New Record - Data Collection Form - University Of Colorado At Boulder: Fill & Download for Free

YES. What follows are leading climate scientists who are skeptical of so called climate change and why the real deniers are those alarmists who deny the long view of living in the middle of an ice age and the reality of natural variability from solar cycles. Many forces including the earth’s orbital tilt not human emissions of trace amounts of CO2, the air we all exhale with every breath to stay alive, have a major effect on the climate.A major point documented by the Working Group 1 of the IPCC against alarmist theories who deny natural variability in the recent warming and blame humans for the change is the inability to separate the natural from the human impacts.Think about this fact. In 1995 2000+ climate scientists from around the world working on the UN IPCC project concluded as follows:In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”[NATURAL VARIABILITY OVERPOWERS ANY HUMAN IMPACT]Instead of accepting the uncertainty of our complex climate and the difficulty of finding evidence that parses or separates human effects from the dominant natural effects the draft summary was ignored along with the scientists plea for more research with a detailed program outlined. No, the UN General Assembly leaders took over the science Report without credibility and published this dishonest conclusion HIDING THE WORKING GROUP DISSENT.“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”This sordid story of mendacity is told objectively and documented by Bernie Lewin in this book -The author allows these select passages from his book for discussion. They show how the IPCC was threatened with extinction for failing to find human climate change and then the political arm of the UN interfered and fudged the reports using the Michael Mann fudged hockey stick graphs that erased conventional history of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. -Following the welcoming addresses by the Italian President and Environment Minister, there first came Patrick Obasi, Secretary General of the WMO. At the conclusion of a speech mostly making recommendations for the future direction of the IPCC, he noted that the most important result in the current assessment is the evidence for a ‘discernible human influence on global climate’.682 Next came the new head of UNEP, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, who opened with the now familiar narrative of triumph: A decade ago, the scientific community alerted the world to the likelihood that we humans are causing the global climate to change. Five years ago, you said you were very confident that this is indeed the case, but that it would be ten years before we would experience any consequences. Now, just five years later, you are reporting that effects of global warming are upon us. As you put it in your report, ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate’.683 Later in her speech, this key component of the report’s message is summarised, without qualification, as ‘human activities are affecting the global climate’ and so… For the first time, we have evidence that a signal of global warming is beginning to emerge from the ‘noise’ of natural variability. In other words, you [the IPCC] have given the world a reality check. You have pinched us and we have realised we are not dreaming. Climate change is with us. The question is: what do we do with this knowledge?684Lewin, Bernie. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 286-287). Global Warming Policy Foundation. Kindle Edition.A fudged hockey stick by Mann saved the IPCC from being damned out of existenceUnder Houghton and Watson the IPCC third assessment would champion the work of another young scientist who in 1998 produced a temperature trend graph that seemed to have solved Barnett’s problem of a natural variability ‘yardstick’. Using proxy data stretching back to the end of the Medieval Warm Period and instrumental data for the last 100 years, Michael Mann’s results showed such a rapid general warming trend over the last 100 years that it towered over previous fluctuations, thus leaving no room for doubt that something extraordinary is now underway.735Mann soon extended his study back across an entire millennium and this so-called ‘Hockey Stick’ graph is what featured in the IPCC third assessment report. When the report was released in 2001, the graph was the most spectacular vehicle for its promotion; it was also later widely used by governments promoting emissions-reduction policies.These campaigns were not unduly affected by the concerns that were soon raised about the methodology of the graph’s construction, nor by the ensuing Hockey Stick controversy, which would grow to be much larger and endure much longer than the Chapter 8 controversy.736 Instead, the visual impact of the Hockey Stick continued to overwhelm any doubt that there was already a discernible human influence on the global climate.If we consider the other lead authors of Chapter 8, we find that they would suffer little from the controversy, but they won none of the accolades afforded Santer, which is hardly surprising given that they were not always entirely in accord with the IPCC line. Tom Wigley’s expressed scepticism of the science behind climate action extended beyond the determination of natural variability. We will remember that just after the lead author meeting in Asheville he had published a commentary on the Met Office’s neat tracking of the recent global temperature trend, questioning the simulation of the sulphate effect and the apparent success of the modelling prediction. But even before Asheville he also questioned the scientific-economic rationale behind the rush towards emissions reduction. Collaborating with energy economists on a study partly funded by the energy industry, he concluded that it is not advisable to start curbing emissions for another 30 years.* Still, he remained fiercely loyal to Santer during the Chapter 8 controversy and to all the scientists working under the funding generated by the scare. His continuing `loyal opposition’ is particularly evident in emails leaked in 2009, which show that during the Hockey Stick controversy he was at the same time working hard behind the scenes to fend off skeptics while privately agreeing with much of the criticism of Mann’s work.* 738Lewin, Bernie. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 308-309). Global Warming Policy Foundation. Kindle Edition.Sanders is a left wing politician and this group sadly have a reputation of not telling the truth about the science.– Christine Stewart,former Canadian Minister of the Environment“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity tobring about justice and equality in the world.”– Christine Stewart,>**CAMILLE PAGLIA** (Camille Paglia | Salon.com)>OCTOBER 10, 2007 11:19AM (UTC)>**I too grew up in upstate New York. I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the ****Al Gore** (http://dir.salon.com/topics/al_gore/)**/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target. Anyone can read up on Holocene geology and see that climate changes are caused by polar wandering and magnetic reversals. It is entertaining, yet sad to read bloviage from ****Leonardo DiCaprio** (http://dir.salon.com/topics/leonardo_dicaprio/)**, who is so self-centered that he thinks the earth's history and climate is a function of his short personal stay on this planet. Still he, Al Gore, Prince Charles and so on, ad nauseam, continue with their jet-set lifestyles. What hypocrisy!**>Thank you for your input on the mass hysteria over global warming. The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years.>Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.>The paranoid withdrawal fantasy (The paranoid withdrawal fantasy)>**Camille Paglia** is a second-wave feminist and an American (United States - RationalWiki) academic specializing in literature (Literature - RationalWiki) and culture, particularly topics around gender (Gender - RationalWiki), sex (Sex - RationalWiki), and sexuality (Sexuality - RationalWiki). She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by *Prospect* and *Foreign Policy* magazines.>**Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdTlXuTwvEQ&t=65s>Published on 3 May 2018>Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis is correct in his assessment of the current state of climate science, describing it as a "Joke".>As he correctly points out, there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change.>There is also no published empirical scientific evidence that any CO2, whether natural or man-made, causes warming in the troposphere.>Mullis earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta in 1966, he then received a PhD in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley in 1973.>His Nobel Prize was awarded in 1993.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxEWho is the most famous person who denies natural variation and mother nature as governing climate change?Home (Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe) | Newsfront (Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream)**Monday December 03, 2018****Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change**>Freeman Dyson (Nadine Rupp/Getty Images)By Greg Richter | Wednesday, 14 October 2015 09:32 PM>Noted theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson says he votes for Democrats, but is disappointed with the position President Barack Obama has taken on climate change.>Dyson worked on climate change before his retirement as professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1994, and said in an interview with the **U.K. Register** (Top boffin Freeman Dyson on climate change, interstellar travel, fusion, and more) that scientists are ignoring their own data that show climate change isn't happening as quickly as their models are predicting.>"It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]," Dyson said. "I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.">Climate change, he said, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?">In the past 10 years the discrepancies between what is observed and what is predicted have become much stronger," Dyson said. "It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.">Carbon dioxide isn't as bad for the environment as claimed, he said, and actually does more good than harm.