Cold in Texas and the Poles

July 16th, 2013 at 12:59 pm by under Bill's Blog, Weather

difax  North Pole Temp.  South Pole Ice Click on images 1 and 3 to enlarge.  Click here for a larger image 2.  The first map has high temperatures from Monday.   On Monday, the high temperature at Sault Ste. Marie was 22 degrees warmer than the high temperature in Abilene, Texas!  While the Great Lakes and Northeast are hot, much of Texas has been cool and wet.  Abilene (68), Waco (75) and San Angelo (71) all had their lowest high temperature ever recorded in July.   You’ll may see a story on the network newscasts about how hot it is in the Northeast, but I’ll bet you won’t see a mention of the cool weather in Texas.  Here’s temperature departure from average for this past Sunday.  Abilene has had over an inch of rain for 3 consecutive days (1.08″, 1.26″ and 1.35″).  Here’s Texas radar.  It’s seldom you see large areas of steady rain in Texas during summer.  The middle graphic shows temperature difference from average north of 80 degrees latitude (the North Pole area).   After a relatively (important word…it was still pretty cold!) warm winter, the last 3 months have been the coldest overall to average for the time period of any time since records began in 1958.  The third graph on the right is the extent of the South Polar icecap, which is about to set at least a record daily extent and possibly an all-time record extent.   The Antarctic ice extent is way above average and there is a lot more ice there now than there was one year ago.  The South Pole icecap extent has been growing pretty steadily since the mid 1980s.   Look at the current weather in Vostok, Antarctica!  Look at the (blue color) cooler than average sea surface temperatures around AntarcticaGlobal sea level has actually fallen over the past 3 years as global temperatures have been flat since 2002.  Global sea level rose from 1980 to 2009 as temperatures warmed in the 1980s and 1990s.    Also, strong winds and heavy snow in New Zealand.  The storm has produced up to 3 feet of snow.

184 Responses to “Cold in Texas and the Poles”

  1. Mike M. says:

    Someone report this man to Forecast the Facts!! Burn the heretic!

    Beaufort Sea ice has made a nice comeback, too, Bill…

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      Here’s the Arctic icecap: Significantly more ice than last year at both Poles.

      1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

        Not surprising since Summer 2012 was one of the hottest on record for the US and other places. You’d certainly expect that.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          The mainland 48 states isn’t near the Arctic’re comparing apples to oranges.

        2. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          I said other places were warm too. Globally, 2012 was in the top 10 warmest years on record, so it’s not exactly a surprise when comparing to such a hot year.

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          Even according to the “adjusted data” (designed to make the past cooler and the present warmer), 2012 was the 10th warmest year since 1998. So, the 10th warmest year out of the last 16 years…yawn…hardly an excuse to tax gasoline to “European levels”.

        4. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Yawn? The last cooler than average year on the planet was 1976.

          And it doesn’t sound impressive when you forget to mention that 9 out of the 10 warmest years globally have all occurred since 2000.

          And all 10 have come since 1998.

        5. Bill Steffen says:

          Look at the raw numbers, not the “adjusted” numbers. Global temperatures have been flat since 2002:

          The climate models aren’t working: As Dr. Judith Curry says, the models are “deeply flawed”.

        6. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Bill, you are playing math games again and comparing to 1998 which was one of the hottest years on record. Of course, it’s going to be flat when that is your starting period.

          NASA has said time and time again that their adjustments have very little or no effect as seen here:

        7. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          I wonder why you never post any long-term charts. You only compare to record hot starting years whether it’s 2012 or 1998 or 2002. Talk about bias.

        8. Robert(Plainwell) says:

          Travis there is no need to adjust the temps if nasa, noaa would actually follow there recommendation on station sighting criteria, ie not next to heat sources.

        9. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Very good point, Robert. However, that has been brought up numerous times. NASA actually did a few studies where all the “hot” stations in dispute were completely erased from the data and still the overall long-term trends were 99% unaffected.

        10. Robert(Plainwell) says:

          Then Travis how come when they quit using some stations most were in the cold regions.

        11. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          You can pull the records and studies yourself. Conspirators love to point that they adjusted temperatures or they removed stations as a way to try to completely disregard the entire data set.

          But when you do the math or see the studies throwing out all the “hot” stations, it’s easy to see that the data still stands for itself.

        12. Robert(Plainwell) says:

          Ok Travis then I suggest you learn about PDO and AMO, and get away from NASA and NOAA.

        13. Bill Steffen says:

          Even when the Earth was warming in the 1980s and 1990s due to the AMO and PDO being in warm phase…there was very little warming evident at weather stations that did not experience urbanization or other siting issues: (graphic from the State Climatologist of California).

        14. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          A claim that was 100% refuted and proved wrong by NWS and NASA

        15. Mike M. says:

          Link your evidence or be ignored, “Travis.” Remember, your side’s goal is to steal money from poor people. At least give them proof of your baseless allegations before you rob them.

        16. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Do I have to do your work for you? Here’s a paper that cites several studies refuting what Bill tries to claim about urbanization:

          (See Myth #8)

          Other well-known studies are cited here:

        17. Robert(Plainwell) says:

          Travis if you have a thermometer reading in your car drive into the city take the temp reading and then drive to the country and take that temp reading. See if you notice a difference.

        18. Bill Steffen says:

          The first link in the Travis comment was from the Environmental Defense Fund, a well-funded extreme advocacy group. The article was copyright 2005, so it’s at least 8 years old. Note that my graph from NASA is current: (look at what temperatures have done since 2005 – if anything, they have gone down).

          Go here:

          Note the comment from Hansen: ““The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-yea
          r variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.”

        19. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          The first link I posted references 3 recent prominent scientific studies that refute Bill’s claim.

          The second link I posted references 3 more.

          “The claim that the observed increase in global average temperature is due to these changes in land surfaces is wrong, since the analyses showing the warming account for and remove any biases caused by urbanization (for example Hansen et al. 1999; Jones et al. 2001). In any case, it has been shown that urbanization has had an insignificant effect on global and even regional temperature trends (Peterson 2003).”

