112 thoughts on “12-Month Global Temperature Anomaly, July 2017

    1. 2slugbaits

      Steven Kopits For lots of reasons (too many to list here) you shouldn’t put too much weight on satellite data, and that’s especially true for monthly data. The error bands around satellite temperature data are at least an order of magnitude greater than the error bands around surface data. So take the July data with a grain of salt. Other than Spencer and his UAH colleagues, very few people who work with satellite data put a lot of faith in it. And in any event, even the satellite data shows a pronounced upward trend over the longer run.

      Reply
      1. Steven Kopits

        Whom should I believe? Hansen? He blew that the fourth time he was arrested.

        Play on the field or be a ref. You can’t do both. Not Hansen, not Spencer.

        Reply
        1. 2slugbaits

          Have you ever compared the box and whisker plots of satellite data and ground based data? Not even close.

          I know the satellite folks at UAH. Their love affair with satellite temps is because they work so closely with the Army’s Marshall Space Flight Center on Redstone Arsenal, a few miles southeast of UAH. Satellite data is useful for studying the troposphere for meteorological purposes, but there’s a big gap in trying to connect troposphere data with ground data. Most of us live on the surface, not in the troposphere. Even the height of the troposphere fluctuates quite a bit. Again, that’s useful if you’re trying to predict tomorrow’s weather, but not very helpful if you’re trying to track climate change. You’re not even measuring the same thing from day-to-day. And while calibration issues are a problem with surface instruments, those problems pale when compared to the calibration and continuity issues associated with satellite data.

          Hansen is no longer associated with NOAA, so it’s not clear how what Hanson has to say is at all relevant to NOAA’s surface data, which largely agrees with other surface data. In any event, the circumstances of his arrests might earn him a Nobel Peace Prize, much as was the case with MLK and Nelson Mandela. President Bush (“Dubya”) was arrested, but my guess is that this little piece of history didn’t prevent you from voting for him….amiright?

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            2slugs again gives us an example of the lack of knowledge “true believers” have in Climate Science. 1) 2slugs denies climate is related to weather, ex. (… that’s useful if you’re trying to predict tomorrow’s weather, but not very helpful if you’re trying to track climate change.)
            the definition for climate is: “cli·mate
            [ˈklīmit]
            NOUN
            the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period: )
            Unknowingly, 2slugs has made the case for satellite data for superior weather/climate prediction.

            2) Weather is created and mostly occurs in the troposphere, so, by 2slugs standards satellites are superior to GROUND stations for tracking and predicting weather/climate.

            3) 2slugs claims: “…while calibration issues are a problem with surface instruments, those problems pale when compared to the calibration and continuity issues associated with satellite data.” Again, 2slugs mixes unlike terms: “ground and surface” data to satellite tropospheric data. Ground makes up ~30% of the planet’s surface, but actual ground stations only measure a small percentage of the ground surface and ignores the 70% of the sea surface. The worse set of measurements, in both coverage and consistency in methods overt time, is the sea surface measurements.

            Not only is he wrong, but dramatically so. Satellite data covers ~80% of the planet’s troposphere (from surface to stratosphere), while surface measurements cover a tiny fraction of the surface. If climate only consisted of temperature then satellites are far superior for coverage and accuracy for historical and prediction purposes.

            2 slugs so typifies alarmists understanding failures. Like so many, he is so confident in the facts without even basic knowledge in them.

          2. baffling

            corev, as usual your responses are incoherent. 2slugs presents logical discussions, typical of a scientist or advanced degree. your inability to understand his arguments indicate you have neither. so do your arguments.

          3. CoRev

            Baffled, what’s so hard to understand there is no difference between weather and climate. They are just temporal views of the same thing. “1) 2slugs denies climate is related to weather, ex. (… that’s useful if you’re trying to predict tomorrow’s weather, but not very helpful if you’re trying to track climate change.)” If satellites are good for tracking one, how does it not track the other?

            Its logic and not emotion. Your failure to comprehend my comment shows what permeates your thinking on climate science.

          4. Steven Kopits

            And yet, a NOAA whistle blower has accused NOAA of manipulating data to hide the ‘pause’.

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

            And Hansen was replaced by Gavin Schmidt. Give me a break. As partisan as they come.

            As for Hansen:

            “Also in 2009, physicist Freeman Dyson criticised Hansen’s climate-change activism. “The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers… Hansen has turned his science into ideology.”[126] Hansen responded that if Dyson “is going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework”.[126] Dyson stated in an interview that the argument with Hansen was exaggerated by The New York Times, stating that he and Hansen are “friends, but we don’t agree on everything.”[127]

            “After Hansen’s arrest in 2009 in West Virginia, New York Times columnist Andrew Revkin wrote: “Dr. Hansen has pushed far beyond the boundaries of the conventional role of scientists, particularly government scientists, in the environmental policy debate.”[85]

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

            Hansen started making hysterical claims as far back as 1988, was arrested several times from at least 2009, and was effectively removed from office in 2013. This tells me that neither Hansen nor NASA values its credibility. For four years they tolerated a loose cannon as the source of allegedly credible, independent numbers. When NASA allowed its technical mission to be politicized, it was clear that its technical independence would be called into question. And it has been.

            Provide the numbers or be an advocate. You can’t be both.

  1. Corev

    Wow! Those are scary graphs showing we have warmed out of the Little Ice Age (LIA)!!! We were so much better off back in the LIA. And the numbers are devastating using the HadCrut 4 dataset — 15.6 decades totaling ~0.8C !!!! Trend: 0.051 ±0.006 °C/decade (2σ)
    β=0.0050575 σw=0.000094200 ν=11.512 σc=σw√ν=0.00031961 /Sarc

    If you wonder where I got the numbers, try here: https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php. Select Hadcrut4 then calculate.

    Can anyone here feel the difference in ~0.8C difference? I doubt it.

    Reply
    1. 2slugbaits

      Can anyone here feel the difference in ~0.8C difference?

      If you live in an air conditioned home that’s hermetically sealed from nature, then you probably can’t feel the difference just as you can’t feel the difference between January and July. Apparently it’s forever 72 degrees in your world. But plants can sure tell the difference. Go check out a garden catalog from 40 years ago and compare it to the planting zones today. Hibernating animals have sure noticed the difference, but then again their caves aren’t climate controlled like your senior care center.