>Among Dyson's suggestions for combating climate change are building up topsoil and inducing snowfall to prevent the oceans from rising.>Dyson is best known for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering.Read Newsmax: Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change | Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe (Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change)>**The Top Five Skeptical Climate-Change Scientists****[2]** (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)>**1. Lennart O. Bengtsson**>Bengtsson was born in Trollhättan, Sweden, in 1935. He holds a PhD (1964) in meteorology from the University of Stockholm. His long and productive career included positions as Head of Research and later Director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading in the UK (1976 — 1990), and as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg (1991 — 2000). Bengtsson is currently Senior Research Fellow with the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, as well as Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.Bengtsson’s scientific work has been wide-ranging, including everything from climate modelling and numerical weather prediction to climate data and data assimilation studies. Most recently, he has been involved in studies and modeling of the water cycle and extreme events. From his twin home bases in the UK and Germany, he has cooperated closely over the years with scientists in the US, Sweden, Norway, and other European countries.Bengtsson is best known to the general public due to a dispute which arose in 2014 over a paper he and his colleagues had submitted to *Environmental Research Letters*, but which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons. The paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. Bengtsson and his co-authors maintained that the uncertainties are greater than the IPCC Assessment Reports claim. The affair was complicated by the fact that Bengtsson had recently agreed to serve on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization. When Bengtsson voiced his displeasure over the rejection of his paper, and mainstream scientists noticed his new affiliation with the GWPF, intense pressure was brought to bear, both in public and behind the scenes, to force Bengtsson to recant his criticism of the journal in question and to resign from the GWPF. He finally did both of these things, but not without noting bitterly in his letter of resignation:>I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting [sic] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.>I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.>[14] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Bengtsson is the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books (see below). In addition to numerous grants, commission and board memberships, honorary degrees, and other forms of professional recognition, he has received the Milutin Milanković Medal (1996) bestowed by the European Geophysical Society, the Descartes Prize (2005) bestowed by the European Union, the International Meteorological Organization Prize (2006), and the Rossby Prize (2007) bestowed by the Swedish Geophysical Society. Bengtsson is an Honorary Member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), and a Fellow of the Swedish Academy of Science, the Finnish Academy of Science, and the European Academy.**Professional Website** (Bengtsson Lennart)**Selected Books*** *Geosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate* (Cambridge University Press, 2001)* *The Earth’s Cryosphere and Sea Level Change* (Springer, 2012)* *Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows* (Springer, 2012)* *Towards Understanding the Climate of Venus: Applications of Terrestrial Models to Our Sister Planet* (Springer, 2013)>**2. John R. Christy**>Christy was born in Fresno, California, in 1951. He holds a PhD (1987) in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Christy is best known for work he did with Roy W. Spencer beginning in 1979 on establishing reliable global temperature data sets derived from microwave radiation probes collected by satellites. Theirs was the first successful attempt to use such satellite data collection for the purpose of establishing long-term temperature records. Although the data they collected were initially controversial, and some corrections to the interpretation of the raw data had to be made, the work — which is coming up on its fortieth anniversary — remains uniquely valuable for its longevity, and is still ongoing. Christy has long been heavily involved in the climate change/global warming discussion, having been a Contributor or Lead Author to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports relating to satellite temperature records. He was a signatory of the 2003 American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) statement on climate change, although he has stated that he was “very upset” by the AGU’s more extreme 2007 statement.[15] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Christy began voicing doubts about the growing climate-change consensus in the 2000s. In an interview with the BBC from 2007, he accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct.”[16] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics); In 2009, he made the following statement in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee (altogether, he has testified before Congress some 20 times):>From my analysis, the actions being considered to “stop global warming” will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming. And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.>[17] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Christy has not been shy about publicizing his views, making many of the same points in an op-ed piece he published with a colleague in 2014 in the *Wall Street Journal*.[18] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)In an interview with the *New York Times* published that same year, he explains the price he has had to pay professionally for his skeptical stance toward the climate-change consensus.[19] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)However, Christy stands his ground, refusing to give in to *ad hominem* attacks or the exercise of naked political power, insisting the issues must be discussed on the scientific merits alone.Christy is the author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters (for a selection of a few of his best-known articles, see below). In 1991, Christy was awarded the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement bestowed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for his groundbreaking work with Spencer. A Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), since 2000 Christy has been Alabama’s official State Climatologist.**Academic Website** (The Atmospheric Science Department)**Selected Publications*** ”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures," *Journal of Climate*, 1994, 7: 106 — 120.* ”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data," *Atmospheric Environment*, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961.* ”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers'?," *Nature*, 1997, **3**89: 342 — 343.* “Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” *Science*, 2000, **2**87: 1242 — 1245.* ”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series," *Climate Dynamics*, 2000, 16: 587 — 601.* ”Reliability of satellite data sets," *Science*, 2003, **3**01: 1046 — 1047.* ”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC," in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., *Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming*. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.* ”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions," *International Journal of Climatology*, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701.* ”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth," *Energy & Environment*, 2009, 20: 178 — 189.* ”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?," *Remote Sensing*, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169.* ”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?," *Nature*, 2010, **4**63: 730 — 732.* ”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods," *Geoscience Data Journal*, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.>**3. Judith A. Curry**>Curry was born in 1953. She holds a PhD (1982) in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. She has taught at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). In 2017, under a torrent of criticism from her colleagues and negative stories in the media, she was forced to take early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a position she had held for 15 years (during 11 of those years, she had been Chair of the School). Curry is currently Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech, as well as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, or CFAN (see below), an organization she founded in 2006.Curry is an atmospheric scientist and climatologist with broad research interests, including atmospheric modeling, the polar regions, atmosphere-ocean interactions, remote sensing, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research, and hurricanes, especially their relationship to tornadoes. Before retiring, she was actively researching the evidence for a link between global warming and hurricane frequency and severity.Curry was drummed out of academia for expressing in public her reservations about some of the more extreme claims being made by mainstream climate scientists. For example, in 2011, she published (with a collaborator) an article stressing the uncertainties involved in climate science and urging caution on her colleagues.[20] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)After having posted comments along these lines on other people’s blogs for several years, in 2010, she created her own climate-related blog, Climate Etc. (see below), to foster a more open and skeptical discussion of the whole gamut of issues involving climate change/global warming. She also gave testimony some half dozen times between 2006 and 2015 to Senate and House subcommittees, expressing in several of them her concerns about the politicization of the usual scientific process in the area of climate change. Writing on her blog in 2015 about her most-recent Congressional testimony, Curry summarized her position as follows:>The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.