        20. Bill Steffen says:

          First of all, global temperatures are NOT increasing. They have been steady since 2002: That’s indisputable. Every data set agrees: The climate models are failing: Hansen and Jones are not to be trusted. Hansen is a political zealot who’s been arrested on numerous occasions. More on what Jones has been up to:

          FOI email from Phil Jones “Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.”

          First he admits the “lack of warming”. Second, why if global warming is such a bad thing…does he hope the warming continues??

          Phil is worried, but he desperately suggests a back-up explanation. He writes: “In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.”

          “…in case the prediction is wrong”

          Please don’t support taxing gasoline to “European levels” based on a prediction that even the most zealous say might be wrong.

        21. Brad says:

          An admitted faith-based thinker talking zealotry?

        22. Bill Steffen says:

          An accurate description of you, Brad! Nice. Global temperatures are still flat, BTW.

    2. Mike M. says:

      Did you ever wonder what Arctic ice extent was before 1979? Here’s a chart that appeared in the 1990 IPCC report…×384.jpg

      Hmmm. You know, in four years the Arctic icecap made a heckuva recovery. And why was extent down so much in the cold 1970′s? Could it be a natural cycle?

      1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

        I think the National Sea Ice & Snow Data Center backed by NASA is a little more credible than a 23 year old graph.

        Here it is, and the trend is significantly down since 1978. Unfortunately, it wasn’t tracked much before then:

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          You’re graph shows there’s a lot more ice than there was last year in July.

        2. michael g (SE GR) says:

          Hilarious. At 2:56 he criticizes Bill for comparing temps to 1998, then, less than 30 minutes later, he compares ice to 1978. Loser.

        3. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Hmmm a 35 year trend line not cherry picked or a short term comparison cherry picked to one of the hottest years on record….

        4. michael g (SE GR) says:

          1978 is not cherry picked? REALLY?? You must have just randomly picked the end of the coldest decade in the last 100 years. Pure coincidence.

        5. Bill Steffen says:

          Check out this graph, showing the long-term growth (since the mid 1980s) of the Antarctic icecap:

        6. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          1978 is the beginning of the data set for better or worse.

          1998 is not the beginning of global temperature data set.

          Therefore, one was clearly cherry picked.

          One region’s ice is really not that relevant when the overall trend has been this:

          I admit ice is more difficult than global temps because it wasn’t tracked accurately and globally until the 1960′s or 1970′s as satellite images emerged.

          With that said, the 35-year trend is significantly downward on a global scale. Whether the trend goes back further is unknown although the data hints at that when you’re talking about a 7″ rise in sea levels and that global temps have been on the increase.

        7. Bill Steffen says:

          You’re graph is only for the Arctic. The current graph of Arctic ice shows there’s a lot more ice there now than there was last year in July: Antarctic ice (more ice at the S. Pole than the N. Pole) is about to set a daily record for ice extent…well above average and a lot more ice than last year at this time:

        1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Notice how Bill only alludes to the latest tiny little spike in the graph in recent years and conveniently leaves out the long-term trend.

        2. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Glad you brought up the ice age. 5,000 years ago the earth gradually cooled over thousands of years about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

          Now, in the last 100 years (not 5,000) temps have gone up +1.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          You said: “the earth gradually cooled over thousands of years about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit”. ABOUT? And we can accurately measure that down to a tenth of a degree?? Global temperatures thousands of years ago? Global? Uh, no.

          What we do know is that there was MASSIVE, NATURAL cooling – taking West Michigan from palm trees to giant glaciers!

          The truth is global temperatures are flat, the global climate models are “deeply flawed” (Dr. Judith Curry’s words), CO2 emissions in the U.S. are falling and we are wasting billions of dollars on green energy boondoggles that have not cooled the Earth a tenth of a degree, have not produced any significant energy, but have enriched a lot of politically-connected cronies. and

        4. Brad says:

          OMG Bill…palm trees is called plate tectonics. Michigan was equatorial. Are you now arguing plate tectonics are responsible for global warming?

        5. Bill Steffen says:

          I’m pointing out the obvious…global temperatures have been flat for over a decade. The climate models are failing miserably. CO2 levels in the U.S. are falling. Inflicting “European level” gasoline prices and “skyrocketing” utility bills on the poor and middle class would be a crushing burden. I’m sticking up for the vast majority of Americans who do not want to force policies that would damage the economy, kill jobs and hurt so many people.

        6. Brad says:

          Palm trees? Why did you mention palm trees? This is the kitchen sink approach.

      2. Mike M. says:

        This stuff just flies over your head, doesn’t it? Go back and look what the IPCC showed BEFORE 1978. That’s the whole point. When you choose 1979 you’re cherry picking. You’re deliberately ignoring satellite data that existed before your precious starting point. The implication you want to give to the uninitiated is that before 1979 Arctic ice was perpetually undisturbed. It wasn’t.
        Here’s the earliest report of massive ice loss in the Arctic I could find..

        From 1817!

        1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          lol Right because 1817 was so incredibly accurate. They weren’t even able to see/track all the ice back then.

        2. Mike M. says:

          Stories on changing climate and melting Arctic ice have come steadily for almost 200 years…

          Every generation thinks they’re staring down at Armageddon. Yours is no different. Your children will one day worry about the Singularity like you worry about climate change and my generation worried about nuclear war.

        3. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          I always go back to dramatically rising sea levels. That’s the one set of data that is pure black/white. I wonder how you try to refute the fact that global sea levels have risen almost 7″ the past 100 years.

        4. Robert(Plainwell) says:

          So Travis what is causing the so called rising sea level? Maybe man pumping water out of the ground?

        5. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          You tell me, Robert. Obviously 7″ is a huge number on a global scale. I would argue that the facts support that it is coming from two main sources: thermal expansion (warmer water takes up more space) and ice loss. Surely, greater ice coverage or global cooling would move it in the other direction (sea levels falling) over longer periods of time. I also think your theory about man made drilling habits wouldn’t even start to come close to having a significant impact on the numbers.

          I’m still waiting for your guys’ reasoning.

        6. Robert(Plainwell) says:

          So Travis thermal expansion as in warm PDO and warm AMO?

