2017 second hottest year recorded

There were indications through last year that it was likely to be one of the warmest on record, and that has been confirmed. Climate change/global warming is a growing concern for the well being of Earth and potentially for the future of the human race, which has been rapidly overpopulating the planet.

Stuff:  2017 was Earth’s second hottest year on record

Last year was Earth’s second hottest on record, just behind 2016.

The Copernicus Climate Change Service, the first major international weather agency to report on conditions in 2017, said temperatures averaged 14.7 degrees Celsius at the Earth’s surface – 1.2C above pre-industrial times.

Sixteen of the 17 warmest years have all been this century.

2017 was the hottest non El Niño year, and the third warmest ever recorded.

Scientific American:  The Top 7 Climate Findings of 2017

As the potential effects of climate change are seen around the world – from starving polar bears to record-breaking storms – interest in climate science is soaring. Scientists are digging into the “how,” “why” and “what’s next” of global temperatures, melting ice, emission sources and sinks, changing weather patterns, and rising seas.

The last year has seen major breakthroughs and advancements in climate research. Here are some of the biggest findings reported by scientists in 2017.

Temperatures and carbon concentrations are breaking records

In January, both NOAA and NASA officially confirmed that 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded. It’s the third time in a row that record has been broken – 2015 and 2014 were both determined to be the hottest years ever observed.

Just two months later, in March, NOAA scientists announced that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are climbing at a record pace for the second year in a row.

Record low sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctica

Early March is around the time when Arctic sea ice typically reaches its maximum extent. Turns out it was the lowest max extent ever recorded in 2017, reaching just 470,000 square miles. For comparison, the average extent between 1981 and 2010 was about 5.57 million square miles. It’s the third year in a row scientists have seen a record winter low in the Arctic.

Around the same time, scientists observed record low sea ice in the Antarctic.

Sea-level rise is on the upswing

Multiple studies this year suggested that sea-level rise is occurring faster, or may be more severe in the future, than previous estimates indicate. One of the more dire of these was just published last week in the journal Earth’s Future. It suggests that better accounting for some of the physical processes affecting ice loss in Antarctica could double the sea-level rise expected under severe climate change scenarios. Another paper, released in October, came to similar conclusions. It also assumes a severe future climate change trajectory, and it updated Antarctic ice sheet dynamics.

These are some of the grimmer portraits of the future published this year, and their most alarming predictions rely on high-emissions scenarios that are not necessarily guaranteed to occur. But even more tempered studies are suggesting that future sea-level rise could be worse than we thought.

Some have tried to play down the risks of climate change by claiming that CO2 emission and sea level rise predictions were too high – but as scientific knowledge increases it’s just as likely they could have been too low.

Speaking of ice, glaciers are calving like crazy

In July, one of the biggest icebergs ever recorded broke from Antarctica’s Larsen C ice shelf and began drifting out to sea.

Just a few months later, in September, Antarctica’s massive Pine Island Glacier – which already pours about 45 billion tons of ice each year into the ocean – calved an iceberg four times the size of Manhattan, or about 100 square miles.

These are some of the most remarkable glacier calving events recorded this year, but they’re hardly the only ones. The U.S. Coast Guard announced this month that the number of icebergs recorded in the North Atlantic this year is nearly double what it was in 2016 – more than 1,000 total observed.

Generally speaking, it’s natural for glaciers to lose large icebergs every now and then. But as both air and ocean temperatures rise, scientists are observing growing amounts of ice loss from both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and increasing instability among glaciers that back up to the sea.

Earlier this year, NASA images revealed a large new ice crack in Greenland’s enormous Petermann Glacier, which has already lost several gigantic icebergs over the last seven years.

Major discoveries about carbon

Using satellite data, researchers found that tropical forests – until recently thought to be one of the world’s biggest carbon sinks – are actually a net carbon source. Due to deforestation and degradation, they’re emitting about 400 million metric tons of carbon into the air each year.

There’s still great uncertainty about many aspects of the Earth’s carbon cycle, particularly when it comes to natural sinks like forests or the ocean.

But scientists are getting better at closing the gap. For instance, a report issued earlier this year by scientists with the Joint Global Change Research Institute suggested that methane emissions from livestock may be 11 percent higher than previous estimates suggested – a value that could help explain an ongoing scientific mystery about why atmospheric methane concentrations seem to be on the rise.

That could have serious implications for New Zealand’s agriculture.