>The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.>We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.>[21] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Finding herself denounced as a “climate change denier” and under intense pressure to recant her views, in 2017 Curry instead took early retirement from her job at Georgia Tech and left academia, citing the “craziness” of the present politicization of climate science. She continues to be active in the field of climatology through her two blogs and her many public lectures.Curry is the author or co-author of more than 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the co-author or editor of three books (see below). She has received many research grants, been invited to give numerous public lectures, and participated in many workshops, discussion panels, and committees, both in the US and abroad. In 2007, Curry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).**Academic Website** (Judith Curry's Home Page)**Professional Website** (JUDITH CURRY | strip-header-layout)**Personal Website** (Climate Etc.)**Selected Books*** *Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans* (Academic Press, 1988)* *Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences* (Academic Press, 2003)* *Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds* (Cambridge University Press, 2014)>**4. Richard S. Lindzen**>Lindzen was born in Webster, Massachusetts, in 1940. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.Already in his PhD dissertation, Lindzen made his first significant contribution to science, laying the groundwork for our understanding of the physics of the ozone layer of the atmosphere.[22] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)After that, he solved a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure).[23] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Next, he discovered the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a cyclical reversal in the prevailing winds in the stratosphere above the tropical zone.[24] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Then, Lindzen and a colleague proposed an explanation for the “superrotation” of the highest layer of Venus’s atmosphere (some 50 times faster than the planet itself), a model that is still being debated.[25] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)The idea for which Lindzen is best known, though, is undoubtedly the “adaptive infrared iris” conjecture.[26] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)According to this model, the observed inverse correlation between surface temperature and cirrus cloud formation may operate as a negative feedback on infrared radiation (heat) build-up near the earth’s surface. According to this proposal, decreasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures rise leads to increased heat radiation into space, while increasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures decline leads to increased heat retention — much as the iris of the human eye adapts to ambient light by widening and narrowing. If correct, this phenomenon would be reason for optimism that global warming might be to some extent self-limiting. Lindzen’s hypothesis has been highly controversial, but it is still being discussed as a serious proposal, even by his many critics.Lindzen was a Contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment, and to Chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1). Nevertheless, in the 1990s, Lindzen began to express his concern about the reliability of the computer models upon which official IPCC and other extreme climate projections are based. He has been especially critical of the notion that the “science is settled.” In a 2009 *Wall Street Journal* op-ed, he maintained that the science is far from settled and that “[c]onfident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”[27] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)For his trouble, Lindzen has suffered the usual brutal, *ad hominem* attacks from the climate-change establishment.Lindzen is author or co-author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as author, co-author, or editor of several books, pamphlets, and technical reports (see below). He is a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS).**Academic Website** (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm)**Selected Books*** *Atmospheric Tides* (D. Reidel, 1970)* *Semidiurnal Hough Mode Extensions in the Thermosphere and Their Application* (Naval Research Lab, 1977)* *The Atmosphere — a Challenge: The Science of Jule Gregory Charney*(American Meteorological Society, 1990)* *Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics* (Cambridge University Press, 1990)>**5. Nir J. Shaviv**>Shaviv was born in Ithaca, New York, in 1972, but was raised in Israel. He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study inShaviv first made a name for himself (see his 1998 and 2001 papers, below) with his research on the relationship between inhomogeneities in stellar atmospheres and the Eddington limit (the equilibrium point at which the centrifugal force of stellar radiation production equals the centripetal force of gravitation). This theoretical work led to a concrete prediction that was later confirmed telescopically (see the 2013 *Nature*paper listed below).Of more direct relevance to the climate-change debate was a series of papers Shaviv wrote, beginning in 2002 (see below), detailing a bold theory linking earth’s ice ages with successive passages of the planet through the various spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, and with cosmic radiation more generally. He has also expressed his conviction that variations in solar radiation have played an equal, if not greater, role in the observed rise in mean global temperature over the course of the twentieth century than has human activity (see his 2012 paper, below). He maintains, not only that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have played a smaller role in global warming than is usually believed, but also that the earth’s climate system is not nearly so sensitive as is usually assumed.In recent years, Shaviv has become an active critic of the results and predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other organizations supporting the consensus view. In particular, he rejects the often-heard claim that “97% of climate scientists” agree that anthropogenic climate change is certain and highly dangerous. Shaviv emphasizes (see the video clip, below) that “science is not a democracy” and all that matters is the evidence for these claims — which he finds deficient.Shaviv is the author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters, of which some of the most important are listed below.**Academic Website** (Racah Institute of Physics)**Selected Publications*** ”Dynamics of fronts in thermally bi-stable fluids," *Astrophysical Journal*, 1992, **3**92: 106 — 117.* ”Origin of the high energy extragalactic diffuse gamma ray background," *Physical Review Letters*, 1995, 75: 3052 — 3055.* ”The Eddington luminosity limit for multiphased media," *Astrophysical Journal Letters*, 1998, **4**94: L193 — L197.* ”The theory of steady-state super-Eddington winds and its application to novae," *Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society*, 2001, **3**26: 126 — 146.* ”The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth," *New Astronomy*, 2002, 8: 39 — 77.* ”Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?," *GSA Today*, July 2003, 13(7): 4 — 10.* ”Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection," in Richard C. Ragaini, ed.,* International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 30th Session: Erice, Italy, 18 — 26 August 200*3. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004.* ”On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget," *Journal of Geophysical Research*, 2005, **1**10: A08105.* ”On the link between cosmic rays and terrestrial climate”, *International Journal of Modern Physics A*, 2005, 20: 6662 — 6665.* ”Interstellar-terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate," *Space Science Reviews*, 2006, **1**27: 327 — 465.* ”The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”, *Icarus*, 2011, **2**16: 403 — 414.* ”Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century," *Advances in Space Research*, 2012, 50: 762 — 776.* ”The sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to changes in the concentration of gases in planetary atmospheres," *Acta Polytechnica*, 2013, 53(Supplement): 832 — 838.* ”An outburst from a massive star 40 days before a supernova explosion," *Nature*, 2013, **4**94: 65 — 67.