        7. Mike M. says:

          Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. You go back to them because your ice talking points are so weak…

        8. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Mike M, temps go up and temps go down. If you do your homework, however, you will never find a 100 year period in which global temps have risen 1+ degree or sea levels have risen 7″. Nothing comes even close. We’re talking rate of change here.

          According to fossil data, it has taken the earth thousands of years to change as quickly as we’ve have in the past 100 years.

        9. Mike M. says:

          For God’s sake, we’re not even as warm as it was in the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan Warm Periods. Temps have only risen 0.7°C since the end of the LIA. I ask again why was the RATE of warming from 1900-1940 so great? This was well before co2 was anywhere near 350PPM.

          I even used your official catechism, Skeptical (not) Science.
          You can’t explain why all of the warming began and why it stopped mid-century or why it’s stopped again. Got anything else?

        10. Mike M. says:

          Here’s the last two thousand years based on 18 non-tree ring proxies…


          See what you see when you take out Michael (Piltdown) Mann’s fraudulent tree rings? You get what the overwhelming consensus was before this scam started. And don’t tell me that Mann’s work has been reproduced. Every reconstruction that supports Mann’s Hockey Stick uses the same deeply flawed proxies.

        11. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Right, I’d surely rather take one man’s analysis (who is RW Spencer?) over thousands of scientists who have come to an exact opposite conclusion.

 seems like a real trusted source too

        12. Mike M. says:

          First, it’s Craig Loehle, not Roy Spencer. Secondly it’s not thousands of scientists behind the temperature reconstructions, it’s less than fifty for the ones used to destroy the MWP and LIA. They use the same flawed proxies and the same questionable statistical techniques to produce similar papers that they review for each other under the “peer review” process. Peer review now being “pal review.”
          Interesting, isn’t it? If less than fifty “climate scientists” dropped off the face of the earth, there would be no “climate change” crisis.

        13. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          You’re wrong again.

          See my link towards the bottom of the page. 98% of over 1,300+ working climate scientists come to the conclusion that global warming is real and unprecedented the last 100 years.

          The fact that you think it’s only 50 scientists in some grand conspiracy is scary and shows your ignorance on the topic.

        14. Bill Steffen says:

          98%??? That link is nonsense. I would have said “yes” to the 2 questions that asked in that “survey”. That survey was designed as a bait and switch to get a high number and imply something totally different. There are a wide range of views regarding the effects of CO2 and the number of true alarmists is shrinking ( That’s because of many factors, from the disastrous (to them) ClimateGate emails (“use Mike’s TRICK to HIDE the decline) to the fact that global temperatures are not going up now ( – everyone agrees the global temperature has held steady for over a decade, to the fact that the climate models are not forecasting the lack of warming ( As Kevin Trenberth said: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

          Read this (and esp. the comments) from Dr. Judith Curry:

        15. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          The study is well-known and most certainly isn’t nonsense.

          Further, Bill would certainly be in the 2% if he qualified as a candidate of the study. Bill would certainly not say yes to the question of “it is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earths average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century.”

          First off, he doesn’t even think there is warming. Let alone that it was caused by greenhouse gases as 98% concluded.

          The fact you always cite the same handful of fringe scientists’ quotes and “research” leads me to believe the 2% is, if anything, too high at present times.

        16. Bill Steffen says:

          The “spin” is well-known, the questions, how they were asked and the number of respondents is NOT well-known. Do you know who and how many people were included in that survey?

        17. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          It’s funny. Everything has spin and automatically gets discredited if it doesn’t line up with the viewpoint that there is no global warming.

          In reality, the links playing math games and cherry picking data points have the most spin of all. Yet those continue to get posted.

          1,372 were included in the study (a very big sample size), and the study has been peer reviewed as well for accuracy.

        18. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Your Trenberth quote you repeatedly state time and time again is wildly misleading. All Trenberth was trying to do was express disappointment in the lack of monitoring equipment to help better predict year-to-year climate shifts. He says the exact same thing in his 2009 paper.

          “Hiding the decline” that you also always bring up refers to a study where certain Siberian trees had to be omitted from the data because they are outliers and their rings are thinner than thought after measurements and studies were done. Nothing was hidden. This was in many reports, including the 2007 IPCC report.

        19. Robert(Plainwell) says:

          Travis, Dr Michael Mann used only 12 trees out of the 34 documented for his hocket stick paper. What did the other tree ring data say?

        20. Bill Steffen says:

          The other trees were “outliers” because they didn’t fit the narrative. Remember, Mann has received millions of dollars in grants (, speaking fees and pleasant trips to warm, tropical places to regurgitate the narrative to a compliant press.

 (love the plaque)

        21. Bill Steffen says:

          From Dr. Judith Curry:

          “There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.

          It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one).”

  2. Mike M. says:

    Your DMI link for the middle graph is bad. Here it is…

  3. Travis (Oakland County) says:

    Where in Texas?

    Dallas has had an average June and July so far.

    Waco had a way above average June and slightly above average July so far.

    Austin’s had an above average June and July so far.

    San Antonio’s had a warm summer too compared to the averages.

    Alaska is back to an average July after a very warm June.

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      I was referring to the current cool, wet weather, but since you asked…Waco is 1.3° cooler than average for July: Waco was 2.0° above average for June, 1.9° cooler than average for May, 2.6° cooler than average for April and 1.7° cooler than average for March.

      Regarding Alaska…check out this article: It says:

      “The state’s overall temperature dipped 2.4 degrees during the first decade of the new century, a notable shift from the previous 100 years.” It also says: “Alaska in 2012 was 2.9 degrees colder than normal.” Alaska’s a BIG place and that’s a huge decline over a 10-year period. Pretty hard to “hide the decline”.

      1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

        Yeah, it’s been a warm summer in Texas so far. Probably why it’s not getting much coverage. Not a conspiracy.

        I’m not seeing many record lows either in Texas compared to the record highs that are going to be set in the midwest and northeast. In fact, Texas recently set some record highs over the weekend.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          I see record lows were tied this AM at Hanoi, Vietnam and Cape Parry, Canada. There sure was a lot of press (hoping…HOPING!!!) that Death Valley would set a new world record high temperature back in late June. They came 5 degrees short…that’s after they decided (after using the record for 90 years!) to throw out the pervious world record high temperature of 136 from Libya.

