apparently you believe, since you went to Oxford and all, that your education, (particularly in Psych?) somehow qualifies you as being some sort of an authority figure on Weather, Climate and Physics. Alas, you have not provided a single solitary coherent rebuttal to anything posted or commented on this site. You have presented no “science” to back any of your assertions (regurgitated talking points only). By your own admission you are a political lobbyist, not a scientist.

          Dr. Dumbass, before you step any further into the pile of poo that you find yourself in, I would suggest you take the time to do a little bit of reading here. You will find there are many here that put your fancy Oxford credentials to shame. Real “scientists” and real physicists that have a much greater understand of our natural world than you. You see, we work with these topics every single day of our lives.

          Your response above reminds me of the story about the politician’s speech: at one point, in the margin, is scribbled “argument weak, Shout!”…Or in your case, “Shout abuse”.

          YOU are the political lobbyist you moron!

          To clarify, my doctorate is in Medicine, from one of the top 10 Universities in the world. I also have a science degree from another top 10 University. Where is yours from?

          If I were you, I would be demanding my money back. They have obviously done you a grave disservice. All that “schooling” and still incapable of rational and critical thought. I guess being a psychologist isn’t helping you to recognize your own shortcomings, a shame. I have met many like you.

          As for me? … well, hold on to your bootstraps sparky. I never graduated high school. I never earned a GED. I did however attend 7+ years of college (computer science, artificial intelligence, physics). Earned 4 MS degrees and 2 Doctorates, for other people. Despite not having earned a single degree to my name, I have successfully started 7 technology companies. I have been the President, CEO and board member of at least 8 companies. I am even still the CIO/CTO for 2 companies and on the board of directors (in my spare time, what little there is). I earned and hold several hardware and software patents. I have invented several technological widgets that you use today. I have worked for many types of organizations, including some of the largest healthcare organizations in the world. I have worked extensively with researchers at such places as Johns Hopkins University and the Mayo Clinic. I have worked on several projects with the US Department of Defense and the US Department of the Navy. I have earned one of the highest civilian Congressional Recognition Awards granted by the US Navy and the Pentagon. I presently work for one of the largest energy equipment manufacturers in the world, employing more than a quarter million people worldwide. You are using some of our products at this very moment, products that I have had a hand in designing and building. I work with some of the biggest and brightest engineers and physicists in the world, every single day!. In short, I am one among many, of the leading software engineers in the world! .. and all without earning a single piece of paper from any school on Earth. How about them apples, Dr. Dumbass?

          Yeah, my father on the other hand, he’s an honors student in electrical engineering from MIT. Worked for 35 years in a think tank at the largest not-for-profit research institute in the world (let’s see if you can figure out which). His work, and the work of his group has been galactically stellar, to say the least. Difficult footsteps for me to follow, but I have my own footsteps to lay. These things are in the DNA of my family.

          I have spent an inordinate amount of time over the past decade, reviewing and assessing several of the widely used climate models (source code and methods). Most notably Model-E (NASA/GISS). Over the years, I have had extensive conversations about these models with people (con-artists) such as Gavin Schmidt (NASA/GISS) and others in his group (who I have handily burried in debate). I have had friends (unbeknownst to Gavin) that have worked in and around these groups at NASA/GISS (a little insider info).

          In terms of the content of this site and the people who participate here, I am an absolute nobody. That is, there are people here, like John O’Sullivan, Joseph Postma, Tony Heller, Nasif Nahle, Rosco, Joseph Reynen, Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser, and many many others, that absolutely put me to shame. And yet, in terms of science, climate, weather, physics, I can bury you in debate before even having my morning coffee. That’s pretty sad.

          I realize[sic] it is infuriating that all scientists say pretty much the same thing

          Do tell. I contend, and can prove, that your “all scientists” isn’t anywhere near what you think it is. In fact, the reality is they are a small minority of the scientific community, particularly that of physicists and engineers. They don’t even make up a plurality of “scientists”, those who are even “scientists” (a great number are not, in fact).

          There are two hypotheses. It could be that they are all too dumb for words, or that they are all describing the same reality. ….

          This is just nonsensical gibberish. I am a real “scientists” myself. I don’t deal with gibberish. I only deal with facts, provable facts. In my line of work, “(very, very) probably right” doesn’t cut it. People die from “(very, very) probably right” .. or have you no concept of history? … In my line of work, it is either “right” or it is “wrong”, and if it is “wrong”, it can be catastrophic. We have no flexibility here.