The Top Five Skeptical Climate-Change Scientists[2]1. Lennart O. BengtssonBengtsson was born in Trollhättan, Sweden, in 1935. He holds a PhD (1964) in meteorology from the University of Stockholm. His long and productive career included positions as Head of Research and later Director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading in the UK (1976 — 1990), and as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg (1991 — 2000). Bengtsson is currently Senior Research Fellow with the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, as well as Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.Bengtsson’s scientific work has been wide-ranging, including everything from climate modelling and numerical weather prediction to climate data and data assimilation studies. Most recently, he has been involved in studies and modeling of the water cycle and extreme events. From his twin home bases in the UK and Germany, he has cooperated closely over the years with scientists in the US, Sweden, Norway, and other European countries.Bengtsson is best known to the general public due to a dispute which arose in 2014 over a paper he and his colleagues had submitted to Environmental Research Letters, but which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons. The paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. Bengtsson and his co-authors maintained that the uncertainties are greater than the IPCC Assessment Reports claim. The affair was complicated by the fact that Bengtsson had recently agreed to serve on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization. When Bengtsson voiced his displeasure over the rejection of his paper, and mainstream scientists noticed his new affiliation with the GWPF, intense pressure was brought to bear, both in public and behind the scenes, to force Bengtsson to recant his criticism of the journal in question and to resign from the GWPF. He finally did both of these things, but not without noting bitterly in his letter of resignation:I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting [sic] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.[14]Bengtsson is the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books (see below). In addition to numerous grants, commission and board memberships, honorary degrees, and other forms of professional recognition, he has received the Milutin Milanković Medal (1996) bestowed by the European Geophysical Society, the Descartes Prize (2005) bestowed by the European Union, the International Meteorological Organization Prize (2006), and the Rossby Prize (2007) bestowed by the Swedish Geophysical Society. Bengtsson is an Honorary Member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), and a Fellow of the Swedish Academy of Science, the Finnish Academy of Science, and the European Academy.Professional WebsiteSelected BooksGeosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate (Cambridge University Press, 2001)The Earth’s Cryosphere and Sea Level Change (Springer, 2012)Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows (Springer, 2012)Towards Understanding the Climate of Venus: Applications of Terrestrial Models to Our Sister Planet (Springer, 2013)2. John R. ChristyChristy was born in Fresno, California, in 1951. He holds a PhD (1987) in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Christy is best known for work he did with Roy W. Spencer beginning in 1979 on establishing reliable global temperature data sets derived from microwave radiation probes collected by satellites. Theirs was the first successful attempt to use such satellite data collection for the purpose of establishing long-term temperature records. Although the data they collected were initially controversial, and some corrections to the interpretation of the raw data had to be made, the work — which is coming up on its fortieth anniversary — remains uniquely valuable for its longevity, and is still ongoing. Christy has long been heavily involved in the climate change/global warming discussion, having been a Contributor or Lead Author to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports relating to satellite temperature records. He was a signatory of the 2003 American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) statement on climate change, although he has stated that he was “very upset” by the AGU’s more extreme 2007 statement.[15]Christy began voicing doubts about the growing climate-change consensus in the 2000s. In an interview with the BBC from 2007, he accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct.”[16]; In 2009, he made the following statement in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee (altogether, he has testified before Congress some 20 times):From my analysis, the actions being considered to “stop global warming” will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming. And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.[17]Christy has not been shy about publicizing his views, making many of the same points in an op-ed piece he published with a colleague in 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.[18] In an interview with the New York Times published that same year, he explains the price he has had to pay professionally for his skeptical stance toward the climate-change consensus.[19] However, Christy stands his ground, refusing to give in to ad hominem attacks or the exercise of naked political power, insisting the issues must be discussed on the scientific merits alone.Christy is the author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters (for a selection of a few of his best-known articles, see below). In 1991, Christy was awarded the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement bestowed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for his groundbreaking work with Spencer. A Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), since 2000 Christy has been Alabama’s official State Climatologist.Academic WebsiteSelected Publications”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures," Journal of Climate, 1994, 7: 106 — 120.”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data," Atmospheric Environment, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961.”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers'?," Nature, 1997, 389: 342 — 343.“Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” Science, 2000, 287: 1242 — 1245.”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series," Climate Dynamics, 2000, 16: 587 — 601.”Reliability of satellite data sets," Science, 2003, 301: 1046 — 1047.”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC," in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions," International Journal of Climatology, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701.”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth," Energy & Environment, 2009, 20: 178 — 189.”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?," Remote Sensing, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169.”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?," Nature, 2010, 463: 730 — 732.”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods," Geoscience Data Journal, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.An error occurred.Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.3. Judith A. CurryCurry was born in 1953. She holds a PhD (1982) in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. She has taught at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). In 2017, under a torrent of criticism from her colleagues and negative stories in the media, she was forced to take early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a position she had held for 15 years (during 11 of those years, she had been Chair of the School). Curry is currently Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech, as well as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, or CFAN (see below), an organization she founded in 2006.Curry is an atmospheric scientist and climatologist with broad research interests, including atmospheric modeling, the polar regions, atmosphere-ocean interactions, remote sensing, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research, and hurricanes, especially their relationship to tornadoes. Before retiring, she was actively researching the evidence for a link between global warming and hurricane frequency and severity.Curry was drummed out of academia for expressing in public her reservations about some of the more extreme claims being made by mainstream climate scientists. For example, in 2011, she published (with a collaborator) an article stressing the uncertainties involved in climate science and urging caution on her colleagues.[20] After having posted comments along these lines on other people’s blogs for several years, in 2010, she created her own climate-related blog, Climate Etc. (see below), to foster a more open and skeptical discussion of the whole gamut of issues involving climate change/global warming. She also gave testimony some half dozen times between 2006 and 2015 to Senate and House subcommittees, expressing in several of them her concerns about the politicization of the usual scientific process in the area of climate change. Writing on her blog in 2015 about her most-recent Congressional testimony, Curry summarized her position as follows:The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.[21]Finding herself denounced as a “climate change denier” and under intense pressure to recant her views, in 2017 Curry instead took early retirement from her job at Georgia Tech and left academia, citing the “craziness” of the present politicization of climate science. She continues to be active in the field of climatology through her two blogs and her many public lectures.Curry is the author or co-author of more than 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the co-author or editor of three books (see below). She has received many research grants, been invited to give numerous public lectures, and participated in many workshops, discussion panels, and committees, both in the US and abroad. In 2007, Curry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).Academic WebsiteProfessional WebsitePersonal WebsiteSelected BooksThermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Academic Press, 1988)Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (Academic Press, 2003)Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds (Cambridge University Press, 2014)An error occurred.Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.4. Richard S. LindzenLindzen was born in Webster, Massachusetts, in 1940. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.Already in his PhD dissertation, Lindzen made his first significant contribution to science, laying the groundwork for our understanding of the physics of the ozone layer of the atmosphere.[22] After that, he solved a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure).[23] Next, he discovered the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a cyclical reversal in the prevailing winds in the stratosphere above the tropical zone.[24] Then, Lindzen and a colleague proposed an explanation for the “superrotation” of the highest layer of Venus’s atmosphere (some 50 times faster than the planet itself), a model that is still being debated.[25]The idea for which Lindzen is best known, though, is undoubtedly the “adaptive infrared iris” conjecture.