        2. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          And you forgot to mention London and parts of Europe baking in the heat right now ;)

          Little headlines from day-to-day do not prove anything if you’re trying to prove global cooling.

        3. Mark (East Lansing) says:

          Of course they are. It summertime!

        4. Bill Steffen says:

          London’s temperature (Heathrow Airport) was colder than average in January, February, March, April, May and June. So, if July winds up warmer than average, it’ll be the first warmer than average month in 2013!

        5. Dan says:

          Little headlines for some warm days does nothing to support warming either, Tyler. I have yet to see you post any reliable data to support your claims! Just because somebody mentions it, does that make it true and reliable?

        6. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Who’s Tyler? You can’t even get my name right let alone formulate a scientific response.

        7. Dan says:

          Sorry, I mean Travis. Scientific? You wish to go down this road huh? Were you absent when they taught on data and the reliability of data? Where is your scientific data, Travis? Please don’t post a Wikipedia or a talking point. Those data points are phony and certainly not reliable! Truth is, they cannot be called data points!

        8. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Okay, so why has the earth not experienced a below average year since 1976? I’d like to see your science behind that one. Or tell me why the top 10 hottest years have all been since 1998?

          Oh wait, NASA, NOAA must all be lying too. Heck, we shouldn’t even read the NWS or SPC or CPC.

        9. Bill Steffen says:

          That’s an “adjusted” number. The raw data doesn’t suggest that at all.

        10. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Time and time again NASA has put out pieces saying their adjustments had very little or no effect. Guess you choose not to believe them?

        11. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          I mean, if you don’t believe the conclusions of NWS or NOAA or NWS, then I guess you really can’t talk about any old weather records whatsoever.

          That really is an extreme viewpoint. I choose to believe them.

        12. Mike M. says:

          I don’t believe NASA, certainly not those linked with GISS. I don’t trust the IRS, the EPA, or the Justice Department, either. Nothing in the entire history of civilization tells me I should trust my government. Government always lies. Government always overreaches. Broadly speaking, of course. :)

        13. Robert(Plainwell) says:

          Travis why do they have to adjust the data?

        14. Dan says:

          That class on reliable, does that mean anything to you Travis? Do you believe anything ? Really am not even talking about reading something. Credibility and reliability seem to mean nothing to you, Travis. Funny, since you challenged me about a scientific response. It has been everywhere Travis! The data that you are referencing is not even true! the numbers have been manipulated. You really don’t think for yourself, do you?

        15. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          I’d rather believe NWS, NASA, and NOAA over or whatever site tries to “adjust” their numbers on their own for their own agenda.

          You’re right, all the well-known NWS, NASA, and NOAA studies are out there. All you have to do is look them up and think for yourself. The biggest mistake I see everyday Joes making is not looking at the long-term trend and simply listening to how Bill tells you that ice is up versus a 2012 record hot year or that the warming has been “flat” since some of the hottest years on record of 1998 or 2002.

          NASA was forced to adjust the data in a very small fashion to adjust for small errors that could have occurred due to urban warming or the mixing of recording methods. For instance, they know measure vertical temperature profiles and not just surface temperatures.

        16. Mike M. says:

          Would you like to SEE what James Hansen did to the temperature record?

          I especially like the part where the National Academy of Sciences showed how Northern hemisphere temps had DROPPED 0.7°C since the 1930′s. Keep scrolling for a terrific collection of old newspaper reports of extreme weather.

          No, “Travis”, I don’t believe NASA, not when every adjustment they make is to cool the past and warm the present.

        17. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Nice blog link there, Mike M. Pretty much the most biased site you could find. I rest my case if you’re resting your thesis on that type of information. Talk about bias.

        18. Mike M. says:

          Gutless. You people are completely gutless. Those are direct quotes from government bureaucrats and scientists, like the ones you fawn over. The rest of the page contains the actual newspaper articles, real snapshots of the actual newspapers. And you won’t look because it shakes your worldview.

        19. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          lol you’re right. The sources you stated are way better than NASA or the NWS. Maybe we should just throw out all the records huh, Mike M? I mean why have them at all if its so clear? Obviously it’s a huge conspiracy.

        20. Mike M. says:

          My gawd, you are a thick-headed mule. Those ARE NASA graphs you big daddy sock puppet. You’re hopeless, “Travis.”

        21. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          So, let’s get this straight, you’re using NASA information you don’t trust that overwhelmingly shows global warming trends (as said by NASA, itself) to try to somehow prove your point? Wow.

        22. Bill Steffen says:

          NASA data clearly shows global temperatures have been flat since 2002:

          Hansen himself admits it: “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade…” – James Hansen et al.

        23. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          LOL Bill… you keep saying the same cherry picking things. Why do you always talk about 2002 and flat?

          2002 was one of the hottest years on record. If we’ve been flat for 10 years since, then that means that the heat and above average temperatures have remained.

        24. Bill Steffen says:

          Just read the graph and you can make your own judgement:

          Remember the climate models all forecast temperatures to rise dramatically in the past 11 years. They are wrong…”deeply flawed” as Dr. Judith Curry has stated.

          With the cold PDO, the eventually shift of the AMO to cold phase and the quiet sun…I wouldn’t bet on global temperatures going up significantly in the next decade (or likely more).

  4. Mike M. says:

    Will you look at that: no wildfires right now in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, or Colorado…

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      Wow! This is we’ve had the least number of fires in over 10 years and the 2nd lowest number of acres burned.

  5. Dan says:

    Did you read Kyle’s data about less tornados over the past 10 years? I thought, part of the “facts” to support warming was an increase in tornados!

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        Go here to the authority, SPC: The article says: “When these annual adjusted values are plotted, we see that the linear upward trend is removed from the data. Removal of this upward trend is desirable because the increase in tornado reports over the last 54 years is almost entirely due to secular trends such as population increase, increased tornado awareness, and more robust and advanced reporting networks.”

        The number of tornadoes is not increasing. The number of tornadoes reported is increasing because now we have hundreds of “storm chasers” who not only report tornadoes that weren’t reported before, but report the same tornado multiple times from different directions. If you look at the number of moderate to strong tornadoes (that would have been counted 50 years ago, there is no increase:

        This statement is on the website of the National Hurricane Center: “Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones-VI (IWTC-VI) Participants :

        – Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
        – No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
        – The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.”