These disasters could not have occurred without warming

…this year marks the first time some of the papers concluded that an event could not have occurred – like, at all – in a world where global warming did not exist. The studies suggested that the record-breaking global temperatures in 2016, an extreme heat wave in Asia and a patch of unusually warm water in the Alaskan Gulf were only possible because of human-caused climate change.

Scientists say these are likely not the only events to occur strictly because of climate change. They’re just the first to be discovered.

Global emissions are on the rise – again

A November report from the Global Carbon Project found that carbon dioxide emissions are growing again after being flat for three years. The findings have dashed experts’ hopes that global emissions had possibly peaked for good.

The research projects that 2017 could see a 2 percent increase in the burning of fossil fuels, bringing this year’s human-caused emissions up to about 41 billion tons of carbon dioxide. The reason for the uptick lies largely with China, the report suggests, where increases in the consumption of coal, oil and natural gas have driven its 2017 emissions up by about 3.5 percent.

China has been reported as working hard on increasing renewable energy use – see How China is leading the renewable energy revolution – so this may turn around.

But there are a lot of other countries and factors involved, so warming and it’s effects, like sea level rise and increased number and intensity of storms, will be of ongoing concern.

Previous Post

54 Comments

  1. sorethumb

     /  January 6, 2018

    I read Poles Apart by Gareth Morgan. The arguments against were weak – mostly nitpicking about things like the placement of Stevenson boxes and “we don’t know the effect clouds will have”.

  2. chrism56

     /  January 6, 2018

    This here gives a lot more nuanced view of the temperatures – they haven’t put out December or the year version yet as the data isn’t available
    http://climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_November_2017.pdf

  3. But…Global warming OVERRIDDEN by ‘mini ice age’ that will plunge UK temperature in 2030, claim mathematicians

    According to research carried out by universities in the UK and Russia, Britain is set to be plunged into a ‘mini ice age’ by 2030.

    Scientists used a mathematical model of the Sun to arrive at their prediction, judging that changes in its magnetic activity would create a knock-on effect on the Earth’s temperature.

    They believe that magnetic waves from the sun will begin decreasing in 2021 and last for 33 years. Historically, low magnetic activity from the Sun has coincided with cold periods on Earth.

    Valentina Zharkova, a maths professor at Northumbria University built on previous work done in Moscow to make the predictions.

    Although she says that the mathematical prediction can’t be used as total proof, she does suggest a 97% accuracy level for her model which lines up with previous ice ages, including the Maunder Minimum period from 1645 to 1715.

    The research paper: Frost fairs, sunspots and the Little Ice Age

  4. David

     /  January 6, 2018

    I for one am quite pleased to see my position of being a “luke warmist” is aligned with what is happening. The recent slight warming since 1979 in what is the margin of error coming after the cooling period since mid last century. Apparently we are heading into quite a quiet period for the sun so looks like global warming is out for a while.
    If one believes the “alarming” recent rise in temperatures one has to admit that global warming makes little material difference and therefore we need not worry quite so much about it and perhaps direct precious resources to environmental issues that have material impact on our daily lives…rivers, pollution, plastic replacement, more efficient fracking etc.

    • Griff

       /  January 6, 2018

      Don’t see much cooling mid century compared to the warming since David.
      The flat period from the fortys to the seventy is well known to be due to aerosol pollution.

      https://www.icnz.org.nz/media-and-resources/media-releases/single/item/2017-worst-year-on-record-for-weather-related-losses/
      The Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) announced today that 2017 has been the most expensive year on record for weather-related losses, with a total insured-losses value of more than $242 million.

      “These figures are a clear sign of the impact climate change is having on our country,” said ICNZ Chief Executive, Tim Grafton. “As time goes on, we expect to see more of these sorts of extreme weather events occurring.”

      Are you sure you are actually saying something that makes sense or just waffling rubbish?

      • PDB

         /  January 6, 2018

        “The Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) announced today that 2017 has been the most expensive year on record for weather-related losses, with a total insured-losses value of more than $242 million.

        “These figures are a clear sign of the impact climate change is having on our country,” said ICNZ Chief Executive, Tim Grafton. “As time goes on, we expect to see more of these sorts of extreme weather events occurring”

        Weather and climate are totally different things. Also a meaningless stat as with increased population, vehicles, assets and buildings etc of today $ is a nonsense way of measuring anything compared to the past where urban areas were less built up/less densely populated & we had less assets that could be damaged.