[26] According to this model, the observed inverse correlation between surface temperature and cirrus cloud formation may operate as a negative feedback on infrared radiation (heat) build-up near the earth’s surface. According to this proposal, decreasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures rise leads to increased heat radiation into space, while increasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures decline leads to increased heat retention — much as the iris of the human eye adapts to ambient light by widening and narrowing. If correct, this phenomenon would be reason for optimism that global warming might be to some extent self-limiting. Lindzen’s hypothesis has been highly controversial, but it is still being discussed as a serious proposal, even by his many critics.Lindzen was a Contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment, and to Chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1). Nevertheless, in the 1990s, Lindzen began to express his concern about the reliability of the computer models upon which official IPCC and other extreme climate projections are based. He has been especially critical of the notion that the “science is settled.” In a 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed, he maintained that the science is far from settled and that “[c]onfident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”[27] For his trouble, Lindzen has suffered the usual brutal, ad hominem attacks from the climate-change establishment.Lindzen is author or co-author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as author, co-author, or editor of several books, pamphlets, and technical reports (see below). He is a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS).Academic WebsiteSelected BooksAtmospheric Tides (D. Reidel, 1970)Semidiurnal Hough Mode Extensions in the Thermosphere and Their Application (Naval Research Lab, 1977)The Atmosphere — a Challenge: The Science of Jule Gregory Charney (American Meteorological Society, 1990)Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1990)5. Nir J. ShavivShaviv was born in Ithaca, New York, in 1972, but was raised in Israel. He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey (2014 — 2015). He is currently Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Shaviv first made a name for himself (see his 1998 and 2001 papers, below) with his research on the relationship between inhomogeneities in stellar atmospheres and the Eddington limit (the equilibrium point at which the centrifugal force of stellar radiation production equals the centripetal force of gravitation). This theoretical work led to a concrete prediction that was later confirmed telescopically (see the 2013 Nature paper listed below).Of more direct relevance to the climate-change debate was a series of papers Shaviv wrote, beginning in 2002 (see below), detailing a bold theory linking earth’s ice ages with successive passages of the planet through the various spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, and with cosmic radiation more generally. He has also expressed his conviction that variations in solar radiation have played an equal, if not greater, role in the observed rise in mean global temperature over the course of the twentieth century than has human activity (see his 2012 paper, below). He maintains, not only that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have played a smaller role in global warming than is usually believed, but also that the earth’s climate system is not nearly so sensitive as is usually assumed.In recent years, Shaviv has become an active critic of the results and predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other organizations supporting the consensus view. In particular, he rejects the often-heard claim that “97% of climate scientists” agree that anthropogenic climate change is certain and highly dangerous. Shaviv emphasizes (see the video clip, below) that “science is not a democracy” and all that matters is the evidence for these claims — which he finds deficient.Shaviv is the author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters, of which some of the most important are listed below.Academic WebsiteSelected Publications”Dynamics of fronts in thermally bi-stable fluids," Astrophysical Journal, 1992, 392: 106 — 117.”Origin of the high energy extragalactic diffuse gamma ray background," Physical Review Letters, 1995, 75: 3052 — 3055.”The Eddington luminosity limit for multiphased media," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1998, 494: L193 — L197.”The theory of steady-state super-Eddington winds and its application to novae," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2001, 326: 126 — 146.”The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth," New Astronomy, 2002, 8: 39 — 77.”Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?," GSA Today, July 2003, 13(7): 4 — 10.”Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection," in Richard C. Ragaini, ed., International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 30th Session: Erice, Italy, 18 — 26 August 2003. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004.”On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget," Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005, 110: A08105.”On the link between cosmic rays and terrestrial climate”, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 2005, 20: 6662 — 6665.”Interstellar-terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate," Space Science Reviews, 2006, 127: 327 — 465.”The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”, Icarus, 2011, 216: 403 — 414.”Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century," Advances in Space Research, 2012, 50: 762 — 776.”The sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to changes in the concentration of gases in

No, far from it. Our Quaternary Ice age is now 2.5 millions years old and it appears that we are at best in the middle of it today. An ice age has a series of glaciation followed by deglaciation. During the deglaciation or inter-glacial temperatures are variable swinging hot or cold like we experienced during the Little Ice Age of the current Holocene deglaciation.No doubt the inapt term global warming is a poor description of deglaciation and there is no certainty of consistent warming.The earth is cooling in the Holocene deglaciation is cooling and the only warming has been the natural inter glacial warming cycle shift after the Eemain glaciation.While we are enjoying some inter-glacial warming, but it is the least warm of the last 400,000 years and this is not a good sign.Climate change will not melt the polar ice caps unless we exit our ice age which is impossible to imaging. Even using the bastard definition of climate change ie human caused global warming is not happening. Key evidence is the fact polar ice is not melting away as predicted. The polar ice prediction is interesting because one of the accepted definitions of leaving an ice age is that both poles are ice free in the summer. This is so far from happening it is laughable, especially if you look at the facts about Antarctica.Antarctica with 90% of the world’s ice expanded this year at the end of the summer.Home / 2020 / May / 31 / End Of May Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Highest In Five Years… No Evidence Of Warming Or MeltingEnd Of May Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Highest In Five Years… No Evidence Of Warming Or MeltingBy P Gosselin on 31. May 2020Over the past 40 years of satellite observation, Antarctic sea ice defied global warming predictions and gained impressively. The mean temperature of the southern ice cap also shows no warming.In 2017, after decades of inconvenient rise, sea ice extent suddenly fell to record low level and panic activity among global warming alarmists began to perk up. Surely the days of a growing Antarctic ice cap were over – at least they hoped.But since 2017, the ice has grown back and once again has reached near normal levels and the long-term trend continues to be upward:Sea ice extent up to 2019. Data source: JMASchneefan just posted that latest May Antarctic sea ice extent. The data show that minimum 15% sea ice concentration coverage has climbed to a 5-year high for this time of the year:Image: NSIDC.So the Antarctic long-term trend for sea ice continues to be robustly upward.No warmingOne aspect that is supposed to indicate global warming is a rapid warming at the poles. But here too there has been no evidence of warming over Antarctica:Global warming alarmists likely are going to have to wait a long time before they can begin dreaming about sounding the climate alarms over Antarctica. Things there are going the opposite way.Donate - choose an amounthttps://notrickszone.com/2020/05/31/end-of-may-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-highest-in-five-years-no-evidence-of-warming-or-melting/Antarctica is the coldest place on earth.Coldest Place on Earth Found—Here's How"It's a place where Earth is so close to its limit, it's almost like another planet."BY ALEJANDRA BORUNDAPUBLISHEDJUNE 27, 2018JUST HOW COLD can it get on Earth’s surface? About minus 144°F, according to recent satellite measurements of the coldest known place on the planet.Scientists recorded this extreme temperature on the ice sheet deep in the middle of Antarctica during the long, dark polar winter. As they report this week in Geophysical Research Letters, the team thinks this is about as cold as it can possibly get in our corner of the solar system.Coldest Place on Earth Found—Here's HowYet another study shows Antarctica gaining ice mass – snowfall accumulation 'highest we have seen in the last 300 years'Anthony Watts / November 5, 2015While the wailers over at Media Matters bemoan claims of “distortion” over the recent NASA press release about Antarctica gaining ice mass due to increased snowfall over the last 10,000 years,…A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.