        The United States is undergoing its longest stretch in recorded history without a major (Category 3 or higher) hurricane strike With each passing day extending the unprecedented lack of severe hurricanes, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

        From Science Daily: “Global Warming Has Little Impact In Tropical Storm And Hurricane Numbers, NOAA Reports”

        — A new model simulation of Atlantic hurricane activity for the last two decades of this century projects FEWER hurricanes overall…”

        Tom Knutson, research meteorologist and lead author of the report said. “It’s a bit of a mixed picture in the Atlantic, because we’re projecting fewer hurricanes overall.”

        Global Accumulated Cyclone Energy has been down since 2005:

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      Yeah, that sure it’s working out for them, is it:

      Same thing for tropical storms/hurricanes: Numbers are on the decline.

  6. Mike M. says:

    The “climate change” nutters have lost Reuters…

    If they don’t hold the media in check they may as well jump on the ol’ ash heap of history right now.

    1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

      lol another fine unbiased news site I see. No wonder you believe what you do. Wow

      1. Dan says:

        Pot meet kettle! Travis you make accusations and question Bill’s posta s. Yet, you never make a forecast!! Are you trying to not use logic, reason, or data?

        1. INDY says:

          Travis Love’s Grand rapids …. Just like our weather When we fart it moves east he loves that to…….INDYY

        2. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          I don’t post biased links, and I certainly don’t make forecasts regarding global climate. But the long-term trends are easy to see.

      2. Bill Steffen says:

        Actually, “The Baron”, led by a former Reuters reporter, probably has more credibility that Reuters. In 2006, Reuters distributed anti-Israeli doctored photos. Several years later, same thing. They were cropping pictures and wiping out blood of pictures to give an anti-Israeli bias. They used the word “terrorist” with the Oklahoma City bombing, but not have chosen not to use the word regarding Muslim-related terrorist events. A Reuters editor is quoted as saying: ““We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,…”

        Even though Reuters is now an American company, Reuters was founded and has a large presence in Europe/England, where 2013 has been a cold year. January thru June were all cooler than average in London. Reuters will look silly continuing to promote “global warming” when global temperature is not rising ( and the climate models are “deeply flawed’ (Dr. Judith Curry’s words) (

        1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          99.9% of the population would disagree with that statement. When’s the last time you’ve heard a news story break and the source was thebaron? Never. But I guess if that’s where your data sources come from, instead of the NWS, NOAA, or NASA, then there’s little left to say.

        2. Bill Steffen says:

          99.9%? Right. Get a grip, Travis. You instead trust the people that used “Mike’s Trick to Hide the Decline”? You trust a fanatic serial lawbreaker like Hansen?

          Here’s NASA:

          Here’s NOAA: From the NOAA Drought Task Force: “Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains,…”

          Here’s NWS: From this page:

          “Does “global warming” cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, “Will climate change influence tornado occurrence?” The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, “Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales–such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms–cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence.”

        3. Brad says:

          Still waiting for the biological indicators to respond to the end of global warming.

        4. Brad says:

          LOL, the same “fanatic serial lawbreaker” you quote about the end of global warming? Geez, the ad hominem is alive and well. So UnChristian!

        5. Brad says:

          Even a heathen can spot vicious, unsavory claims against the honorable Dr. Michael J. Mann and Dr. James Hansen. And Mr. Albert Gore, Jr.

        6. Brad says:

          Which Tea Party “think tanks” sponsor this blog, anyway? The Mackinac Center for Piss-poor Policy? The Heartland Institute? Heritage Foundation? Club for Growth? The KKK?

        7. Bill Steffen says:

          And the boogie man in the closet and the troll under the bridge. I bet you believe that O.J. is intently looking for the “real killer”.


          Hansen: (arrested four times now). “ATI obtained Dr. Hansen’s Form SF 278, which is required to be filed annually, also under the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure revealed that Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment, which included:

          • Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches;
          • Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes;
          • Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities.”


        8. Dan says:

          Good one, Bill! Brad definitely thinks that OJ is looking for the killer! He also believes rhat Elvis frequents the drive through media! Travis needs to face reality! He is young and very closed minded. Not a good combination! Have to wonder why the Oakland County kid is always reporting the heat! However, he cannot take the heat! Travis its time to face the music.

        9. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          So apparently, Bill doesn’t believe the National Weather Service, NOAA, NASA, Thomson Reuters, NBC News, The Weather Channel, The National Snow and Ice Data Center… and the list goes on and on.

          But I guess I’m the extreme one here. Right.

      3. Mike M. says:

        Yeah, why would anyone trust a Reuters employee who has a blog about Reuters?

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          Here’s NASA:

          Here’s NOAA: From the NOAA Drought Task Force: “Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains,…”

          Here’s NWS: From this page:

          “Does “global warming” cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, “Will climate change influence tornado occurrence?” The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, “Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales–such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms–cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence.”

          On the other hand…

 (note I used the Reuters link)

  7. Zach says:

    THE UP has a little severe weather potential going on right now

  8. Scott (robinson twsp) says:

    How much of the rise in seawater is due to the volcanic islands growing underwater and above. It has to displace a good amount of water.

  9. Mike (Mattawan) says:

    The weather sure does interesting things. I for one am actually enjoying the fact that we are receiving the hot weather and not Texas (Technically they are still hot but its not a heat wave in their eyes as they are used to the 90s in the summer… and of course its relatively dry down there while up here.. its quite muggy) This sure is great pool weather. It’s hard on the A.C. but other than that its great! Just remember to stay hydrated and stay cool!

  10. bodawg says:

    I have noticed that the lightning bugs blink quicker when it is hot. Also, I believe I am seeing more of them this year, than in years past.

  11. arcturus says:

    Hey Travis, congrats on pwning just about every cherry picking global warming skeptic out there. The best laugh comes from Mike M, the guy who doesn’t trust NASA but agrees with some website called Textbook bias! Thanks for exposing it.

    1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

      Wasn’t fun, but I had to do it.