      Please, please, please…if you’re going to show us time series stuff, then please use some grown-up software along with a little knowledge of time series diagnostics. It’s bad enough that Dr. Roy Spencer’s grad students at UAH apparently forgot most of what I taught them in time series analysis a few years ago, but now you keep peddling these braindead online tools.

      Reply
      1. Corev

        2slugs, just smiling at the inability to rebut. Your complaint about use of a tool from someone who at one time wanted me to consider adjusting annual average temps for seasonality.

        Reply
        1. 2slugbaits

          CoRev,

          Ummm…no. I included monthly dummy variables for monthly CO2 data because the northern hemisphere has more land mass than the southern hemisphere. If you think a simple linear trend model going back to 1880 is the right approach, then you’re beyond hope.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            2slugs, again, you still don’t realize you are not comparing like items. “I included monthly dummy variables for monthly CO2 data” Monthly averages is not annual averages, and to what di you add your dummy variables? Your own statistical model? Of what? Are you now claiming to be and expert in atmospheric physics?

        1. Steven Kopits

          Hi John,
          yes that was helpful, indeed I do remember you now, thanks a lot.
          Has been a long time, long time not seeing you.
          When do you intend to visit Princeton next time ?
          Greetings from Steven

          Reply
          1. John

            Steven
            I am afraid Princeton will not be on my schedule before end of next month.
            But really would like to see you again, will send you a PM via twitter under
            my nick John T. Roll.

            See you mate
            John

  2. joseph

    Stephen Kopits: “Give it another 6-8 months, and then we’ll be better positioned to make a more definitive ruling.” he said going on 6 months ago.

    Steven calls for one more “Kopits unit” of delay before we can decide if it is an anomaly or a hiatus. There will always be one more “Kopits unit”.

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

    Reply
    1. Steven Kopits

      Joseph –

      You are correct. The anomaly has declined a good bit in the last six months, so I would guardedly say that we are doing alright. Having said that, it is somewhat higher than it was. At 0.2 deg C, it would be essentially where it has been for the last 20 years. 0.28 is high-ish.

      On the other hand, we’ve had an El Nino in 2016 extended into 2017. So it’s been pretty warm on average.

      At the same time, analysts always want more information. Its our professional version of being a weenie.

      Reply
  3. Bruce Hall

    From a decade ago: http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-its-how-you-say-it.html

    The variability of climate is less than one experiences in hourly fluctuations of temperatures. Yet somehow we survive… as do plants and animals.

    The claims of earth turning into a desert are somewhat exaggerated: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12226

    So, if earth is getting warmer and greener, should we do what Harvard researchers suggest? http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/12/mitigating-the-risk-of-geoengineering/

    What might the economic impact of cooling the earth be? http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-on-the-impact-of-cold-weather-on-the-economy-2014-1

    And what about human health? https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    So, in conclusion, it appears that we must bite the bullet and spend trillions of dollars to get our planet colder… perhaps like the 1700s… because change is bad. http://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences

    I have to go now. Chicken Little is about to make an announcement.

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      World population will likely peak in a hundred years and then decline. One estimate is there will be 500 Japanese by the year 3000 🙂

      Reply
      1. genauer

        Since Japan has no energy resources and little / expensive agriculture (40% self sufficiency), some smooth decline is actually beneficial.

        The Japanese culture is not really immigrant friendly, something very hard to change.

        Now compare that to Germany, for ages with variable borders, plenty of migrants, still lots of lignite, self sufficient agriculture

        Reply
        1. Steven Kopits

          I think the conservative question is whether Germany is a place or a nation. If it’s a place, then it could be populated by Germans, Muslims, French, whatever. If it’s a nation, it is populated by ethnic Germans, more or less.

          I think we’re getting to the limits of liberalism here. I think there are a lot of Germans — and Americans and Russians and Hungarians — who think of their nation as a living entity, not just a way-stop to reside for a while. If it’s the latter, then the nation has to reproduce itself. Right now, that’s not happening pretty much anywhere in the advanced countries.

          Reply
      2. Steven Kopits

        There’s an inflection point somewhere in there.

        For the US after the Great Depression, population growth recovered the year after Pearl Harbor.

        Reply
  4. joseph

    Steven Kopits, it’s not clear in your beating around the bush. Are you advocating nationalism and ethnic purity?

    Reply
    1. Steven Kopits

      As you know, I use a three ideology model. This provides some specific insights.

      There are two kinds of countries, I think. The Anglo-Saxon countries are primarily based on rule of law. As I have said before, in the US, if you can support yourself and obey the laws, welcome on board. I also have a specific immigration proposal on the table. You can find it on CNBC if you Google it.

      Most countries are tribal in some sense. The question is, does the tribe have a right to its own integrity? Is self-determination a valid concept? Do Sunnis have the right to live with Sunnis, and Shiites with Shiites? You could argue they do.

      Reply
      1. dilbert dogbert

        Do Sunnis have the right to drive Shiites out of their communities and vice versa for Shiites vs Sunnis? Blacks and Whites? As Shakespeare said: There’s the RUB.

        Reply
  5. baffling

    so the latest argument from the alt-right/denier group is that global warming is indeed occurring, but that warming the globe is actually GOOD for humans and the environment. the warmer the better. fascinating how they go from denying to actually actively promoting the activity to occur. ignorance is bliss!

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Baffled, how soon you forget. How many times have you been corrected that we all believe in climate change. That includes warming. Warming has been occurring since the LIA. It is the “alarmist” sect which denies these fundamental facts.

      It is a common ploy to make a false contention : “so the latest argument from the alt-right/denier group is that global warming is indeed occurring, but that warming the globe is actually GOOD for humans and the environment. the warmer the better.”, and then arguing their own contention. How many times have we had the same discussion re: AGW, and the % caused by ACO2?

      Please stop the feigned ignorance. Discuss the facts and science instead of just emoting.

      Reply
      1. baffling

        problem is, you and others hung your hat on the “hiatus” as evidence global warming was not occurring. your position shifts like the sands of time…

        Reply
        1. Corev

          Baffled, “you and others hung your hat on the “hiatus” as evidence global warming was not occurring.’ What part of “hiatus” in global warming had stopped do not understand. Even the IPCC in the latest AR recognized the existence of the hiatus. Since then there have been hundreds of papers proving and disproving its existence.

          Alarmist climate scientists fell back on their “go to” option and changed the ?data?. Again.