…this new study jointly announced by the AGU and the BAS says that the gains in the 20th century for the West Antarctic are the “highest we have seen in the last 300 years”.Comprehensive Data, Recent Studies In Top Journals: Antarctica Stable, Temps Falling, Ice Mass Growing!News from Antarctica: how’s the ice?By Kalte Sonne(German text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)The ice in Antarctica, how is it doing? Is it melting, is it growing? In the following we wishto present the latest literature on the subject. There is a lot to report.Fasten your seat belt, there’s a lot to cover.Let’s start with the temperature development because along with snowfall, this is the most important control factor for Antarctic inland ice.At NoTricksZone, Kirye shows ten coastal stations of Antarctica. None have been warming over the past 10 years. An example followwsAnd here’s the temperature development of the entire Antarctic according to UAH and RSS satellite measurements (from Climate4You, via NoTricksZone):According to Clem et al. 2018, East Antarctica has cooled over the last 60 years, while West Antarctica has warmed. The authors establish a connection with the SAM ocean cycle, the Southern Annular Mode. Euan Mearns also deals with the temperature development of Antarctica during the last decades.Increased iceBased on height and gravity field measurements by satellite and GPS measurements on the ground, Martin-Español et al. 2017 determined an increase in ice mass in the East Antarctic and a reduction in ice mass in the (much smaller) West Antarctic for the interval 2003-2013. NASA researcher Jay Zwally also interprets an increase in the East Antarctic ice mass. However, a paper announced in mid-2018 still seems to be stuck in review…Will the ice of East Antarctica be dragged along by the melting West Antarctic at some point in the melting vortex? No, this will not happen, Indiana University said in a press release of 2017:New study validates East Antarctic ice sheet should remain stable even if western ice sheet meltsA new study from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis validates that the central core of the East Antarctic ice sheet should remain stable even if the West Antarctic ice sheet melts. The study’s findings are significant, given that some predict the West Antarctic ice sheet could melt quickly due to global warming.If the East Antarctic ice sheet, which is 10 times larger than the western ice sheet, melted completely, it would cause sea levels worldwide to rise almost 200 feet, according to Kathy Licht, an associate professor in the Department of Earth Sciences in the School of Science at IUPUI. Licht led a research team into the Transarctic Mountains in search of physical evidence that would verify whether a long-standing idea was still true: The East Antarctic ice sheet is stable.The East Antarctic ice sheet has long been considered relatively stable because most of the ice sheet was thought to rest on bedrock above sea level, making it less susceptible to changes in climate. However, recent studies show widespread water beneath it and higher melt potential from impinging ocean water. The West Antarctic ice sheet is a marine-based ice sheet that is mostly grounded below sea level, which makes it much more susceptible to changes in sea level and variations in ocean temperature. „Some people have recently found that the East Antarctic ice sheet isn’t as stable as once thought, particularly near some parts of the coast,“ Licht said.Recent studies have determined that the perimeter of the East Antarctic ice sheet is potentially more sensitive and that the ice may have retreated and advanced much more dynamically than was thought, Licht said. „We believed this was a good time to look to the interior of the ice sheet. We didn’t really know what had happened there,“ Licht said. The research team found the evidence confirming the stability of the East Antarctic ice sheet at an altitude of 6,200 feet, about 400 miles from the South Pole at the edge of what’s called the polar plateau, a flat, high surface of the ice sheet covering much of East Antarctica.To understand how an ice sheet changes through time, a continuous historical record of those changes is needed, according to Licht. The team found layers of sediment and rocks that built up over time, recording the flow of the ice sheet and reflecting climate change. Finding that record was a challenge because glaciers moving on land tend to wipe out and cover up previous movements of the glacier, Licht said.The big question the team wanted to answer was how sensitive the East Antarctic sheet might be to climate change. „There are models that predict that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet wouldn’t change very much, even if the West Antarctic ice sheet was taken away,“ Licht said. According to these models, even if the ice sheet’s perimeter retreats, its core remains stable. „It turns out that our data supports those models,“ she said. „It’s nice to have that validation.“The team’s research findings are presented in a paper, “Middle to Late Pleistocene stability of the central East Antarctic Ice Sheet at the head of Law Glacier,” that was published today online in the journal Geology. The research presented is in collaboration with Mike Kaplan, Gisela Winckler, Joerg Schaefer and Roseanne Schwartz at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York.”A Nature Editorial also dealt with the current growth of the East Antarctic ice in January 2018. Of course, the ice in this region has also been worse at times, so it continues to heat up. However, one would have to go back to the warm Pliocene (5.3-2.6 million years before today):A history of instabilityThe East Antarctic ice sheet may be gaining mass in the current, warming climate. The palaeoclimate record shows, however, that it has retreated during previous episodes of prolonged warmth.The phrase “at a glacial pace” once invoked a sense of slow and unchangeable movement, an almost imperceptible motion. But decades of remote sensing and seafloor observations have shown that glaciers and ice sheets can respond to disturbances much more dynamically than once thought. But as satellites captured the surges and retreat of Greenland’s maritime glaciers in the past decades the Antarctic ice sheets — east and west of the Trans-Antarctic mountains — were at least assumed to be stable. But this, too, turned out to be wrong. First came sediment 1 and model 2 evidence that the West Antarctic ice sheet collapsed during previous interglacial periods and under Pliocene warmth. Then came erosional data showing that several regions of the East Antarctic ice sheet also retreated and advanced throughout the Pliocene 3. An extended record 4 of ice-sheet extent from elsewhere on the East Antarctic coast now paints a more complicated picture of the sensitivity of this ice sheet to warming.”Curiously enough, half a year later, the tide turned when a paper by Shakun et al. 2018, also in Nature, saw no major problems for the Antarctic ice in the Pliocene:Minimal East Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat onto land during the past eight million yearsThe East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) is the largest potential contributor to sea-level rise. However, efforts to predict the future evolution of the EAIS are hindered by uncertainty in how it responded to past warm periods, for example, during the Pliocene epoch (5.3 to 2.6 million years ago), when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were last higher than 400 parts per million. Geological evidence indicates that some marine-based portions of the EAIS and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreated during parts of the Pliocene 1,2 , but it remains unclear whether ice grounded above sea level also experienced retreat. This uncertainty persists because global sea-level estimates for the Pliocene have large uncertainties and cannot be used to rule out substantial terrestrial ice loss 3 , and also because direct geological evidence bearing on past ice retreat on land is lacking. Here we show that land-based sectors of the EAIS that drain into the Ross Sea have been stable throughout the past eight million years. We base this conclusion on the extremely low concentrations of cosmogenic 10 Be and 26Al isotopes found in quartz sand extracted from a land-proximal marine sediment core. This sediment had been eroded from the continent, and its low levels of cosmogenic nuclides indicate that it experienced only minimal exposure to cosmic radiation, suggesting that the sediment source regions were covered in ice. These findings indicate that atmospheric warming during the past eight million years was insufficient to cause widespread or long-lasting meltback of the EAIS margin onto land. We suggest that variations in Antarctic ice volume in response to the range of global temperatures experienced over this period—up to 2–3 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures 4, corresponding to future scenarios involving carbon dioxide concentrations of between 400 and 500 parts per million—were instead driven mostly by the retreat of marine ice margins, in agreement with the latest models5,6.”Also read more at cato.org.Antarctica stableEight million years ago, the earth’s atmosphere had a similar CO2 content as today. Investigations now show that the Antarctic ice sheet had hardly retreated at that time. The ice is apparently more stable than expected. Click here for the press release from the National Science Foundation. You can also read an article in Popular Mechanics.University of Edinburgh press release from 2017::Central parts of Antarctica’s ice sheet have been stable for millions of years, from a time when conditions were considerably warmer than now, research suggests.The study of mountains in West Antarctica will help scientists improve their predictions of how the region might respond to continuing climate change. Its findings could also show how ice loss might contribute to sea level rise.Although the discovery demonstrates the long-term stability of some parts of Antarctica’s ice sheet, scientists remain concerned that ice at its coastline is vulnerable to rising temperatures. Researchers from the Universities of Edinburgh and Northumbria studied rocks on slopes of the Ellsworth Mountains, whose peaks protrude through the ice sheet. By mapping and analysing surface rocks — including measuring their exposure to cosmic rays — researchers calculated that the mountains have been shaped by an ice sheet over a million-year period, beginning in a climate some 20C warmer than at present.The last time such climates existed in the mountains of Antarctica was 14 million years ago when vegetation grew in the mountains and beetles thrived. Antarctica’s climate at the time would be similar to that of modern day Patagonia or Greenland. This time marked the start of a period of cooling and the growth of a large ice sheet that extended offshore around the Antarctic continent. Glaciers have subsequently cut deep into the landscape, leaving a high-tide mark — known as a trimline — in the exposed peaks of the Ellsworth range.The extended ice sheet cooled the oceans and atmosphere, helping form the world of today, researchers say. Their study is among the first to find evidence for this period in West Antarctica. The research, published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, was done in collaboration with the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre. It was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and supported by British Antarctic Survey.Professor David Sugden, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, said: „These findings help us understand how the Antarctic Ice Sheet has evolved, and to fine-tune our models and predict its future. The preservation of old rock surfaces is testimony to the stability of at least the central parts of the Antarctic Ice Sheet — but we are still very concerned over other parts of Antarctica amid climate change.