          If we look at the scientific quality of many (not all) of the postings in this site, their problem is that they confuse categories like climate and weather..

          Either you don’t actually read the articles and content on this site, or you have a severe comprehension deprivation issue. This claim alone could not be further from reality. As a matter of fact, one of the primary tenets of the articles and comments on this site is to expose this very issue. Please, quit trying to piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. Your quote here is an abject lie.

          I’m sorry if that annoys you, but that’s just the way proper science is…annoyingly precise.

          You owe me a cup of coffee. I just spit mine up after reading this in laughter. Had to clean my monitor too. You have got to be kidding me! .. You obviously would not know what the “scientific method” is or what real “science” actually looks like if it jumped up and bit you in the face. Which on this site, it does frequently!

          The bottom line here, Dr. Dumbass, you are in way over your head. I find it ironic (and hilarious) that the “psychiatrist” (political activist) in the crowd is the one that is too stupid to notice these things (and apparently the only one). I highly recommend that you take this opportunity to make a hasty exit from this place. You are going to find it very uncomfortable to have your ass handed to you day in and day out. And not simply by conjecture and assertion, but by real scientific proofs!

          You are way out of your league here. Go back to Greenpeace.

  • Avatar

    AndyG55

    |

    Nice attempted deflection.
    This is about the incompetence of the AGW crystal ball gazers, Viner Mofit, etc
    Since their “announcement” that snow would become rare, snow cover has actually increased.
    https://s19.postimg.org/h771zurs3/nhland_season4_shadow-1024×842.png

    And yes, we all wish the MSM and their associated non-scientists would stop trying to pass even small storms and slightly above normal temperatures as being caused by “climate change”. We hope to see you come out strongly against this next time it happens.

    • Avatar

      AndyG55

      |

      That was meant as a reply to Dr Pete.

  • Avatar

    leopoldo Perdomo

    |

    well, while weather is easy to see, climate is not so obvious. Then, anything not obvious is a ideal ground for some fraudulent forecasting.

  • Avatar

    Dr Pete Sudbury

    |

    Here’s another posting for people who can’t tell the difference between weather and climate, demonstrating that science by anecdote doesn’t work
    “…
    @HenryFountain
    Average air temperatures were so high last month at a monitoring station on the north coast of Alaska that computers rejected the readings as flawed. But there was nothing wrong with the data or the instrument that recorded it. Rather, temperatures had soared because of shrinking sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, one of the more obvious effects of climate change.
    Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch at the National Centers for Environmental Information, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, described the situation in a blog post.
    Here’s what happened: There was less sea ice than usual off Utqiagvik (commonly known as Barrow), home to a cluster of instruments that have recorded temperatures and other climate data for decades.
    The lack of ice caused air temperatures in the area, near the northernmost point in the United States, to be unusually high. (Arctic waters, though cold, are relatively warmer than ice, so they warm the air more.)
    NOAA’s computers have a software algorithm that constantly compares data from each of thousands of monitoring stations to detect problems like faulty instruments. That algorithm decided the November readings from Utqiagvik were too strange to be real. It rejected the data — and previous monthly readings going back about a year.
    The Arctic is warming about twice as fast as other regions, and since the late 1970s sea ice, which reaches maximum extent in March and minimum in September, has been shrinking by about 13 percent per decade compared to the 1981-2010 average.
    Dr. Arndt noted that Utqiagvik has been warmer for years. Average November temperatures there since the turn of the century are some 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in the last two decades of the 20th century. The warming occurs because less loose ice drifts south to the region in the fall than in years past, leaving more open ocean.
    Dr. Arndt and his colleagues noticed the missing readings when they were processing data to prepare a climate report. He said they planned to gradually restore the data now that they can assure the computer it is real.”

  • Avatar

    elkcub

    |

    Dr. Sudbury, MD,

    You are a physician who is now a Political lobbyist at Greenpeace. Based on your bio and what you’ve said on this website, I would question whether you actually know anything about science other than what you’ve been told by other policy advocates. As a retired NASA Senior Scientist who has worked with dozens of scientists and engineers over a 38 yr. career, it’s very clear that you’re simply not qualified to make judgments or lecture anyone on the subject of “proper science.”

    Although divergent points of view have and should be encouraged, trolls like yourself should be filtered out of PSI. You have not contributed anything of value.