          The problem is, you and other alarmists, hung your hat on the changed ?data? as evidence of the non-existence of the hiatus. Now, that real scientists will have some influence over what gets published, the understanding of climate will become be5ter balanced. Then maybe a realistic model can be developed with prediction capabilities instead of just projections.

          At that point we will all accept it as science, until then it will remain a religion.

          Reply
          1. baffling

            corev, you simply continue to flip flop your position in an effort to promote your ideology. one day global warming does not exist. the next day it does exist. then it starts again, but it is not human driven. then it is human driven, but we don’t know by how much. you are slowly converging to the correct understanding. but you are very slow. armchair scientists like yourself are ignored by the scientific community for a reason. you do not understand how to conduct and interpret scientific observations.

          2. Corev

            Baffled, when knowledge fails attack the person. “corev, you simply continue to flip flop your position in an effort to promote your ideology.” Please show us where and when I have flip flopped. Be sure to include context, because I have not changed my understanding of climate change for many years. Which is also true for you.

      1. baffling

        “a warmer planet is healthier and better”
        actually, what that article indicates is that TEMPERATURE CHANGE is hard on human civilization. it does not indicate that a higher temperature change from now is beneficial. you are on a fishing expedition with the alt-right.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Baffled: “35 New Papers Affirm Warmth, Elevated CO2 Are Good For The Earth And Its Inhabitants” From here: http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/14/35-new-papers-affirm-warmth-elevated-co2-are-good-for-the-earth-and-its-inhabitants/#sthash.eFz6rmsC.dpbs

          Note: These are just the recent papers. Here are the top few from the article:
          Future Global Warming Scenarios ‘Potentially Beneficial’, Cooling May Cause Ecological ‘Declines’

          Fan et al., 2017
          “Our data suggest that future global warming scenarios would potentially be beneficial for the hydrological and ecological conditions of the EASM [East Asian Summer Monsoon] margin, while small decreases in the precipitation and temperature superimposed on the long-term deteriorated climate may cause large declines in the hydrology and ecology in the semi-arid regions of northern China.”
          Human Health Risks ‘Extremely Sensitive’ To Temperature, With Cold Temperatures More Dangerous

          Wang et al., 2017
          “Numerous previous studies have reported that human health risk is extremely sensitive to temperature. … At the community level, the mean value of relative extreme cold risk (1.63) of all 122 communities was higher than that of extreme high temperature (1.15). … A prolonged impact of low temperature [cold] on human health was observed in China”
          Mass Extinctions Caused By Cold Temperatures (Ice Ages), Not Global Warming

          Baresel et al., 2017
          “The Earth has known several mass extinctions over the course of its history. One of the most important happened at the Permian-Triassic boundary 250 million years ago. Over 95% of marine species disappeared and, up until now, scientists have linked this extinction to a significant rise in Earth temperatures. But researchers have now discovered that this extinction took place during a short ice age which preceded the global climate warming. It’s the first time that the various stages of a mass extinction have been accurately understood and that scientists have been able to assess the major role played by volcanic explosions in these climate processes.”

          Warming Leads To Less Extreme, Unstable Weather, Cooling Does The Opposite

          Zhang et al., 2017
          “Based on continuous and coherent severe weather reports from over 500 manned stations, for the first time, this study shows a significant decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence across China during the past five decades. The total number of severe weather days that have either thunderstorm, hail and/or damaging wind decrease about 50% from 1961 to 2010. It is further shown that the reduction in severe weather occurrences correlates strongly with the weakening of East Asian summer monsoon which is the primary source of moisture and dynamic forcing conducive for warm-season severe weather over China.”

          Kawamura et al., 2017
          “Numerical experiments using a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model with freshwater hosing in the northern North Atlantic showed that climate becomes most unstable in intermediate glacial conditions associated with large changes in sea ice and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Model sensitivity experiments suggest that the prerequisite for the most frequent climate instability with bipolar seesaw pattern during the late Pleistocene era is associated with reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration via global cooling and sea ice formation in the North Atlantic, in addition to extended Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.”

          Heller, 2017
          “The hurricane analysis conducted by Burn and Palmer (2015) determined that hurricane activity was subdued during the [warm] Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) (~900-1350 CE) and became more produced during the [cold] Little Ice Age (LIA) (~1450-1850 CE), followed by a period of variability occurred between ~1850 and ~1900 before entering another subdued state during the industrial period (~1950-2000 CE). In general, the results of this study corroborate these findings.”
          “[W]hile hurricane activity was greater during the LIA, it also had more frequent periods of drought compared to the MCA (Burn and Palmer 2014), suggesting that climate fluctuations were more pronounced in the LIA compared to the MCA. The changes in the diatom distribution and fluctuations in chl-a recorded in this study starting around 1350 also indicate that variations in climate have become more distinct during the LIA and from ~1850-1900. … [C]limate variability has increased following the onset of the Little Ice Age (~1450-1850 CE), however it is difficult to distinguish the impacts of recent anthropogenic climate warming on hurricane activity from those of natural Atlantic climate regimes, such as ENSO.”

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Just to be clear, many of the “believer set” think there is no science showing alternative/skeptical int5erpretations, but that never has been true. The recent shift in politics should see more being published in the “Journals” as funding should also shift to see more production of such papers.

  6. joseph

    Bruce Hall: “the “alt-right” is a figment of the radical left’s imaginations.”

    Are you saying that Heather Heyer was murdered by a figment?

    They are the core of Trump’s base. You Republicans own them.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Hall

      Heyer was murdered by a lone driver who has a deep-seated psychological problem and is not “owned” by anyone. Unless, of course, you feel obligated to “own” every violent left-wing psychologically impaired person. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/28/liberals-ignore-violence-against-conservatives/

      But this is way off subject, isn’t it? If you can’t effectively defend yourself in one debate, accuse the other side of heinous guilt by tenuous association in something totally unrelated.

      Reply
      1. Menzie Chinn Post author

        Bruce Hall: Seriously? Are you asserting that equal number (or close to equal) of violent crimes in the United States are committed by white supremacist, xenophobic, and/or fascist aligned individuals, vs. Marxists/socialists/progressives? I would very much like you commit to virtual paper to this assertion, and even better provide statistical evidence to buttress your assertion.

        Reply
        1. Steven Kopits

          Slate lists 74 deaths associated with right wing groups since the Oklahoma City bombing. Many of these killings were by troubled individuals with right wing sympathies, but not necessarily organized right wing attacks. That tracks about 3 fatalities per year.