“As the ice in West Antarctica melts, it rises isostatically, which in turn stabilizes the overlying ice, found a research team from Denmark and Colorado.Again and again there are the climate stories about the Totten Glacier in the East-Arctic Wilkesland. Gwyther et al. 2018 was able to show that the basal melting of the glacier is subject to strong natural fluctuations (press release of the NSIDC here). There is no long-term melting trend.Melting from volcanoesGlaciers in the western Ross Sea are also stable (Fountain et al. 2017, press release here). The rapidly melting Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica has a hot secret that has now been revealed: Beneath the glacier lies a previously unknown volcanic heat source. University of Rhode Island press release from June 2018 (via EurekAlert!):Researchers discover volcanic heat source under glacierPlays critical role in movement, meltingA researcher from the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography and five other scientists have discovered an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica. The discovery and other findings, which are critical to understanding the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, of which the Pine Island Glacier is a part, are published in the paper, „Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier,“ in the latest edition of Nature Communications.Assistant Professor Brice Loose of Newport, a chemical oceanographer at GSO and the lead author, said the paper is based on research conducted during a major expedition in 2014 to Antarctica led by scientists from the United Kingdom. They worked aboard an icebreaker, the RRS James Clark Ross, from January to March, Antarctica’s summer. „We were looking to better understand the role of the ocean in melting the ice shelf,“ Loose said. „I was sampling the water for five different noble gases, including helium and xenon. I use these noble gases to trace ice melt as well as heat transport. Helium-3, the gas that indicates volcanism, is one of the suite of gases that we obtain from this tracing method. „We weren’t looking for volcanism, we were using these gases to trace other actions,“ he said. „When we first started seeing high concentrations of helium-3, we thought we had a cluster of bad or suspicious data.“The West Antarctic Ice Sheet lies atop a major volcanic rift system, but there had been no evidence of current magmatic activity, the URI scientist said. The last such activity was 2,200 years ago, Loose said. And while volcanic heat can be traced to dormant volcanoes, what the scientists found at Pine Island was new. In the paper, Loose said that the volcanic rift system makes it difficult to measure heat flow to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. „You can’t directly measure normal indicators of volcanism — heat and smoke — because the volcanic rift is below many kilometers of ice,“ Loose saidBut as the team conducted its research, it found high quantities of an isotope of helium, which comes almost exclusively from mantle, Loose said. „When you find helium-3, it’s like a fingerprint for volcanism. We found that it is relatively abundant in the seawater at the Pine Island shelf. „The volcanic heat sources were found beneath the fastest moving and the fastest melting glacier in Antarctica, the Pine Island Glacier,“ Loose said. „It is losing mass the fastest.“ He said the amount of ice sliding into the ocean is measured in gigatons. A gigaton equals 1 billion metric tons.However, Loose cautions, this does not imply that volcanism is the major source of mass loss from Pine Island. On the contrary, „there are several decades of research documenting the heat from ocean currents is destabilizing Pine Island Glacier, which in turn appears to be related to a change in the climatological winds around Antarctica,“ Loose said. Instead, this evidence of volcanism is a new factor to consider when monitoring the stability of the ice sheet.The scientists report in the paper that „helium isotope and noble gas measurements provide geochemical evidence of sub-glacial meltwater production that is subsequently transported to the cavity of the Pine Island Ice Shelf.“ They say that heat energy released by the volcanoes and hydrothermal vents suggests that the heat source beneath Pine Island is about 25 times greater than the bulk of heat flux from an individual dormant volcano.Professor Karen Heywood, from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, the United Kingdom, and chief scientist for the expedition, said: ‘The discovery of volcanoes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet means that there is an additional source of heat to melt the ice, lubricate its passage toward the sea, and add to the melting from warm ocean waters. It will be important to include this in our efforts to estimate whether the Antarctic ice sheet might become unstable and further increase sea level rise.’Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier? No, said Loose. ‘Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe, and this newly discovered source of heat is having an as-yet undetermined effect, because we do not know how this heat is distributed beneath the ice sheet.’He said other studies have shown that melting caused by climate change is reducing the size and weight of the glacier, which reduces the pressure on the mantle, allowing greater heat from the volcanic source to escape and then warm the ocean water. ‘Predicting the rate of sea level rise is going to be a key role for science over the next 100 years, and we are doing that. We are monitoring and modeling these glaciers,’ Loose said.The scientists conclude by writing: ‘The magnitude and the variations in the rate of the volcanic heat supplied to the Pine Island Glacier, either by internal magma migration, or by an increase in volcanism as a consequence of ice sheet thinning, may impact the future dynamics of the Pine Island Glacier, during the contemporary period of climate-driven glacial retreat.’In addition to Heywood, Loose worked with Alberto C. Naveira Garabato, of the National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton, United Kingdom; Peter Schlosser of Arizona State University’s School of Earth and Space Exploration and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University; William Jenkins of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts; and David Vaughn of the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, United Kingdom.”University of California in Santa Cruz 2015:Study finds surprisingly high geothermal heating beneath West Antarctic Ice SheetUC Santa Cruz team reports first direct measurement of heat flow from deep within the Earth to the bottom of the West Antarctic ice sheetRead more here.Article at Spiegel.de 2017:Researchers discover 91 volcanoes under the iceSurprise in Antarctica: hidden under kilometres of ice, researchers have found dozens of previously unknown volcanoes. Eruptions threaten a strong melt – sea levels could rise.”Read more at Spiegel.de (press release from the University of Edinburgh here).The West Antarctic Kamb Ice Stream has always puzzled the researchers because here the ice thickened, in contrast to the general melting trend in West Antarctica. What could be the cause? Another volcano, as reported by the University of Washington in 2018: University of Washington 2018:Volcano under ice sheet suggests thickening of West Antarctic ice is short-termA region of West Antarctica is behaving differently from most of the continent’s ice: A large patch of ice there is thickening, unlike other parts of West Antarctica that are losing ice. Whether this thickening trend will continue affects the overall amount that melting or collapsing glaciers could raise the level of the world’s oceans.A study led by the University of Washington has discovered a new clue to this region’s behavior: A volcano under the ice sheet has left an almost 6,000-year record of the glacier’s motion. The track hidden in the middle of the ice sheet suggests that the current thickening is just a short-term feature that may not affect the glacier over the long term. It also suggests that similar clues to the past may be hiding deep inside the ice sheet itself. ‘What’s exciting about this study is that we show how the structure of the ice sheet acts as a powerful record of what has happened in the past,’ said Nicholas Holschuh, a UW postdoctoral researcher in Earth and space sciences. He is first author of the paper published Sept. 4 in The Cryosphere.The data come from the ice above Mount Resnik, a 1.6-kilometer (mile-high) inactive volcano that currently sits under 300 meters (0.19 miles) of ice. The volcano lies just upstream of the thickening Kamb Ice Stream, part of a dynamic coastal region of ice that drains into Antarctica’s Ross Sea. Studies show Kamb Ice Stream has flowed quickly in the past but stalled more than a century ago, leaving the region’s ice to drain via the four other major ice streams, a switch that glaciologists think happens every few hundred years. Meanwhile the ice inland of Kamb Ice Stream is beginning to bulge, and it is unclear what will happen next. ‘The shutdown of Kamb Ice Stream started long before the satellite era,’ Holschuh said. ‘We need some longer-term indicators for its behavior to understand how important this shutdown is for the future of the region’s ice.’The paper analyzes two radar surveys of the area’s ice. One was collected in 2002 by co-authors Robert Jacobel and Brian Welch, using