Maybe voters just don’t care

The environmental movement is in a spot of bother – their campaign for various taxes/prices has more or less failed. The Australian carbon tax will be repealed. This has left them having to make excuses.

In recent years, climate denial has become the most effective pseudoscience in Australia.

To preserve the belief that humans have no influence on climate, you need to do more than manipulate data. There is an already well-established scientific consensus on the influence of human activity on climate change, and this need to be explicitly rejected to maintain climate denial. In addition, to reject climate science, you need to assert that major scientific institutions are inept and badly misinformed, including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and a wealth of American and international scientific bodies.

To take that view is to completely misconstrue what is going on.

Environmentalists don’t just want everyone else to believe what they believe – the planet is warming due to human action – they want everyone else to share their preferences too. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that some individuals might reckon that yes the planet may well be warming up, but so what? Or the planet is warming up, but they’re not paying more tax. And so on.

As much as environmentalists try to spin out of it, the warming hiatus or plateau is a problem. Global warming has been over-estimated (ungated version here).

Voters dont care

Those graphs show the difference between repeated simulations of computer models and observed temperature trends.

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming. The divergence between observed and CMIP5-simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s …

(Emphasis added).

Now in an academic discipline this wouldn’t matter much – empirical observations often confound theoretical expectations and ideas are tweeked, refined, abandoned, etc. As the authors of the study conclude:

Ultimately the causes of this inconsistency will only be understood after careful comparison of simulated internal climate variability and climate model forcings with observations from the past two decades, and by waiting to see how global temperature responds over the coming decades.

As Sir Humphrey might have said: “Decades of fruitful work”.

In a policy setting this can be very problematic. Those people whose very livelihood depends on global warming being a issue of grave political and economic consequence don’t really understand what’s going on. Unsurprising then that the public seem to have lost interest.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Maybe voters just don’t care

  1. Rabz

    To preserve the belief that humans have no influence on climate, you need to do more than manipulate data.

    The only people who’ve been manipulating data are the dishonest communist frauds pushing this preposterous, anti-scientific fact and evidence free crock of shite.

    East Anglia, Piltdown Mann, Gore, Flannery, Loondowski, “100 metres” Williams, etc.

    The hypothesis is wrong. The earth’s climate has always changed and will continue to do so. Human economic activity is not a driver of global climate.

    So shut up, fuck off, keep your grubby paws out of my wallet and stop telling me how to live my life, you narcissistic cockheads.

    :x

  2. iamok

    Spoton and simple really. If you are offered say $300,000 to find evidence to support my hypothesis there is a pretty good chance I will find the evidence. Substitute “the government” for “my” and “climate scientists” for “I” and “you” in that second sentence and you have it. Governments distort for their own ends over and over again. AGW and MMCG are just another in a long line.

  3. cynical1

    Go ahead make my day!

    Tubby Mr Mann goes after Bolt.

  4. gabrianga

    The science is settled is a phrase oft quoted by the “Warmers”.

    Perfect example is Flannery who predicted “Global Warming produced drought would strike Australia down and “desals” must be built.

    This week he was blaming “Global Warming” for the Queensland floods.

    Of course the “science” is settled.

  5. gabrianga

    Off topic.

    Early evening sickness.

    The new “Insiders”

    The ever grimacing and squinting Gilbert from SKYNEWS discussing today’s politics with Phatty Farr and SMH star Peter Hartcher.

    Made Barrie and Co look like amateurs.

  6. .

    Recent weather events from the NT and WA to Victoria make me laugh.

    Tropical depressions bring big rains and and often drought breaking rains to the food bowl of the Murray Darling.

    Global warming says we will get less rainfall, more cyclones and we’ve heard from Flannery that it would never flood again (back in 2008).

    As JC says – the models are fucked.

  7. motherhubbard'sdog

    Flannery thinks with his amygdala.

  8. To preserve the belief that humans have an influence on climate, you need to do more than manipulate data. You also have to possess a well-established scientific consensus on the influence of human activity on climate change, and this need to be constantly conditioned to reject climate denial. In addition, to promote climate science, you need to assert that major scientific institutions are incorruptible and disguise the fact that many major institutions funding, including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and a wealth of American and international scientific bodies depend on the continuing deception.

  9. steve

    the grant money stops if things are all peachy keen.

    y2k,the ozone layer, sars, bird flu, acid rain, global warming, ebola, swine flu, the mayan calendar, …………researchers need a good old fashioned scare campaign so they can spend the next few years in comfort looking into it.

  10. Louis Hissink

    Those people whose very livelihood depends on global warming being a issue of grave political and economic consequence don’t really understand what’s going on.

    Putting on my best DCI Tom Barnaby’s voice, heh, heh, hah, hah,,,,,,,,,

  11. pete m

    Rabz: So shut up, fuck off, keep your grubby paws out of my wallet and stop telling me how to live my life, you narcissistic cockheads.

    LIBERTY QUOTE NOW!!!

  12. incoherent rambler

    Note the use of the word “belief“.

    Religions have a “belief“.