          Chicago saw four murders on Aug. 9 alone, just as a point of reference.

          Left wing organizations, which were quite active in the murder business in the 1970s and early 1980s, largely disappeared with the fall of communism.

          http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/white_extremist_murders_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism

          Reply
          1. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Steven Kopits: Yes, we could certainly dredge up the crimes of the Baader-Meinhof group, although I’m not certain it has a relevance to the current situation in Germany.

      2. baffling

        bruce, the alt-right consisting of neo-nazis, racists, bigots have supported and defended the “lone driver”. he was not alone. the alt-right exists. your comments appear to defend them. i hope that is not the case.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Hall

          baffling,
          I’m not defending any violence from any psychologically impaired source whether it is so-called neo Nazis or Antifa. They both represent the fringes of society who cannot approach life rationally, but must resort to violence and suppression of others.

          But, once again, you have deviated from the original discourse in order to evade the issues.

          Menzie,
          I’m surprised that you jumped that shark.

          Reply
          1. Bruce Hall

            Menzie,

            I’m sure you can look up the meaning, but here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jump%20the%20shark

            Original meaning was the point when a television series shows it has run out of ideas and must resort to stunts to retain viewer interest. In this context, the discussion originated around warming temperatures. The “shark” was neo-Nazi fascism. Can you say “non sequitur”?

            I can understand “baffling” or “Joseph” switching subjects when challenges to their points become too difficult, but generally post authors don’t do that.

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Bruce Hall: I must be dense. You made the assertion “Heyer was murdered by a lone driver who has a deep-seated psychological problem and is not “owned” by anyone.” (1) How do we know this? Have you a psychologist’s assessment in front of you? (2) The fact that he has a history of making statements that clearly align with Fascism is irrelevant?

            Let me pose the counterfactual; suppose it turned out somebody who was of religion X committed a crime, and had spent many months advocating violence on behalf of religion X, posting on social media, making statements to people, etc., but “seemed” irrational. Would you say that person was not “owned” by anyone? Call me naive, but I suspect you would claim he was aligned with “religion X”.

            By the way, I did not start the discussion regarding events in Charlottesville; I merely responded to your comment.

          3. Bruce Hall

            Menzie,

            If by “owning” you mean the individual has taken violent actions based on that individual’s understanding of a group to which he subscribes, I guess I can understand that, but not necessarily agree with that.

            Should all Christians or all Muslims be considered violent terrorists because they “own” someone who commits violent and/or terrorist acts in the name of those religions? If so, should all blacks be considered violent, lawless people because someone of their racial group “assassinates” police officers? Should all Chinese, regardless of citizenship, bear the stigma of Mao Zedong?

            That type of guilt by association is absurd on its face and upon deeper inspection.

            My point, however, was that this type of “guilt by association” diversion was a “jump the shark” maneuver because, as the subject of you post indicated, the discussion was about “12-Month Global Temperature Anomaly, July 2017”.

            I’ll reiterate my main point: if the earth is indeed warming from 600 years of cold, miserable, unhealthy conditions as describe in the history.com article, that’s a good thing rather than a change that should be feared. However, my own interpretation of the 30 or so years of “Chicken Little” predictions of doom that have been shown to be nonsense is that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

          4. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Bruce Hall: You, in your comment brought up the assertion that Heyer had no linkage to neo-Nazi groups. I did not “change” the subject, I merely responded to your comment.

            I’ll merely note that by your argument, if somebody who participated in Kristallnacht was mentally deranged, but not a member of the SA, then he was not “owned” by the movement.

          5. Bruce Hall

            Menzie,

            The driver of the vehicle killing Heyer was a member of the neo-Nazis, but there is no indication that this person was part of anything but a political rally and certainly not planned violence of driving a vehicle into a crowd. There are Muslims who regularly go to prayers at the local mosque who are quiet and invisible until they are not. Do we blame the local mosque for “owning” the violence of the individual who may undertake a suicide bombing? Unless individuals are under direct orders from an organization to specific actions or guided toward actions of a focused nature, the organization doesn’t “own” the action of the individual. If that were the case, every military in the world would be subject to reasonable criticism that it “owned” the actions of a soldier who “improvised” violent actions against an opponent. Every religion in the world would be subject to reasonable criticism that it “owned” the actions of an individual who “improvised” violent actions against non-believers. Every organization for social justice would be subject to reasonable criticism that it “owned” the actions of an individual who “improvised” violent actions against those thought to be perpetrators of injustice.

            You may not like the person causing the violence or the person(s) receiving the violence, but unless shown otherwise, the violence is “owned” by the individual. What would be the act of “owning” the individual? Joining in with or protecting the individual to further perpetrate violence.

            So, yes, you responded to a comment that I made as an aside and a preface to this:
            “But this is way off subject, isn’t it? If you can’t effectively defend yourself in one debate, accuse the other side of heinous guilt by tenuous association in something totally unrelated.”

          6. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Bruce Hall: So, I take it in my Kristallnacht example, participants who joined in, but not officially members of SA, were not part of the movement, in your view. Thank you for confirming; I appreciate your forthrightness.

          7. baffling

            “The driver of the vehicle killing Heyer was a member of the neo-Nazis, but there is no indication that this person was part of anything but a political rally and certainly not planned violence of driving a vehicle into a crowd.”

            have you seen video of the “political rally”? marching through the night with torches? chanting against jews and others? soil and blood?

            bruce hall, you do understand how pathetic you sound while trying to create a sympathetic narrative of an evil, racist event. this was not a “political rally”. this was hatred. we fought a world war against this behavior in the past.

            bruce, don’t act like trump. when you see evil (and it was more than one lone wolf there) call it out for what it is. trying to give cover to the alt-right, what they stand for, and how they behave, is truly pathetic.

          8. Bruce Hall

            Menzie,

            Bruce Hall: So, I take it in my Kristallnacht example, participants who joined in, but not officially members of SA, were not part of the movement, in your view. Thank you for confirming; I appreciate your forthrightness.

            Okay, you’ve convinced me. This, for example, is ISIS “owning” an individual’s actions: http://abcnews.go.com/International/truck-hits-pedestrians-busy-barcelona-street/story?id=49272618 . It goes by extension that since the driver was Muslim and, apparently connected with ISIS, and ISIS members are Muslim, Islam “owns” this murderous assault.