    E. M. Huff, Ph.D.

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Our good Dr Pete Sudbury is only a self-styled ‘Political lobbyist at Greenpeace.’ https://www.linkedin.com/in/doctorpete/
    So, we know from the off he serves an agenda outside of science. Dr Pete needs his appeal to authority, prophecy and spin; not the best test of a scientific argument. Without it climate alarmism is the veritable emperor with no clothes (just another Ponzi scheme for the gullible).
    In June 1992 the architects of this fraud convened The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and concocted man-made global warming as the great international crisis to be fought and thus help usher in one world government. Thereafter administrators within national science institutions were co-opted/bought off to promote targeting cuts in human CO2 emissions (to serve de-industrialization, population control). Honest, dissenting scientists were ostracized – until they got their act together since the rise of the Internet and direct contact with the masses (ergo populist revolt).
    For the past 30 years climate science has lived a post-normal life in government grant-chasing academia with data-doctoring methodologies and model-based political tools. So many new faculties of climate studies were created, hierarchies built, resumes (CV’s) honed and billions spent. But climate ‘research’ should not in any way be confused with applied science and engineering research, which has been honed from generations of hard-won empirical evidence. A Physicist, Chemical Engineer, Mathematician can readily apply their skills to any other field. But a ‘climate scientist’ has no readily-transferable skills beyond earth-worship preaching (the priesthood might suit them well).
    When contrasting with any of the hard (STEM) sciences, we see climate science theory as a construct of consensus; it relies on opinion more than factual data. It is the archetypal fool’s paradise where pseuds can claim to be something they are not because their coterie of friends all call each other ‘experts’ without recourse to objective tests.
    Climate scientists are mocked by other real scientists for being too big for their boots lording it in a ‘soft’ science akin to much of the social sciences. Indeed, any ‘science’ that needs the word ‘science’ tacked onto the end of it is probably trying too hard to be something it isn’t.
    Post-normal science is replete with indeterminate variables and postulates that cannot be refuted under the norms of the traditional scientific method. It is thus the perfect refuge for the scoundrel and/or the incompetent. This is why our resident troll, Dr Pete has little more than his well-worn appeal to a discredited authority. No one believes the BS anymore.

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      Let’s be honest.

      The peak oil scare failed despite the price shocks of the early 70’s.

      Thatcher needed some justification for her government’s merciless destroying of miners during the UK miner’s strikes of the 80’s and the IPCC and the CO2 emissions destroying the planet scare commenced shortly thereafter – coal is poison. Mind you burning coal in homes in London for heating was clearly a health hazard.

      The whole thing was, and remains, an orchestrated political movement with the aim of breaking down national governments. It has become the most successful campaign with no actual foundation ever. The concept still remains an unproven hypothesis at odds with a lot of sound science.

      Unfortunately environmentally minded people have become so obsessed that they and their pressure groups are now advocating real environmental harm in their zealous campaign to vilify the atmospheric gases that support carbon based life.

      No better example of zealous stupidity causing environmental harm exists than the cutting down of American forests to make wood chips to burn in a UK power station because some idiot European Bureaucrat pronounced such an absurdity was “carbon neutral”.

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        Rosco, you could hardly be more accurate. Especially with the line:

        The whole thing was, and remains, an orchestrated political movement with the aim of breaking down national governments.

        That is the crux of the entire “Global Warming” “Climate Change” scam! … It all comes back to the “One World Government” garbage, and they are willing to kill off the vast majority of this planet to obtain it.

        • Avatar

          John O'Sullivan

          |

          Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly with all you gentlemen have said in response to Dr Pete. I am very proud that the Slayers and PSI has succeeded in keeping us party politics free. It was plainly not a party political issue – it was always about challenging post-normal science’s abandonment of the traditional scientific method. It permeates beyond climate fraud and into Big Pharma, cosmology, corrupt science bodies and peer-review journals, too. So many governments of all colors worldwide are guilty for reliance on faux science. PSI stands alone as the only international science association set up as a fully regulated non-profit dedicated to promoting Karl Popper’s sensible approach. We have a lot of work to do yet to educate the wider public and policymakers.