        • artcroft

           /  January 6, 2018

          Fish and bicycles are totally different things. Weather and climate are different aspects of the same phenomena. Sheesh, Trump does better than that.

          • PDB

             /  January 6, 2018

            The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time – climate alarmists don’t have enough data to tell us anything about the earths climate considering the age of the planet. It’s all pissing in the wind.

            • robertguyton

               /  January 6, 2018

              Nothing can be known about climate because there’s not enough data?
              What an idiotic claim – one of your very best, PDB.

            • PDB

               /  January 6, 2018

              [Don’t bring how someone might look into attacks on them. PG] were you scientifically measuring temperature during the Medieval Warm Period?

            • Griff

               /  January 6, 2018

              “climate alarmists don’t have enough data to tell us anything about the earths climate” the Medieval Warm Period?

              You are all over the place.
              logic connects our thinking together .
              Those of us that do think that is.
              You only know of the Medieval Warm period because of science.
              You follow a claim that science can not know with a reference to scientific knowledge about what we can not know.
              This pretty picture gives temps for the last 2000 years
              It finishes in 2000.present temperatures are now of this charts range..

            • PDB

               /  January 6, 2018

              You are (deliberately?) confusing the issue & misrepresenting what I’m saying – we know of the Medieval Warm Period but we don’t have the exact temperature data we have of today so the true extent/detail of the warming is not known.

              The only real data that the climate scientists trust is only very recent – even early-mid 20th century data they manipulated downwards on the premise that it was overstated and therefore wrong.

              Climate has always changed – naturally. Temperatures are gradually (not alarmingly) rising as we continue to live in a natural warming period starting from the low base temperatures of a little ice age. Man-made climate change has not been proven as fact.

            • Griff

               /  January 6, 2018

              In other word you are talking nonsense.
              The net result of all those adjustments are to cool the trend in the global temperature record .
              The reason is based on a basic school boy level of physics .
              In the early days ships used canvas buckets to sample sea water A wet bucket dragged up the side of a ship cools so ocean records are adjusted up slightly to compensate.
              As the ocean is 2/3 the the planet this adjustment has a significant effect on global temperatures. Those corrupt scientists are reducing warming with their adjustments .
              I think that for you to repeatably expose your total ignorance shows what a load of rubbish the gullible fools who deny climate change believe in.

            • PDB

               /  January 6, 2018

              Griff: “the gullible fools who deny climate change”

              Again you misrepresent the debate – climate change has always happened (naturally) – the debate is whether humans are the main cause of it today which you and I know you have no solid evidence of.

            • Griff

               /  January 6, 2018

              Links to wuwt.

              Every time I prove you wrong you just come out with some more rubbish rather than admit your error.
              You have been caught telling fibs my friend.
              You failed to address your lie instead link to even more nonsense.
              lets stay with the adjustments that you claim result in more warming yet don’t.
              How do you reconcile your “even early-mid 20th century data they manipulated downwards on the premise that it was overstated and therefore wrong.” with the fact that the net effect of the adjustments actually go the other way and result in less warming ?
              Dont you think this is sold evidence that your sources are lying to you?

            • PDB

               /  January 6, 2018

              The wuwt link is simply a factual graph they have used from another source.

              Your ‘nonsense’ is proof I provided that climate scientists in countries like NZ (the most relevant to us) have actually reduced their earlier temperatures, not increased them, thus making the warming seem much more than it is increasing it from 0.3 of a degree/century (raw) to 1 degree/century (adjusted).

          • artcroft

             /  January 6, 2018

            Climate is detecting patterns in the weather system. I’m detecting patterns in your logic: Wrong yesterday, confused today, forecast: deluded with patches of gibberish tomorrow.

  5. PDB

     /  January 6, 2018

    “As the potential effects of climate change are seen around the world – from starving polar bears to record-breaking storms – interest in climate science is soaring.”

    Sounds right if you ignore the fact Polar bears ain’t starving & storms ain’t record breaking.

    • Griff

       /  January 6, 2018

      what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
      Some how i doubt you care to back you assertions.
      Faith is like that .

      • PDB

         /  January 6, 2018

        Again your fakery knows no bounds – are you really trying to compare 1950 damage in $ terms to 2012 damage? Have a good think how today so much more damage can be caused due to population growth, more buildings, more assets etc.

        I note you are like a moth to a flame across the internet when a climate-change subject is posted – alarmism can be like that in certain individuals.