            Now, don’t equivocate.

            Baffling
            have you seen video of the “political rally”? marching through the night with torches? chanting against jews and others? soil and blood?

            Odious, reprehensible, disgusting… pick your adjective. Violent is not one of them. Do you feel the same way about the Antifa crowd that physically attacked the Trump supporters in Berkeley? Or does the position on the political spectrum vitiate odious, reprehensible, disgusting behavior? Do you feel the same way about the BLM supporters in Milwaukee who rioted and actively looked for white people to attack? Or does the position on the political spectrum vitiate odious, reprehensible, disgusting behavior?

            ———-

            Meanwhile, a warming earth is a good thing.
            http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/govt-revises-foodgrain-output-to-record-275-68-million-tonnes/articleshow/60090001.cms compared with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822161/

            http://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences

          9. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Bruce Hall: Actually, I would say the correct analogy is, if the driver was claiming adherence to ISIS goals w/o being a member of ISIS, I would say that person is owned by ISIS. That corresponds to your Charlottesville situation – driver was not an official member of a group (as far as I know), but repeatedly and explicitly stated pro-Nazi views.

          10. baffling

            bruce, i do not condone violence. that said, the position of the antifa to challenge the fascists, neo-nazis and racists is something i will not condemn. i do not approve of all of their actions, especially violence, but they have a valid message regarding antifascism. they are taking a stand against fascism, are you? belatedly if at all.

            on the other hand, there is absolutely nothing that i support with regard to the neo-nazi groups. i despise their actions, violence, and rhetoric. bruce, you are trying to create a moral equivalence between the antifa and neo-nazis. i disagree.

          11. Bruce Hall

            baffling,

            There is no “moral equivalence” between the racist neo-Nazis and the fascist Antifa (yes, exactly that). The former uses hateful speech and makes fools of themselves pretending to be the representatives of the “white race”. The latter takes it upon themselves to determine what is worthy versus unworthy causes and speech and anything deemed unworthy is attacked both physically and verbally in an effort to silence them. Antifa is the perfect advocate for a dictatorial, left-wing agenda that suppresses the rights of any opposition.

            So, as distasteful as the moronic neo-Nazis are, I find the tactics and violence of Antifa far more dangerous to our national values and individual rights. They are threatening the foundation of our freedom in the name of “protecting” us from bad thoughts and fools yelling foul messages.

            I don’t want or need that type of protection, but I guess those who find meaning in slogans do.

  7. buural

    Is it just me or do temperature anomalies seem to spike up during wars? If so, which way does the causation run?

    Reply
  8. joseph

    This is not a time to be quiet and polite. The Republican Party has embraced and nurtured their affiliation with white supremacists, racists, ethnic nationalists, neo-Nazis and the alt-right for decades since the Civil Rights Act. This affiliation has been their path to political victory ever since Nixon perfected the Southern Strategy of racial resentment among lower income whites. Wealthy Republicans have quietly sanctioned their unholy marriage of convenience with the racists in order to advance their political agenda of tax cuts for the rich. The Southern Strategy has since gone national.

    Republicans. We know who you are. We know what you are. We are not going to politely look the other way. You are the party of Trump. You are the party of racists. You own them.

    Reply
    1. baffling

      have you ever seen a conservative republican lead the charge to publicly denounce neo-nazis and other racists and bigots? most behave like trump. eventually they will be forced to publicly condemn, but only begrudgingly and after the fact. you can see it on this blog. not one of them has ever come out first and condemned the actions of the alt right. i guess when you create a platform of denial with respect to racism, it becomes hard to acknowledge that racism actually exists. then you must admit your platform is wrong.

      Reply
    2. PeakTrader

      No wonder the Liberal (formally Democrat) party has become a regional party.

      Republicans need to free the blacks again. This time from the bigotry of low expectations.

      Reply
  9. 2slugbaits

    baffling corev, you simply continue to flip flop your position in an effort to promote your ideology. one day global warming does not exist. the next day it does exist. then it starts again, but it is not human driven. then it is human driven, but we don’t know by how much.

    Exactly. CoRev has been doing this for years…actually, decades over at Angry Bear. For a long time he denied that there was any kind of warming…natural or manmade. Then he shifted to saying that obviously there has been apparent warming, but only because of urban heat islands, calibration fudging or whatever. Then he abandoned that (without ever explicitly admitting it) and moved on to say that warming is not only natural but a good thing. About a dozen years ago he was predicting global cooling after 2010. That didn’t pan out either. Occasionally he hauls out some discredited hiatus argument, but the data shows that’s a BS argument too. So then we come full circle to denying there’s warming, but that the warming we have is natural, and besides, it’s good and the earth will soon be cooling. He’s been at this for many years. He also doesn’t have a clue about the time series analysis. He doesn’t understand dummy variables. Doesn’t understand unit root or autocorrelation. Doesn’t seem to recognize visually obvious heteroskedasticity that invalidates significance tests. None of it. He doesn’t even seem to understand the basic quantum mechanics that explains why CO2 molecules when excited by certain wavelengths “vibrate” and warm the atmosphere. And he can’t believe that only small changes in CO2 concentrations can have big warming effects. He thinks M-M destroyed the “hockey stick” argument not knowing that M-M totally botched the principal components analysis…basically because he doesn’t know how to do a proper principal components analysis. He’s just a geezer that doesn’t want to give up his big carbon footprint.

    Reply
    1. Corev

      Looks who’s back citing more personal attacks, but more importantly showing again how ignorant of the actual subject of climate science he is. How? By totally misunderstanding the basic premise. “He doesn’t even seem to understand the basic quantum mechanics that explains why CO2 molecules when excited by certain wavelengths “vibrate” and warm the atmosphere.” 2slugs climate is all about vibrating CO2 molecules that warm the atmosphere. But CO2 molecules are always vibrating, generally at the frequency of their surroundings.

      Did you forget about photons and and long wave radiation? Y’ano that ole Green House Effect theory GHE). In addition have you forgotten the many discussions about Green House Gasses (GHGs). Not just CO2. Perhaps you have forgotten the anthropogenic portion of the GHGs and how they are supposed to support the AGW hypothesis.

      2slugs, explain to us these how minor things listed above affect CO2 molecules, for how long, and why. Show us with the depth of your understanding. your memory is seriously flawed. I have from the beginning admitted there was warming. Especially from the LIA. You have DENIED the existence of the LIA, the MWP and other natural phenomena,. You claimed then and continue to deny their existence, and finally shifted to their extent.