      Out of a sample of 1,372, 98% of working climate scientists conclude the earth is warming at unprecedented levels – rising sea levels too. And the number who think so has only increased in recent years as more studies have been published and global temps continue to climb.

      The facts are the facts as much as they try to cite some random biased study or a fringe scientist with very different beliefs or try to cherry pick the data back to some record hot year. 2% is so low, and that’s directly from the brightest and best scientists. There’s more people out there who believe the president is an alien than that. There really is no point to even keep arguing about it. It’s really just a slap in the fact to the entire scientific community. That’s why the only links they can find are crazy biased sites.

      The irony is that the blog always cites historical NWS temps, and yet on the same hand they don’t even believe in their accuracy or their easily seen conclusions from the data set.

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        Read the Forbes article at this link:

        “That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75…”.


        ” That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

        The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

        I would have answered “yes” to at least the first question and I could have answered “yes” to the 2nd question if they had more closely defined “significant”. I sure there are others among the 75 who would question the infamous “hockey stick” and the manipulation (attempts to circumnavigate the law) in the Climategate emails (as Dr. Muller has done).

      2. Travis (Oakland County) says:

        You’re very confused, Bill.

        You must have not read the study link because your link has nothing to do with the Stanford/Toronto study of 1,372 climate researchers.

        I have no idea what study your link is even referencing.

      3. Bill Steffen says:

        My comment demolishes the infamous 97%-98% that you and others have cited. You can see the 2 questions asked and the very small sample of 75. The consensus that you claim is false. In fact, scientists are moving from alarmism to skepticism given the lack of warming over the past decade and the failure of any of the climate models to correctly predict the lack of warming.

      4. Travis (Oakland County) says:

        lol your attempt to counterpoint isn’t even talking about the same study I posted.

        Yours is talking about a University of Illinois survey that I’ve never even heard of.

        You must not have read my link nor the paper.

      5. Bill Steffen says:

        Those surveyed in your study were hand-picked to give an intended perspective. This from a researcher at Cardiff Univ.:

        Lorraine Whitmarsh, science researcher at Cardiff University, …is a bit concerned, however, about the selection process for the survey’s participants.

        “The [survey] deliberately selects scientists who have signed high-profile public documents about their views, and so exclude those researchers…with less extreme views…

        Indeed, Whitmarsh points out that the survey excludes the 26% of researchers who are neither convinced nor unconvinced by the ACC arguments.

        1. Brad says:

          It’s another conspiracy!

      6. Bill Steffen says:

        A new paper just out from the Danish Meteorological Institute:

        Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea-Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000

        Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll

        Abstract: The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. The length of the series allows insight into the natural variability of ice extent and this understanding can be used to evaluate modern-day variations. Thus we find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.

  12. Dan says:

    Travis the data presented in the article that you quote is very biased and does nothing more than present meaningless propaganda. I asked you earlier if you truly understood what credible and reliable data was. To expose the data as bias , were you aware that the IPCC claimed way more than 1,372 researchers? 2nd suspicious fact is that 97-98 percent were pro AGW. If you connect the dots from that piece of so called research you will see it was designed to do nothing more than produce a very biased assumption. Simple science question here, try to stay with me? If 98 percent of researchers present an idea you would think that those would be pretty good odds to believe what they are presenting as fact. However, if that same number already believed the same way what would be the importance of proving it? The data is completely bias. Do you actually look at something that critically or do you just believe it because it sounds good?

    1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

      lol Yep, guess you’re smarter than the Ph.D’s in their field who conducted the study and the peer review process that confirmed it. Everything is one big conspiracy to you.

      Stanford University and the University of Toronto must be shocked and ashamed that an anonymous blogger from West Michigan discovered “the truth” of their study which was really intended as global warming propoganda. They should immediately remove the study from academic journals and the like.

      I think the first step for you would be to contact these two universities and tell them your shocking revelation.

      Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        I’m not anonymous, Travis – How can you say that!! The study you linked to hand-picked the participants so that an alarmist consensus would be achieved. This is called a push-poll and these are done all the time.

        The truth is…global temperatures have been flat for over a decade. The climate models are failing badly and CO2 emissions in the U.S. are falling at a significant rate.

  13. Dan says:

    How about you, Travis? You try to engage me in a scientific argument. Yet, you do not even understand the basics of science and what is to be believed. I never claimed to be smarter. please Travis try to think critically for a change. Can you do that? The information is biased. The data is has been manipulated. Did you even bother to read the IPCC’s study or a you only capable of believing climate hysteria? Everybody who challenges you and your research is wrong? Are you capable of researching anything and analyzing it? By your comments you sound as if you’ll believe anything. Where is Hoffa? Aliens or Government testing? I see you are having a very difficult time in proving that cited research is biased. Do you know what that means?

    1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

      I don’t even know what you were attempting to argue in the post above. It says in the study that selection of participants was random and unbiased and based on the number of published works. Had nothing to do with prior beliefs.

      You just go on big rants where everything is a conspiracy. Do you really think two major universities and many professors/Ph.D’s would author a study that was as mistake-riddled as you claim? They would be laughed out of their field.

      Your ignorance for education and the field of science is astounding. As if a peer reviewed paper does not have to hold up under an extremely intense scrutiny. Do you know what it means to be peer reviewed or how difficult it is for works to be published in a scientific journal?

      1. karlac616 says:

        They would not be laughed at and ridiculed out of their field because their field is full of people who think just like them, and have become so very very dependent on the dollars they have been raking in in the past decade by keeping up this sham. There is a great deal of money to be made as a “scientist” “proving” global warming exists in this day and age….and it is a great big shame. Personally, I choose to look for the truth and not the fad.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          You’re right, karlac – look at the $$$ flowing to just one guy:

  14. Dan says:

    Stanford University and the University of Toronto? You are going to cite these two Universities as the most researched in this area? That’s funny! Travis , news flash. They don’t even know that I exist. Conspiracy? Grasp much?

    1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

      You’re right, some of the brightest researchers co-authoring from two of the most prestigious universities in the world. Pure, obvious, complete, 100% bias! All propaganda!