        • Blazer

           /  January 6, 2018

          PDB….hint..you are getting…flogged.

          • PDB

             /  January 6, 2018

            Hard to argue with an ‘expert’ who doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate…

            • robertguyton

               /  January 6, 2018

              Flayed too.Flogged and flayed, as similar yet different as climate and weather.

        • Griff

           /  January 6, 2018

          Adjusted to today values naturally.
          You do note in the pretty picture the cost of geophysical disasters is pretty much steady making a pile of nonsense on your claims that growing assets exposed to disaster are the reason for the increase in weather event costs
          We update building codes and build up infrastructure to reduce risk from significant weather events over time.
          This should result in decreasing risks balancing the increasing asset base.
          Instead costs are growing exponentially as climate change progresses.
          This view is supported by the insurance industry.
          You and the rest of us are paying more in insurance to cover the increasing costs of climate change .

      • PDB

         /  January 6, 2018

  6. Chuck Bird

     /  January 6, 2018

    Have a read of a non alarmist expert.

    http://www.mirrorsandmazes.com.au/

    • Griff

       /  January 6, 2018

      Expert ?
      Bradly is a retired geologist who worked for the oil industry.
      He has never published any science on climate change.
      He has not published anything since 1983..
      Bradly is not an expert.
      His book is yet another rehash of the same old nonsense put out by anti science nutters to confuse the ignorant.

      • PDB

         /  January 6, 2018

        ‘Anti-science’ is saying the ‘debate is over’ or confusing science with consensus.

        Reminds me, how’s those polar bears going?

        https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

        • Griff

           /  January 6, 2018

          Links to a nutter
          the lady behind “polar bear science” is not an expert on polar bears.

          Science News
          from research organizations
          Polar bear blogs reveal dangerous gap between climate-change facts and opinions
          Polarized debate

          Date:
          November 29, 2017
          Source:
          Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW)
          Summary:
          Climate-change discussions on social media are very influential. A new study shows that when it comes to iconic topics such as polar bears and retreating sea ice, climate blogs fall into two distinct camps. With little or no overlap between deniers and the available scientific facts.
          Polar bears and retreating sea ice have become iconic symbols of the polarised climate-change debate. By focusing on these icons, deniers of human-caused global warming cast doubt among the public about the entire body of climate change knowledge. But a new study of the underlying science used in the debate could well melt down the trustworthiness of these deniers on social media.

          “We found a major gap between the facts from scientific literature and the science-based blogs on the one hand, and the opinions aired in climate-change denying blogs on the other,” says the study’s initiator and first author, Jeff Harvey from the Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW). “It’s a very dangerous gap, as these blogs are read by millions.”

          The researchers analysed 90 climate blogs in total, alongside 92 scientific papers on the subject. Although 45 ‘denier blogs’ claim to be based on science, they failed to overlap with the peer-reviewed evidence in the papers. Instead, they relied mostly on other denier blogs. And eighty percent relied on one blog in particular, whose author, says Harvey, “had neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.”

          By contrast, 45 truly science-based blogs do match the evidence in the scientific papers. And there’s not much middle ground.

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171129131420.htm

          • PDB

             /  January 6, 2018

            And still the polar bear population isn’t dying off as many ‘scientists’ predicted…

      • chrism56

         /  January 6, 2018

        Griff – if you are going to slag off at authors and call them nutters, it would help that you spelt their names correctly. Otherwise, it just makes you look unhinged.

  7. chrism56

     /  January 6, 2018

    Griff you are now being a idiot trying to give credibility to the Harvey hitjob. Did you know one of those “denier” blogs in their 45 was actually a local newspaper referencing the local ice hockey team called the “polar bears”? Amazingly, that got through all the quality control of the 14 authors, the peer review and the journal editor. The paper is garbage that does a dis-service to real science. There were also obvious spelling mistakes in it as well, it was so rushed . Roman over at Climate Audit showed how the maths is so dodgy, he wouldn’t accept that from first year university students. His actual phrase was “I have had undergraduate students who have done more professional work designing a study such as this after taking a single elementary statistics course.”
    If that paper is the best evidence you can put up, you are not very good.

    • Griff

       /  January 6, 2018

      bla bal bal
      Climate fruadit
      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre
      That’s the site where known fraud McIntyre a mining industry executive waffles endlessly on about yamal etc .
      Here is a deconstruction of the sort of blatant rubbish he has a history of.
      https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
      And another.
      https://moyhu.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/what-steve-mcintyre-wont-show-you-now.html
      He claimed Manns work was fraudulent by inserting code that massaged the data to produce hockey sticks.
      Exactly what he accused Mann of.