      For years you have relied not on the science but your own reliance on statistical tests. Tests used to support your denial of those phenomena already listed and to try to disprove the existence of the hiatus. I won’t list the many papers, skeptical and alarmist, which prove it, because you will fall back on useless statistical test. Tests which just show warming in suspect data to which we all agree.

      What you always forget is when I talk of cooling it is from the peak of this interglacial, the optimum.

      Reply
      1. Corev

        Sorry, took a break for dinner. 2slugs your use of “monthly variables” had nothing to do with the use of a linear regression tool to show a trend of “annual AVERAGE temperature anomalies”. You were breath takingly wrong then and still.

        Reply
      2. 2slugbaits

        CoRev You have not always admitted that there was warming. For years you denied there was any warming and insisted that the measured temperatures were biased and couldn’t be trusted because climate scientists were fudging the calibrations. Ten years ago you were certain that we were on the edge of a cooling cycle and you insisted that by now we would be seeing cooler temperatures. Then you admitted there was warming, but it was not manmade. Then you pushed the “hiatus” theory, which clearly denies warming. You’ve been all over the ballpark on this. That was baffling’s point. I’m sure that he and I are not the only ones who have noticed how you shift your positions.

        You completely misunderstand my views on the LIA. Clearly there was cooling over much of the northern hemisphere. But it was not global. Large parts of Asia saw warmer temperatures during the LIA. It used to be thought that the LIA covered parts of South America, but recent data shows that while there was cooling, the timing with the European LIA is off by a couple hundred years. The big problem is that the LIA is pretty much irrelevant to today’s manmade global warming.

        No one disputes that there are other GHGs besides CO2, but the convention is to express GHG in terms of CO2 equivalent units. Methane is a dangerous GHG. The most common GHG is water vapor, but over the relevant timeframes water vapor is relatively constant…and the derivative of a constant is zero, which is why water vapor is not relevant when talking about climate change.

        As to the physics of CO2 causing absorption in the infrared, that’s not something I can cover in a short blog reply. Besides, you never studied basic calculus never mind differential equations, but I refer you to the old classic textbook, “Physics of Climate”, pages 104 – 108. Page 107 (Figure 6.5) has a nice diagram showing the vibratory states of the three key triatomic molecules (water, ozone and CO2), although ozone is irrelevant in the troposphere. BTW, I never claimed to be a physicist…that would be my dad.

        Do you actually understand what it means when people talk about peer reviewed literature??? Do you understand that it doesn’t apply to all of the junk “professional” journals that are popping up for purposes of resume padding?

        Reply
  10. CoRev

    2slugs, well done. You did some research. Now correct your misstatements in your comment. Your response appears to be an attempt at throwing mud against the wall in hopes some will stick. Almost none is relevant to the discussion.

    As an example: “No one disputes that there are other GHGs besides CO2, but the convention is to express GHG in terms of CO2 equivalent units. ” YUP!! There are multiple ways to express GHGs. So what??? How does that apply to our discussion?
    Or another example: “Do you actually understand what it means when people talk about peer reviewed literature??? ”
    Or this: “Besides, you never studied basic calculus never mind differential equations, …” All are irrelevant or personal attack. Just mud slinging without a point, when you can not discuss the science/issue.

    You and Baffled have again fallen into the “go to” position that most of us skeptical of the current catastrophic climate science predictions, deny the whole of climate science, in particular that it has WARMED since the LIA. My statements re: warming are, and have always been contextually based, from one period to another. It has warmed since the last glaciation, it has peaked many times since this start of this glaciation, and this latest peak may be as high as the last. It clearly is not as high as other peaks, except for a minority of flawed studies.

    There are still a few die hards denying the existence “hiatus”, but, the “hiatus” is a math construct of the temperature trend. The “hiatus” is book ended by two super el Ninos. It appears that we may be entering a la Nina. If long enough and low enough the “hiatus” trend will resume. The most important thing re: this phenomenon is not the existence, but the cause, ENSO. ENSO is overwhelming a natural event, not anthropogenic. The “hiatus” is important in clarifying the value of Nature in temperature trends. That is why AGW alarmists so vehemently deny it.

    You represent the problem with AGW alarmist thinking: “The big problem is that the LIA is pretty much irrelevant to today’s manmade global warming.” If you can not explain the reason for warming since the LIA, then how can you explain today’s manmade global warming? So, the LIA is far from irrelevant.

    More importantly, the position also shows the extremely short historical window upon which the science/belief is based. My consistent position has been that climate is made of multiple, some times overlapping cycles, the importance of which most alarmists deny. Example: Your belief in the irrelevance of the LIA. But the most important cycle is the repeating glaciations, which the AGW theory tries to stop. It is this foundation that has moved AGW into religious territory. This whistling past the graveyard meed allows many to ignore the multiple predictive failures of Climate Science.

    Reply
  11. baffling

    “Or this: “Besides, you never studied basic calculus never mind differential equations, …” All are irrelevant or personal attack. Just mud slinging without a point, when you can not discuss the science/issue.”

    this goes back to a previous point. corev, you try to be an armchair scientist. but understanding global climate is a science. it does require academic tools, some rather advanced, to understand the science. you do not have those tools, and worse, you do not even believe those tools are necessary to understand the science. you actually think you are benefitting from not being encumbered by the tools of science and mathematics. it is hard for any scientist to discuss global warming with you, because you lack the ability to communicate in a scientific way. like trump, you feel the facts are open to suggestion. scientific facts do not work that way.

    Reply
    1. Corev

      Baffled, you surely do not know my educational nor my work history. If you can not discuss the issue/science attack the man. I guess you believe your comment is communication in a scientific way. Provide a list of the scientific facts I think are open to suggestion. Project even more of your emotions.

      Reply
  12. baffling

    corev, i did not provide my comment to you in a scientific way because i already know you do not understand such an approach. regarding your educational and work history, your commentary and thought process indicate you are not a scientist. your explanation of scientific phenomena indicate you do not have scientific or advanced math training. feel free to show me otherwise. copy and paste of other denier writings does not count as scientific thought.