      1. Dan says:

        Travis, WOW! You are jumping off the ledge a bit don’t you think? Ignorance for education? WOW more attacks. All I’m trying to get you to do is admit that there is bias. If there is bias, does that mean its credible data? WOW! Dude, take a chill pill! By the way, lets narrow this down, first you never cited the entire researching faculty of two Universities in your original article. There were 4 contributing researchers to that piece! Are you about 22 years old and did you just complete a research project? Analyze the data critically. Then, choose if you believe it or not. You come across as the one who fails to grasp the concepts of, science, data, reliable, and credible. These have to do with establishing proof. Example, suppose you are watching the Tigers play with your two of your closest friends. You see that two of you are seeing strikes. The Umpire in the game is making the call. Who is right? Doesn’t it become what the Umpire is seeing? Its almost like choosing 3 of your closest friends to a debate. What I’m trying to illustrate is that bias exists and that it can have a HUGE affect on the outcome of published work. More often than not, it doesn’t really take as much much as you would think to publish. I have accomplished this task!

        1. Brad says:

          What in Allah’s name are you babbling about, Dan? Sheesh.

  15. Dan says:

    All I can say is for you to follow the money, Travis! I don’t have the time to spend with somebody who will not think critically and form his own opinion!
    You are nothing more than a person who believes platitudes and bumper stickers.
    Where is your substance man? Please spare me the attacks! You may need to study some more.

    1. Brad says:

      Dan, you’re really struggling here.

      1. Dan says:

        Brad, so what. What is your point, really? Did you jump in because Travis and I are arguing? Do you somehow sense the need to be needed?
        I don’t really care. Think about it. Wish you would do that! Thanks for paying so close attention.

        1. Brad says:

          I’m returning your favor of tracking my posts. Your posts are good for a laugh. Gobble Gobble!

  16. Travis (Oakland County) says:

    Perfect. Let’s add prestigious universities and peer reviewed papers to the list of who we shouldn’t trust. The list just keeps getting longer and better. The substance is in the 10+ links I’ve posted to peer reviewed studies and well respected scientific papers.

  17. Travis (Oakland County) says:

    Follow the money? That’s your reasoning for not believing universities or academic research? Are you serious?

    Fossil fuel lobbying is over 24 times larger than clean energy. The fossil fuel industry has much deeper pocket books. If a Ph.D scientist was really interested in making money as you say, then they would do the opposite and publish a paper trying to disprove global warming.

    In 2010, the fossil fuel industry spent $146 million lobbying politicians (compared to $6 million spent by wind, solar, and geothermal). For their efforts, the fossil fuel industry received $523 billion in subsidies in 2011 (6 times greater than the total clean energy subsidies). And this doesn’t even take into account the $100 million of lobbying done by cars, planes, and trucking that all rely on fossil fuels.

    If there’s anyone with monetary interests in mind, it’s the fossil fuel companies.

    1. Brad says:

      The follow the money comment is priceless, especially when the fossil fuel industry is so blatant and open about their massive spending to confuse the public and regional meteorologists. The money is so much better for the few skeptics. I love it when Bill talks about the “greedy” five-figure researchers. It’s a riot coming from a guy who banks upward of $300K a year from WOOD-TV8 alone.

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        This from CNNMoney: “During the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney said “about half” of the companies funded by Obama’s administration went bankrupt. That is true.”

        I do NOT make anywhere near 300K and it diminishes what little credibility you have here to outright lie like that, Brad.

        1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Ah, Solyndra. Didn’t agree with it from the start. But the cost to the government was $529 million.

          Compared to $523 billion in fossil fuel subsidies for one year alone.

          Hmmm… that’s like a millionaire complaining over a lost penny.

        2. Brad says:

          It’s time to come clean with your compensation so we can accurately conceive of your parameters to call teachers and union members “greedy.” Rumor has it you’re the second-highest paid meteorologist in the country behind Skilling (brother of the evil Jeff).

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          Who the heck are you “Brad”? Hiding in anonymity and writing outright lies like I make “upward of 300K”. That is an outright lie.

        4. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          Joe Bastardi makes more money than 20 climate researchers combined.

          Talk about following the money for being a skeptic. Way more money being a skeptic.

          Most of his weather “research” he sells to business are bought from fossil fuel companies as a kick back.

        5. Bill Steffen says:

          You don’t have a clue how much Bastardi makes. He’s started a new company and as my daughter can attest, you don’t make much money when you’re just starting out.

          James Hansen NASA income statement, obtained by FOIA:

          “Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment, which included:

          • Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches;
          • Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes;
          • Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities.”

          Michael Mann charges 10K per speech – plus expenses:

          I assume you also don’t have a list of WeatherBell’s clients.

  18. INDY says:

    U guys have a lot of time on your hands….I thought fixer did!! Wow!! INDYY.

  19. Steve Wood says:

    I am in Tyler Texas working and it was not cold in Texas this week. The “coolest” day was 81 with dew points near 70 degrees. Hardly cold.

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      I was referring to difference from average. The average high temperature in Tyler, Texas is 93. You had 3 days (14th, 15th and 19th) with highs of 81…so that’s 3 days that were 12 degrees colder than average. It was a relatively cool week. You’ve also had 121% of July rainfall already this month.

  20. arcturus says:

    Best thread in recent memory. Exposing the global warming refuseniks whose bias doesn’t allow them to accept the facts and obvious conclusions. Priceless.

    1. Brad says:

      Agreed. Instead of focusing on one or two salient points, the conspiracists throw the kitchen sink at the problem. Anything and everything is at their disposal, from vast global conspiracies to ad hominem attacks and vagaries like “CO2 is plant food.” Even taxation is somehow used to refute the science.

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        The sciences says global temperatures have been steady for 11+ years:

        The science says that the climate models are (as Dr. Curry has clearly stated) “deeply flawed:

        1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          So even Bill admits that the record heat we saw in 2002 has continued for 11 years now – that’s 11 years of well above average global temps. Nice.

          Case closed.

        2. Bill Steffen says:

          So, even Travis admits that global temperatures have been flat for over a decade and that the climate models have failed (“deeply flawed” as Dr. Judith Curry has states). Don’t base public policy…especially public policy that would threaten so many jobs and hurt the poor and middle class…on obviously failing models.