the ice-penetrating radar system at St. Olaf College in Minnesota, and the other in 2004 by co-author Howard Conway, a UW research professor of Earth and space sciences. Conway noticed the missing layers and asked his colleagues to investigate. “It wasn’t until we had spent probably six months with this data set that we started to piece together the fact that this thing that we could see within the ice sheet was forming in response to the subglacial volcano,” Holschuh said.The study shows that the mysterious feature originates at the ice covering Mount Resnik. The authors believe that the volcano’s height pushes the relatively thin ice sheet up so much that it changes the local wind fields, and affects depositing of snow. So as the ice sheet passes over the volcano a section missed out on a few annual layers of snow. “These missing layers are common in East Antarctica, where there is less precipitation and strong winds can strip away the surface snow,” Holschuh said. “But this is really one of the first times we’ve seen these missing layers in West Antarctica. It’s also the first time an unconformity has been used to reconstruct ice sheet motion of the past.”Over time, the glacial record shows that this feature followed a straight path toward the sea. During the 5,700-year record, the five major coastal ice streams are thought to have sped up and slowed down several times, as water on the base lubricates the glacier’s flow and then periodically gets diverted, stalling one of the ice streams. “Despite the fact that there are all these dramatic changes at the coast, the ice flowing in the interior was not really affected,” Holschuh said.What the feature does show is that a change occurred a few thousand years ago. Previous UW research shows rapid retreat at the edge of the ice sheet until about 3,400 years ago, part of the recovery from the most recent ice age. The volcano track also shows a thinning of the ice at about this time. “It means that the interior of the ice sheet is responding to the large-scale climate forcing from the last glacial maximum to today,” Holschuh said. “So the long-timescale climatic forcing is very consistent between the interior and the coast, but the shorter-timescale processes are really apparent in the coastal record but aren’t visible in the interior.”Holschuh cautions that this is only a single data point and needs confirmation from other observations. He is part of an international team of Antarctic scientists looking at combining the hundreds of radar scans of Antarctic and Greenland glaciers that were originally done to measure ice thickness. Those data may also contain unique details of the glacier’s internal structure that can be used to recreate the history of the ice sheet’s motion.“These persistent tracers of historic ice flow are probably all over the place,” Holschuh said. “The more we can tease apart the stories of past motion told by the structure of the ice sheet, the more realistic we can be in our predictions of how it will respond to future climate change.” The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA. The other co-author is Knut Christianson, a UW assistant professor of Earth and space sciences.Blown soot apparently has no influence on the Antarctic glaciers in the McMurdo dry valleys, Khan et al. 2018 (press release).Medley & Thomas 2019 documented an increase in snowfall in the Antarctic, which benefited the ice sheet (NASA press release here). The authors establish a connection with the SAM ocean cycle, the Southern Annular Mode. The University of Colorado in Boulder, however, blames the increase in snowfall on the ozone hole (press release, paper by Lenaerts et al. 2018).Jenkins et al. 2018 pointed to decadal cycles in the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet at the edge of the Amundsen Sea. The relationship between melting and ocean temperature is nonlinear:West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat in the Amundsen Sea driven by decadal oceanic variabilityMass loss from the Amundsen Sea sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has increased in recent decades, suggestive of sustained ocean forcing or an ongoing, possibly unstable, response to a past climate anomaly. Lengthening satellite records appear to be incompatible with either process, however, revealing both periodic hiatuses in acceleration and intermittent episodes of thinning. Here we use ocean temperature, salinity, dissolved-oxygen and current measurements taken from 2000 to 2016 near the Dotson Ice Shelf to determine temporal changes in net basal melting. A decadal cycle dominates the ocean record, with melt changing by a factor of about four between cool and warm extremes via a nonlinear relationship with ocean temperature. A warm phase that peaked around 2009 coincided with ice-shelf thinning and retreat of the grounding line, which re-advanced during a post-2011 cool phase. These observations demonstrate how discontinuous ice retreat is linked with ocean variability, and that the strength and timing of decadal extremes is more influential than changes in the longer-term mean state. The nonlinear response of melting to temperature change heightens the sensitivity of Amundsen Sea ice shelves to such variability, possibly explaining the vulnerability of the ice sheet in that sector, where subsurface ocean temperatures are relatively high.And here are even more temporally variable relationships. Wang et al. 2019: reported on temporally variable relationships of the surface ice mass balance in West Antarctica with the SAM cycle and ENSO:A New 200‐Year Spatial Reconstruction of West Antarctic Surface Mass BalanceHigh‐spatial resolution surface mass balance (SMB) over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) spanning 1800–2010 is reconstructed by means of ice core records combined with the outputs of the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts “Interim” reanalysis (ERA‐Interim) and the latest polar version of the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model (RACMO2.3p2). The reconstruction reveals a significant negative trend (−1.9 ± 2.2 Gt/year·per decade) in the SMB over the entire WAIS during the nineteenth century, but a statistically significant positive trend of 5.4 ± 2.9 Gt/year·per decade between 1900 and 2010, in contrast to insignificant WAIS SMB changes during the twentieth century reported earlier. At regional scales, the Antarctic Peninsula and western WAIS show opposite SMB trends, with different signs in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The annual resolution reconstruction allows us to examine the relationships between SMB and large‐scale atmospheric oscillations. Although SMB over the Antarctic Peninsula and western WAIS correlates significantly with the Southern Annular Mode due to the influence of the Amundsen Sea Low, and El Niño/Southern Oscillation during 1800–2010, the significant correlations are temporally unstable, associated with the phase of Southern Annular Mode, El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Pacific decadal oscillation. In addition, the two climate modes seem to contribute little to variability in SMB over the whole WAIS on decadal‐centennial time scales. This new reconstruction also serves to identify unreliable precipitation trends in ERA‐Interim and thus has potential for assessing the skill of other reanalyses or climate models to capture precipitation trends and variability.”The cooling trend in our deglaciation is typical and further debunks any hope of exiting the Quaternary Ice Age.October Mean Temperatures In Canada, France Not Warming…Unusual Cold, Snow Strike N. HemisphereBy P Gosselin on24. November 2020By Kiryeand Pierre GosselinUnusual harsh winter conditions have struck the northern hemisphere this October as record snow cover has been observed. More on this below.No more October warming?But first looking at the untampered data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) for stations with complete data going back to 1998 for Canada and 2001 for France, we see there has not been any significant warming for the month of October.First we examine 9 stations in Canada:Data source: JMA.Some stations have warmed modestly, while the others have cooled. Overall, there hasn’t been much October warming at these stations over the past two decades.In France, whose climate is heavily impacted by the Atlantic, we plot the JMA October data since 2001 for 14 stations across the country.Data source: JMA.Nine of 14 stations have seen cooling or no warming for October since 2001. So here the data show that the opposite of what was projected is really happening, and that natural factors, likely Atlantic patterns, are at play.Dehli sees coldest October in 58 yearsMeanwhile Twitter account Electroverse here reports on a variety of unusually harsh early winter events taking place. For example: “Following on from its coldest October in 58 Years, India’s capital city of Delhi has continued toppling low temperature records into November.”Also Pakistan is getting pounded by heavy snows and the northern hemisphere currently has seen well above normal snow cover, reports Electroverse:Record October snow coverIn fact, German Snowfan here reports how October has set a new record for northern hemisphere snow cover since data recording this magnitude began more than 50 years ago, according to the data from the University of Rutgers:Source: University of Rutgers.Northeast deep freezeThe Northeast US also saw record low temperatures last week, as the jet stream drove Arctic air far south.“The mercury held as much as 16°C below the season average in some parts, particularly in New York State, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut,” reported Electroverse. “Long Island, New York wound-up setting a new record low.”Western USA and Canada have also been hard hit by early, severe winter conditions.“After a barrage of early-season storms, the snowpack across the Western United States is now well above average for mid-November, wrote Electroverse.Snowfall 1500% over normal“In parts of Oregon, totals are hitting as much as 786% of normal. The story is similar across Washington State. While in Idaho and Montana, and elsewhere, the current Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) is comfortably above the 1981-2010 median. Finally, note the 1500% in Texas (the key only goes >= 150%!).”