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Well said, Squidly. If Dr Pete is going to stick to the usual Greenpeace/Alinksy playbook, he will next accuse us all of being hard core right wing Trump supporters. Little does he know that several senior PSI scientists are in fact life-long Democrats. Indeed, here in the UK I don’t hide that when I was a full-time teacher I voted Labour on more than one occasion and count astrophysicist Piers Corbyn (brother of Labour Party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn) as a friend and trusted adviser. Let’s not forget that our respected colleague and former President of Greenpeace (Canada) Dr Patrick Moore gets lots of mentions on PSI for exposing Greenpeace for their ultra left wing climate insanity. Dr Pete may want to stick to hunting elsewhere for impressionable millenials with little life experience or training in hard sciences. Trolling here he’s well out of his depth.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Thanks John, I apologize for being somewhat harsh, but I am sick and tired of idiots like Dr. Dumbass. They are an enemy of humanity. His kind are responsible for the worst atrocities in human history, and they are attempting to pull off another one. I can no longer restrain myself in these matters. It would be one thing if he were actually discussing and debating “science”, but obviously he does not. Science doesn’t matter to him. It’s all about political ideology.

      For the record, I do happen to be a Trump supporter. I am not “right wing” however. I am more libertarian than anything (not devout). I am certainly conservative and a staunch Constitutionalist. But none of that matters in science. Not one atom of my political views matters in science. Science and truth does not give a rat’s rump about my political views, and I don’t care about anyone else’s political views within the science arena. I couldn’t care less, it’s not even up for discussion in that context. This is science, not politics! … Science is based in fact, not ideology. Dr. Dumbass is all about politics, be damned truth and science.

      Thank God we have folks like you that are willing to operate websites like this. This is the type of forum where truth prevails.

      In the end, like it or not, reality always wins!

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Squidly,

        Way back when my major professor told us young upstarts that science has its own politics. Research Lewis Frank, University of Iowa, and small comets. It is very hard to see any governmental politics involved in the shunning he experienced from his ‘friends’ when he, because of his scientific reputation, forced the publication of two scientific articles because he could not convince himself that he was not seeing something real.

        Not, as easy to research is the case of H. C. Brown, eventual Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, who could not get his articles (reporting the results of his experiments) published in any peer-reviewed chemical journal because the purpose of his experiments were to demonstrate that there was a simple cause for certain chemical reactions instead of exotic reasoning offered by big deal chemistry theorists to explain these types of reactions. I only know of this, not being an organic chemist, because H. C. Brown delivered a nearly semester long Baker Lecture series at Cornell University while I was there.

        So, there are politics in science and they should not be there. Arrhenius who did the radiation balance calculation which is still the basic claimed result of the greenhouse effect was a big deal because of his explanation of acid-bases in chemistry. So, I conclude that this might be why no one pointed out that air temperature is not the surface temperature. But I still do not commonly read skeptics pointing to the fact that air temperature is not surface temperature as they argue and argue instead of citing observations. And as I try to promote the consideration of observations (measurements), I find little encouragement beyond John O’Sullivan’s willingness to post my essays. Thank you, John.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Jerry: Not, as easy to research is the case of H. C. Brown, eventual Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, who could not get his articles (reporting the results of his experiments) published in any peer-reviewed chemical journal because the purpose of his experiments were to demonstrate that there was a simple cause for certain chemical reactions instead of exotic reasoning offered by big deal chemistry theorists

          JMcG: OMG. This is surreal. The guy who made the absurd argument that Linus Pauling is right because he is Linus Pauling and that Jim McGinn is wrong because he is not Linus Pauling is now trying to present himself as a defender of scientific purity.
          Jerry, your attitude is not the solution, its the problem. Your approach to science is the epitome of the hero worship nonsense that underlies global warming and other popular by absurd notions, like the believe that H2O magically turns to steam in the atmosphere.
          The fact that O’Sullivan and the other self-righteous twits on this site don’t take you to task for this Hippocracy is reflective of the conservative anti-science political agenda that is harbored here.

          Follow this link to see Jerry’s hippocracy yourself:
          https://principia-scientific.org/top-u-s-scientist-calls-greenhouse-gas-theory-a-fallacy/#comments

          James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi James,

            “Your approach to science is the epitome of the hero worship.”