      Sorry mate trying to debunk a paper about anti scince nonsense in the denial echo chambers with more nonsense from denial echo chambers is a fail.

      and speeling erars
      gee mate those straws you are clutching are mighty thin .
      I can not spell at all .
      Without the spell checker i am unable to write a coherent passage .
      Who cares its the information you should look at not if they follow arbitrary conventions on spelling …..

      The woman has published no peer reviewed science at all on the subject of polar bears
      Having read her blog I found it to be a circle jerk of referencing her own blog posts to prove her blog posting.
      Her opinion pasted on a blog is worthless when it comes to the actual science of polar bears.

    • Griff

       /  January 6, 2018

      oh look a spelling nazi ….
      sorry mate
      I dont really care how Bradly/ Brady /Bozo is spelt
      He is not an expert on climate change as claimed was the point.
      How about focusing on that and try to debunk it rather than complaining about spelling.

      Same goes for the polar bear lady .
      Feel free to point out some peer reviewed science she has published on polar bears
      I have read her blog
      It is a maze of self referencing rubbish masquerading as science ..

      as to climate audit
      Yet another blog in the echo chamber owned by a non expert mining executive with a history of rubbish.
      Here is a deconstruction of some of the rubbish McIntyre has been caught doing in the past..
      https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
      gee place hidden code in your paper that does exactly what you have accused someone else of doing .

    • Griff

       /  January 6, 2018

      So you have no answer besides a link to another climate denial blog.
      Susan is not a publishing scientist on polar bears .
      Total peer reviewed study’s on polar bears= zero.
      Her blog self references repeatedly to support her nonsense .

      Reading the list of papers cited it was very easy to pick out those that disagreed with the consensus position on polar bears
      The names were strikingly familiar like , Soon W, Legates D, Baliunas S, Ball T,
      None of whom are polar bear scientists either .
      The same old few fringe dwellers who disagree with the global scientific community.
      Here is one of the funnest clips i have seen on one of them
      from 7:52

      Is that you Tim?
      The entire vid is worth watching as it explains the deceit used by the denialosphere to push false experts like Susan and Bradly Brady.

  8. chrism56

     /  January 6, 2018

    Here is the actual official polar bear numbers
    http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/pb-global-estimate.html
    If one takes the midpoint of the estimates, then numbers have increased over the past ten to twenty years. Looks like Dr Crockford is right and the three polar bear experts in the Harvey paper predictions were wrong.

    • PDB

       /  January 6, 2018

      Griff will now do as he always does and say polar bear numbers are not important.

    • Griff

       /  January 6, 2018

      rofl
      You just linked to a site that includes your three scientist and their estimation of polar bear numbers to prove they are wrong about polar bear numbers .
      Jesus wept.\\
      You still have no addressed the fact that climte denial blogs repeatably reference Susan when she is not an expert on polar bears.
      The paper is not a hit job on Susan it is on how denial blogs propagate false experts to spread FUD.

  9. chrism56

     /  January 6, 2018

    Griff You need to take your medication and actually read things – something you have not demonstrated so far.
    Dr Crockford (who I believe has a PhD in artic mammals) wrote that despite sea ice dropping faster than predicted, polar bear numbers had increased. This was opposite to what Dr Amstrup wrote about 10 years ago, saying numbers would drop to around 17k. The Specialist Group has bear numbers that support Dr Crockford. All you can say is that she is “bad” because others quote her work. Those “denial” blogs also quote Newtonian physics. Is Issac beyond the pale as well? And despite what you claim, she is a publishing scientist.
    Most of the papers (60/86) cited in Harvey et al were written by three of the authors. They were a small subset of what is available on Google Scholar. That pre-selection is why they had “consensus”. Drs Amstrup and Sterling had a hypothesis. They went and gathered data and made the case that their hypothesis was correct. Dr. Crockford tested their hypothesis with newer data and found it conflicted with their claims. That is how science is supposed to work. It isn’t about saying what the group thinks.
    Oh, and you haven’t addressed the York newspaper being a “climate denier” blog either – explain that one.
    Roman is a Statistics professor with a PhD in the appropriate maths. That means he knows a lot more about data analysis that all 14 of the Harvey authors put together. His analysis just looked at the maths in the paper. It is why he can call it shit. He is supported by Dr Tol who is an Economics professor (which is also a data analysis subject). When you can show that their analysis of the maths is wrong, then you can rubbish them.