    “If you can not discuss the issue/science attack the man. ”
    it would be great to discuss the science with you, but i find it rather difficult to discuss science with somebody who does not understand nor appreciate the science itself. you pick and choose scientific phenomena, even when they are mutually incompatible, depending upon the point you try to make. this is obvious from your flip flop positions. science does not work that way. it operates in a very rigorous framework.

    Reply
    1. Corev

      Baffled, now you’re doubling down on the trolling. I’m still waiting for that list of flip flops. GThere’s no point in continuing the discussion with you.

      Reply
      1. baffling

        not trolling. but i take offense to those who practice pseudoscience because they do not have the education, intellect and desire to conduct science properly. corev you seem to fit that mold. and your flip flops have already been discussed in this post.

        Reply
          1. baffling

            corev, i guess you first need to clarify your current position on the hiatus. is the latest position the hiatus exists? or it did not exist? or it existed but was caused by the new ice age? as you can see, it is difficult to discuss anything technical with you because you have a constant drift in your position.

  13. Barkley Rosser

    Sigh…

    Two comments.

    The first is that the term “alt-right” was not something made up by the left. It was Breitbart, then directly run by Steve Bannon, that declared itself “the platform for the alt-right.” Not sure he or they invented the term, but they certainly adopted it and used it proudly and with enthusiasm.

    The other is that it is clear that global warming is happening, and that there is a substantial human component to this. Regarding the impact of this, the last estimates I saw show that indeed for about another degree of global average warming (Celsius), the GDPs of the two largest economies will rise, the US and China. This basically gets down to the reduction of heating costs in wintertime continuing to outweigh rising costs in many other areas, which outweigh those declines beyond that degree warming.

    I guess I am on more than two points, but extending the above, it has long been known that the worst costs of global warming will be felt in tropical and sub-tropical zones, such as Bangladesh, while places like Russia and Canada might continue to experience net gains for even more heating than helps China and the US. These places are in acute danger, and some of them are already experiencing the costs. Of course this raises both the moral as well as political-economic problem of these largely poor nations lacking power in the global decisionmaking arena to affect what is going on, with the US and China basically running the show in their G-2, and as noted, in the near term their incentives to do so are not that great, although China now seems to be doing more than the US, partly driven by broader pressure to clean up air pollution and the environment as income levels rise in China.

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      Are you saying the left redefined alt-right?

      How do you know humans substantially added to global warming?

      Sounds like more fake news.

      Reply
      1. PeakTrader

        It’s unfortunate what happened to journalism in this country. The mainstream media use to report the news. Then, journalists, like Dan Rather, would subtly and cleverly change the news. Now, the mainstream media is a propaganda machine that has lost almost all of its credibility.

        Reply
        1. baffling

          and then fox news arrived. orielly was a top notch journalized unbiased in his commentary. peak you are ridiculous.

          Reply
          1. PeakTrader

            I’ve shown a study before to you FOX News is less biased than other major news organizations.

            You’re too far out in left field to see what happened to journalism.

  14. CoRev

    This relatively new paper might shed some light on the probabilities of AGW vs NGW. http://file.scirp.org/pdf/ACS_2017070315503961.pdf Some of the stats folks might find it interesting. In its conclusion:
    ” Thus, the probability that the half of the contemporary GW is produced by natural random oscillations of temperature is more than 0.25. Emission of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) most likely is another possible contributor to the GW of the last centuries [1] [2].
    Changes in the solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (global brightening) might be important source of the warming of the last decades [14]. However, our results show that the contribution of these external factors (including greenhouse effect) to the GW could be less than is often believed [1]
    [2]. ”

    To clarify references [1] and [2] are IPCC ARs 2007 & 2013.

    Reply
      1. Barkley Rosser

        I have not looked at the paper, but the bottom line, corev is that the probability is substantially less than half that half of global warming is due to non-human “natural” causes. Humans are the main source of those emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, and they are listed. And what you get is that it is probably not largely due to changes in solar radiation, indeed in the last decade and a half or so, solar radiation has been slightly down, meaning if that is driving things we should have had global cooling. But we have not.

        So just how peoples’ minds supposed to be changed by this new information, aside from perhaps Peak Trader who thinks that saying that humans are playing a role in ongoing global warming is “fake news”?

        Reply
        1. Corev

          Barkley, I read the conclusion differently. They used the term “natural random oscillations of temperature” not as you defined the more generic term ” non-human “natural” causes”. I can’t fault you in interpreting the authors’ meaning of the term since they never defined it in the paper and were inconsistent in their uses. I counted at least 3-4 different variations.

          What I found interesting is their separation of the three components: 1) “natural random oscillations of temperature” 2) “Emission of greenhouse gases” and 3) “Changes in the solar radiation at the Earth’s surface”. Grouped into these three makes them very large with many complex sub-components.

          What disappointed me was their failure to provide probabilities for each of the components, and the sloppiness of the writing, inconsistent use of terms and failure/lack of defining them.

          Reply
          1. PeakTrader

            And, Barkley, you’re the one creating fake news. I didn’t say humans don’t have an effect on the warming cycle, I said how do you know humans have a substantial effect on global warming?

        2. baffling

          Barkley has the more reasonable interpretation.

          “Correspondingly, the probability that the current global terrestrial temperature is going through the NGW episode is 0.026 – 0.047. This shows that the GW unlikely could be fully explained by natural va- riability of temperature. Therefore it is reasonable to regard the GW as a phe- nomenon exceptional from the point of view of intrinsic climatic oscillations, which need an additional external forcing factor for explanation.”

          corev, you do understand this paper really indicates that while there could exist some natural variability, it appears as though some additional forcing function is necessary to explain the increase in temperatures observed over the years. it requires something that does not appear to be a natural part of the cycle.

          i don’t think this paper is very well written, but when you provide papers in support of your alternative facts, perhaps it would be helpful to find a paper that actually supports your position?

          Reply
          1. Corev

            Baffled, we agree that the paper is not well written. Yes, of course I realize what the paper is saying. There is some natural temperature oscillation warming and some warming from GHGs and some from solar insolation.

            That’s why I mentioned the various versions of oscillations, but more importantly the three these three makes very large components with their many complex sub-components. Many of those GHG sub-components are natural. Almost all of the solar sub-component are natural.

            That’s why I was disappointed they did not include their probabilities.

          2. CoRev

            Baffled, when you make claims like this: ” when you provide papers in support of your alternative facts, perhaps it would be helpful to find a paper that actually supports your position?” Are you calling “the three components: 1) “natural random oscillations of temperature” 2) “Emission of greenhouse gases” and 3) “Changes in the solar radiation at the Earth’s surface” used in paper are alternative facts?