            Einstein wrote: “Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized.” In this single comment, you demonstrate that you do not respect scientist who many others beside myself respect of the easily observed achievements. I only worship the Creator God of the Holy Bible. And I respect you; especially because you worked near Williston ND during two winters. That is clearly a great achievement and I am not being scarcastic.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            I realize you are not being sarcastic. That is not in your nature. (It is in mine.) I too have an affinity for Christian beliefs. I was raised catholic and had the benefit catholic education through high school. I was taught the scientific method by Marianist brothers. Then I did something that nobody expected and that I often regret, I actually applied what they taught me. This eventually led me to solve a problem that had troubled me since high school, human evolution. I eventually realized that the discipline that pretended to be interested in this question, paleoanthropology, was dominated by people that are good at finding rocks. I went to the only forum that would entertain any model that didn’t involve a tool-using ape, sci.anthropology.paleo, but I eventually came to the realization that I was confronting a brain-dead paradigm, so I gave that up. In the context of my education I became familiar with climatology. So, out of boredom I began discussing global warming, starting in 2006. It soon became apparent that this also involved a brain-dead paradigm who had no interest but to advance their absurdly simplistic model of the atmosphere. At that time there were only three forums that discussed the subject. Climate Audit, which originally exposed the fraud but who were otherwise inept when it came to debate. RealClimate, which was CRU’s and NASA’s response to Climate Audit, and alt.global-warming a usenet group which is where all the real debate took place. When I first came upon it in 2006, alt.global-warming CRU and their cronies dominated all debate. I responded with an extremely aggressive socratic approach, asking questions and demanding answers. By 2007 all of CRU and their cronies had retreated to Realclimate, they declared it a moderated forum (I was blocked) and that is when they started declaring that the debate was over. (Yes, the ‘debate is over’ meme was originally a strategy to get away from my questions in that I was the one that exposed “CO2 Forcing” as propaganda.) By 2009 when PSI came on the scene in 2009 the real debate was over. Actually I think the net effect of PSI was negative in that they created all of these talking points around thermodynamics that distracted from the fact that the alarmists had simply never established the validity of their basic premise that CO2 causes atmospheric warming.
            The absurdity of what I was seeing brought me to question meteorology also. And that brought be to question water. And the rest is history–or will be.

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi James and Squidly,

            I’m totally confused because I forgot we were commenting on two separate postings. And then I could not connect to PSI for a day or so. And after John O’Sullivan informed me that now the problem was at my end and I had to delete a history (which) I had never done before. So now because I could not remember my email password, etc etc I presently cannot reconnect to my email.

            I really want to pick up what I consider was becoming a personal conversion as we learned we had something in common beside our interest weather-climate. Especially Jame’s review of his educational history. (Here at January 29, 2018 at 12:12 am.)

            I am going to submit this comment at the other posting also to try to make contact with you both to see if you are interested in picking up where we left off. So I will await a possible response.

            Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Dr Sudbury:
    “NOAA’s computers have a software algorithm that constantly compares data from each of thousands of monitoring stations to detect problems like faulty instruments. That algorithm decided the November readings from Utqiagvik were too strange to be real. It rejected the data . . . ”

    JMcG:
    So, a region is warmer than usual. So what? Historical highs and lows for different locations on the planet are breached constantly–almost daily.

    More significantly, why aren’t you providing us the data with which we can evaluate the claim. You say it is warming “twice as fast as other regions.” Well, so what? That could mean just about anything. A place that is 2 degrees warmer than usual in comparison to a place that is 1 degree warmer than usual is warming at twice the rate. But only a global warming whackjob would think that is significant.

    You then go on to tell us that the temperature is higher than some threshold associated with some algorithm. Okay. But , again, so what? Who cares. Get a better algorithm or hire a better programmer. Only a fool would suggest that this is something to be alarmed about.

    Your post is just more evidence that the drama of global warming is in the unrestrained imagination of people who have never had an upper level class in statistics.

    How did somebody as dumb as you ever manage to become a doctor?

    Seriously.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    Resolving the Anomalies of H2O Meetup
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16958

    than a place that is 1 derr

    The Arctic is warming about twice as fast as other regions,

    and since the late 1970s sea ice, which reaches maximum extent in March and minimum in September, has been shrinking by about 13 percent per decade compared to the 1981-2010 average.
    Dr. Arndt noted that Utqiagvik has been warmer for years. Average November temperatures there since the turn of the century are some 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in the last two decades of the 20th century. The warming occurs because less loose ice drifts south to the region in the fall than in years past, leaving more open ocean.
    Dr. Arndt and his colleagues noticed the missing readings when they were processing data to prepare a climate report. He said they planned to gradually restore the data now that they can assure the computer it is real.”

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      How did somebody as dumb as you ever manage to become a doctor?

      Indeed. Dr. Dumbass is illustrating why one should be very careful when selecting their physicians. I have had many physician friends over the years, many, and I can tell you first hand, there are a lot more of them out there that are complete idiots than you might think. Select your physician(s) very carefully and with extreme caution. Your very life may be in their hands.

Comments are closed