    • Griff

       /  January 6, 2018

      Dr susan Crockford a sessional adjunct professor in Archaeozoology in the Pacific Rim with research focuses on the domestication and breed development, evolutionary theory and the evolution and history of the domestic dog.
      Not on climate change or polar bears.
      she is paid a retainer of $750 per month by the heartland institute a spin generating think tank well known for funding climate denial.
      As to your climate frudit nonsense
      debunked here by the author of the study
      https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/.
      From top to bottom the following PCA figures are shown:

      As published in the Bioscience paper, in which missing values are replaced by zero after scaling the data
      List-wise deletion of all records with missing values, considerably reducing overall sample size
      Using multiple imputation with logistic regression (5 rounds of 40 iterations each)
      PCA figure of the same data as produced by Richard Tol, where sample size of each location in the graphs is depicted by symbol size
      PCA figure of the same data as produced by RomanM at ClimateAudit, without information on sample size

      As mentioned in the supplemental information with our paper, jittering was applied to our PCA figure to gently offset data with the exact same entries from each other for graphical purposes. Tol uses an alternative method to provide information on sample size for specific data entries, namely via the size of the symbol used in the figure. Whatever your preference, the conclusion drawn from these figures is the same: there is a clear gap between the consensus in the scientific literature and science-based blogs on the one hand, and contrarian blogs on the other hand. We thank Roman Mureika and Richard Tol for underscoring the validity of our conclusion.

      Richard tol
      gremlins rofl
      Another fringe “scientist ”
      with a long history of rubbish and incorrect conclusions.

      Roman is a Statistics professor with a PhD in the appropriate maths.
      Is he ?
      nope he was last decade.
      You forgot to include the fact he is no longer a professor….his publication record is not impressive.
      He also has links to the usual suspects.
      Like being named as one of the members of the GWPF look into the temperature records that was announced with great fanfare and then sunk without trace.

      the paper you claim
      sorry mate squirrel hunting season is over.
      ‘The list of fringe blogs includes the like of WUWT no tricks zone Cfact rational optimist gwpf the daily caller.
      lots of fringe sites few or which are authoritative sources for climate change information.
      The opposite in fact they all repeat easily debunked garbage found in the denial echo chambers.

  10. chrism56

     /  January 7, 2018

    I see you can cut and paste, Griff but still can’t read. And using SkS as your source underlines your lack of credibility,
    I talked about what Dr Crockford’s PhD was on, not what she does now. Most people, not only just academics, now work in an area that was just vaguely related to their original qualification. You are correct the Dr Mureika is now retired, but that doesn’t discredit what he says.
    You don’t actually understand why component analysis doesn’t work on a binary system do you? You should quote what Dr Tol and Mureika’s response was to the lie that they supported the PCA. Here is what Dr Tol subsequently wrote “This is rank dishonesty by Verheggen. He knows full well that neither Roman nor I underscore the validity of their study. We do the exact opposite.”, But that was deleted by SkS moderators.
    The rest of what you say is just bluster and ad hominems, to cover your lack of understanding. The old saw about the emptiest vessel makes the loudest noise is very appropriate for you.

  11. Zedd

     /  January 7, 2018

    I thought Id hold off & read some of the other commentators.. but I cant see anything from AW (our resident expert) on this ?
    Why is it that all the graphs, do appear to show, the global mean temperature is rising, sharply since about 1980 & yet there still those who say ‘its just alarmist’ OR ‘there is no real evidence’ OR because there is a recent massive snow dump in USA.. the trends are just plain wrong !?

    “Wake up folks”.. the massive increases in fossil fuel burning (CO2) IS having effect on the climate & being an ‘ostrich’ (PDB etc) will not make this go away 😦

    • Blazer

       /  January 7, 2018

      AW also knows how to…’avoid trouble’.Griff has wiped the floor with PDB.His tag partner Chrism now enters the..fray.

      • PDB

         /  January 7, 2018

        Like you Griff is a lightweight so I can see why you find his nonsense ‘compelling’………..he avoids replying to my statement above because he knows it is true…….

        “Again you misrepresent the debate – climate change has always happened (naturally), the debate is whether humans are the main cause of it today which you and I know you have no solid evidence of.”