            Or are you so desperate to make a point to show your fundamental ignorance?

          3. baffling

            corev, i have not called your three items alternative facts. in fact, i have commented on all three items in the past on this blog. they are relevant items to consider. but the data and models indicate that out of all those issues, it appears that man made factors are the largest contributor to global climate change. the paper you cited makes this same point. in addition, man made contributors are also one item we as humans can also change.

            look corev, you cited a paper which contradicts your position against man made influences. the evidence suggests you are wrong. with your own evidence staring you down, you still simply double down on your position. it is obvious there will never be enough evidence to convince you of the error in your position. own up to that. this is why i challenge your scientific credentials. you do not act like an educated scientist.

          4. CoRev

            Baffled, you really don’t have the basic knowledge to discuss what the paper says. Yes, it says: ” This shows that the GW unlikely could be fully explained by natural va- riability of temperature.” That’s temperature oscillations. They then went on to discuss the two other factors, solar insolation and GHGs. I will repeat what I said earlier, solar insolation is almost totally natural. And, the largest percentage of GHG increases are also natural.

            The only probability they provided was for temperature oscillations. By using the term oscillations they point to a specific set of temperature phenomena, but they did not define what they meant in the paper. They just started their analysis with the arbitrary 0.95C covered by the overall period of their referred data and then cut it in half. Neither are any known oscillations.

            What this paper does show is that it is unlikely that all warming (especially since ~1950) is from human influences, which is too often claimed by many, and that ACO2 and other AGHGs are the “control knobs” of climate. It also confirms this comment: “Worldwide, the draft report finds it “extremely likely” that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 can be linked to human influence.” from the previous article Draft Report on Climate Change.

          5. CoRev

            Baffled, because you lack the fundamental understanding of climate science you misrepresent what my actual position is: “look corev, you cited a paper which contradicts your position against man made influences.” You in the past have called me a denier of the science. You in the past have claimed I do not have the background to discuss any science, and yet we are discussing a paper which you have again misinterpreted.

            Please enlighten me/us to what you think is my position on man made influences. Here’s a hint: I have often stated it.

          1. lxm

            1. Every time I’ve pursued the claims of climate warming deniers they’ve disappeared like the dew in the morning sun. Go ahead, site a study you like. But then do the rest of the work. Look for the refutation. Because you like it, doesn’t make it correct.

            2. Do you remember the Berkeley Earth Study? It was done by Richard Muller. It was funded by the Koch Brothers. This study determined that climate warming due to human actions was real. Richard Muller’s work is no longer funded by the Koch Brothers. This study was pretty much a turning point for me.

            3. Even if climate warning was not happening, there are good reasons to get off fossil fuels. We went to war in Iraq at least partly to insure our oil supply. If we didn’t depend on fossil fuels we would have less reason to engage in otherwise unjustified wars. And I might also mention that fossil fuels are a limited resource as far as I can tell. But who cares what happens to those humans who come after us?

            4. There is also another reason to get off fossil fuels. Make our energy grid more resilient to shocks. The more local production of energy the less likely the entire grid can be made to crash. The entire grid is at risk now. Go check it out.

            5. There are other effects from burning fossil fuels. You mention one of them: “…much of the CO2 is absorbed, mostly in the oceans….” And when it gets absorbed in the oceans, it acidifies the ocean waters which leads to many bad outcomes. Check it out.

            5. Remember that a glacier the size of Delaware was just released from Antartica. It was already afloat so it probably will not increase ocean water levels, but what comes next?

            So who is right?

            I doesn’t matter.

            Getting off fossil fuels is a good thing for all of us except the oil and coal companies.

  15. lxm

    Peak Trader, I just googled ocean acidification. On the first page of results 11 of 12 entries say ocean acidification is real and the twelfth site is the one you quoted. So I’ve got you out numbered.

    I keep a salt water aquarium in my basement. The CO2 in my basement is higher than in the outside air. This makes maintaining the pH of the water at 8.2-8.4 difficult because the water keeps absorbing the CO2 which forms an acid which lowers the pH. So I have first hand knowledge of CO2 affecting salt water pH.

    Do you have any similar first hand knowledge?

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      lxm, there are many causes for PH change in aquariums. Do you have any plants in it? Plus your fish excretions could be a cause. How often do you test and change buffers? How often do you change the buffers. How often do you change the water. Etc. The of course it could also be absorption of CO2, but this should stabilize.

      Reply
    2. PeakTrader of

      Ixm, science is not a popularity contest. And, when there are more activists on a subject, you’ll find the information on Google is skewed in the activists favor. Moreover, Google has been known to program information towards a political view.

      Furthermore, from “Saltwater Aquarium pH Control for Dummies:”

      “…why does the pH in your saltwater aquarium change, usually dropping lower? In most cases, the pH drop is due to the acid produced by the production and reduction of ammonia. The ammonia is created by the livestock in the tank as it eats food and produces waste (for the most case detritus) which then decomposes. Uneaten food on the bottom of the tank also produces ammonia as it decomposes. The same is true with any dead critters which are left in the tank.”

      Reply
      1. lxm

        I have no fish in the tank or vegetation. And I’ve checked out alternative causes for decreasing pH. Too much CO2 seems the best diagnosis.

        But thanks anyway for you expert diagnosis of my tank. It sounds as good as your diagnosis of climate warming.

        I, at least, recognize what too much CO2 can do.

        Reply
  16. Barkley Rosser

    Don’t look now, but it has been announced that July, 2017 was hotter than July last year, indeed, is now the hottest month ever recorded. But for quite a few of you, I am sure that this is probably just fake news.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Sigh! 2nd hottest month ever recorded. And from that we can make all kinds of incredible assumptions. Just watch and read the breathless reporting. However, the CBS News announcement included this truth: “…last month was behind July 2016’s all-time record by .09 degrees.”, and, note: NOT hotter than last July. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/july-ranks-second-hottest-month-on-record/

      As i often point out, most do not have the basic knowledge to translate the climate claims. For instance, at this time in the monthly temp reporting cycle only ~55% of the stations will have actually reported. So not only is this based upon incomplete data, but months result in later adjustments that are seldom announced, unless of course they raise the average. A rush to push the extreme climate agenda is exemplified here.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.