  21. Travis (Oakland County) says:

    I’m glad we have finally come to an agreement.

    2002 was one of the hottest on record and since then global temperatures have only continued to stay at this well above average level. If Bill wants to keep calling that flat, I’m okay with that.

    Time to move on here, people. Good talk.

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      Glad you agree that the global temperatures have been flat. Glad to read that you agree that the climate models are a big FAIL. BTW, the overall average temperature in Grand Rapids was one degree WARMER than the overall average temperature of the 2000s.

      1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

        I’ll take flat! That means you’re admitting above average temps have continued for the last decade after a prolonged period in the 80′s and 90′s as well.

        No one said global temps have to make new all-time highs every year. In fact, it never goes straight up. You’ll always have periods of “flat” or whatever you want to call it.

        Glad we agree.

        1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

          As you can clearly see, there will always be flat periods. It has happened in the past and will happen again.

          Data manipulation at its finest, but I’ll take it:

        2. Bill Steffen says:

          From the 2008 NOAA Climate Report ( ):

          “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” Source:

          11 years down, 4 to go…

          Look for the same result as this famous fail: “Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years”…that was Al Gore in 2008. Here’s reality: And the south polar icecap is nearing an all-time record:

  22. Dan says:

    Trouble is very basic and can be boiled down to this. Please remove the blinders from the lies that you attempt to perpetrate as truth. Biased data, flawed graphs, and huge dollars spent on promoting that garbage. Travis, you claim that I go on big rants and call everything a conspiracy. Do you bother to read what the IPCC said? No, you won’t because you are too afraid to look at it. Case is not closed. Why would there be so much skepticism? Simply put, Huge dollars in the way of grants given to Universities are being spent without any scientific data. They postutlated a theory and then it became Highly politicized ! Think just a moment about all of the advertising dollars behind this. Look at what Obama said in his quote on the weather and the environment! Did you bother to look at whether his statement was true?

    1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

      Good talk.

      Bill even admitted 2002 was an extremely hot year, and now we have him on record saying global temps have continued at this pace for the last decade.

      He also said global temps rose in the 1980′s and 1990′s in the heading of this very thread.

      So if you put it all together, even you guys are starting to admit that temps are up drastically since the 70′s.

      Very good!! We are getting somewhere!

      Now all you have to do is keep looking a little further back, and we’ll all be on the same page.

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        Global temperatures dropped from the 1950s thru the 1970s, rose in the 80s and 90s and have been flat (if anything down slightly) since 2002. Here’s the graph, you can make your own conclusion:

        Dr. William Gray forecast all of this very well. When the same alarmists were using “global cooling” to ram through high taxes and more regulation…he correctly predicted that global temperatures would rise with the active sun and the flip of the AMO and PDO to positive (warm) phase. He also predicted that global temperatures would level off as the PDO went into cool phase in the early 2000s. (The AMO is still in warm phase) The predictions of the alarmists have been wrong:

        1. Robert(Plainwell) says:

          Hey Bill check this out.

        2. Bill Steffen says:

          Nice find, Robert. His link says: “A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.” Those with an open mind have to acknowledge that the sun actually might have something to do with climate!

  23. Travis (Oakland County) says:

    I’m glad we all now agree that global temperatures have risen dramatically from the 1970′s. This last decade was the hottest decade on record in which 9 out of 10 of the hottest years were recorded.

    It must be driving you guys nuts there hasn’t been even a single below average temp year on the earth since 1976. Do you know the odds of that? The earliest researchers predicted this. You guys have been totally from the beginning and missed the entire rise in your forecasts.

    By the way, 2013 is shaping up to be another record hot year globally. And that’s with ENSO neutral / weak La Niña which should result in colder temperatures (per the skeptics who cite the oceans as their scapegoat).

    Okay, now I’m sure you’ll link to some obscure skeptic. And go…

  24. Bill Steffen says:

    Global temperatures rose in the 1980s and 1990s…I won’t say “dramatically”. The rise includes the urbanization factor: which the link here from the State Climatologist of California shows is significant. It was also related to an active sun and the concurrent warm phase of the PDO and AMO. Weather stations that have not been urbanized or have other siting issues show little warming in the last 100 years. Grand Rapids warmest decade was the 1930s. The 2000s in G.R. were one degree COOLER than the 1930s.

    I don’t for a minute believe that B.S. about global temperatures being above average every month since 1976. That’s politically driven nonsense.

    I checked this evening…the NASA IR global temperature anomaly is -0.131 degree for July and +0.012 degree for the year…hardly a crisis that demands a thousand-plus additional deaths by forcing everyone to drive weenie-mobiles or “European level” gasoline prices.

    1. Travis (Oakland County) says:

      .012 * 100 years = would keep us right on trend for another +1.2 degree Fahrenheit increase over the next century. It may not sound big, but that would be substantial after our +1.4 rise already. As has been noted, a 1 degree increase on a global scale is a huge deal.

      Bill, you love to throw stones, but the skeptics predictions have been awful. In the 1960′s and 1970′s, the same group you listen to now was predicting a dramatic fall in global temps and a lowering of the global sea level. Why you still choose to listen to them is beyond me.

      I think all long-term predictions are silly since man doesn’t know everything about the planet’s climate, but at least the other side has gotten the long-term trend right. And yet as part of your argument you repeatedly state their predictions aren’t working as if the people you listen to haven’t been 1,000 times worse.

      Heck, the last cooler than average month globally was February 1985. What are the odds of that? June 2013 was the earth’s 5 warmest ever recorded according to NOAA and the 2nd warmest June ever recorded according to NASA.

      So far, the year-to-date period of January – June has been the 7th warmest such period on record.

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        And at the rate that the Antarctic icecap is growing, the ice will overtake Tasmania in 5,000 years. The skeptics predictions have NOT been awful! Dr. Gray correctly forecast both the rise temperature of the 80s and 90s and the leveling off of temperature in the 2000s. The predictions of the alarmists have been, as Dr. Judith Curry has stated, “deeply flawed”. and

        global temperature as of Sunday AM 7/21: +0.011 deg. C. above average for 2013 so far (NASA data)

        For July, the globe is -0.132 deg. C.

Leave a Reply