    Science has verifiable hypotheses and empirical evidence.

    Science is not into “belief“.
    Nor is it supposed to give a rat’s tail what the current polls reveal or what “most people believe” or what documentary makers might believe.

    It is religion, which drives enviros.

  13. Louis Hissink

    You only believe something when you don’t know. ;-|

  14. Samuel J

    Ketan Joshi – the author of the piece Since quoted – works for Big Renewable. He is a paid lobbyist of this evil group that has advocated policies killing millions and extorted money from governments. He should be ignored.

  15. Ant

    I wish to make a single observation about this issue.

    Remember when much of the country was in serious drought – Victoria in particular?

    Melbourne’s water storages were down somewhere at mid 20%.

    Global Warming was blamed. We heard how the evidence was “irrefutable” and that we should just look out the window to see what mankind’s emissions were doing to the climate.

    We were told by many in the media, where Global Warming “experts” always like to go to get their ego stroked, that it was “the new normal”.

    We were told to be so concerned that our Labor state government’s “solution” was to spend $6,000,000,000 building a massive desal plant, to be paid off over 3 decades at a minimum rate of around $1,500,000 per day ($1,270 per minute!) – for 30 YEARS.

    Then the rains came.

    And these bastards should be in jail.

  16. Carpe Jugulum

    Flannery thinks with his amygdala. genitalia.

    FTFY

    ManBearPig thinks with his little 2nd Chakra apparently.

  17. manalive

    Over the past 100 years of rising CO2, the temperature has increased by ~ 0.7C, (0.07C per decade), that’s taking the HADCRUT record as it stands (given the data manipulation).
    As CO2 continues to rise, the direct ‘greenhouse’ effect diminishes logarithmically.

  18. jumpnmcar

    Don’t get me started on the ” Green Building Council of Australia ” and their ridiculous ” low VOC ( Volatile Organic Compounds) ” mandates in public works programs.
    From paints to carpets, initially to save the ozone layer.
    Utter crap.
    And manufacturers are complicit in this scam by making inferior products, which are cheaper to make but doubling the price.
    All the time advertising the ” benefits ” and adding fuel to the dishonest flames.
    And who pays?
    The consumers ( all of us ) the taxpayers ( some of us ) and the honest complying tradies ( few of us ).
    Go google the VOCs from an indoor ficus or a freshly mown lawn and do some math.
    And what Rabz said at the top.

  19. Carpe Jugulum

    Mann has gone full retard, he’s tweeting links from Sks and greame fvkn redfearn to prove his point.

    He’s like flounder from Animal House without the wit, charm or comedic timing.

  20. Biota

    I’m currently reading The Essays of Warren Buffet and he describes in Debunking Standard Dogma the Efficient Market Theory (EMT). He says:

    The doctrine became highly fashionable – indeed, almost holy scripture – in academic circles.

    and

    But no one, to my knowledge , has ever said he was wrong, no matter how many thousands of students he has sent forth misinformed.

    The more things change the more they remain the same.

  21. Robert O.

    Science is based on observation, experimentation and measurement. One puts forward hypotheses and then either accepts them, modifies them, or rejects them depending solely on empirical data. Nowadays one seems to rely on what models are predicting rather than what the data are saying. Global temperatures haven’t risen by much and yet levels of carbon dioxide have over the past 20 years or so. Thus carbon dioxide has been shown to have nothing much to do with anything, whilst other factors such as solar input, amount of cloud, cosmic activity seem to be far more important and totally out of our control. To me a carbon tax is about effective as influencing temperature as rain dances are in breaking drought.

  22. Bruce of Newcastle

    Hey look at that, global temperature has been flat in the satellite data for 17.5 years and falling for the last 12 years.

    Meanwhile the US is getting its third polar vortex snowmaggedon this winter. Or maybe the fourth, I lose count.

    The Sun caused half of the warming last century and the ~60 year ocean cycle another third. That fits an ECS around 0.5 C/doubling. Harmless.

    But that is just data. How can I compete with Michael Mann’s effusive twitter account?

  23. Baldrick

    I don’t think voters could give a toss. They’re either in 3 classes:
    1. The filthy rich factor (10%):
    Those who make more than enough money it doesn’t worry them either way, but they’d err on the side of warmists because it gives their wives something to talk about.
    2. The blasé factor (50%):
    Those who struggle to pay the bills or break-even and aren’t interested.
    3. The feral factor (40%):
    Those who just want the latest government handout, so would support any climate measure.

  24. Demosthenes

    Hey look at that, global temperature has been flat in the satellite data for 17.5 years and falling for the last 12 years.

    But rising for the last 5 years?

  25. Baldrick

    Demosthenes
    #1203598, posted on February 25, 2014 at 7:26 pm
    Hey look at that, global temperature has been flat in the satellite data for 17.5 years and falling for the last 12 years.

    But rising for the last 5 years?

    Rising? Seriously.

  26. Demosthenes

    Rising? Seriously.

    Seriously. I just changed the dates in Bruce’s link. But I’m not sure what you meant to highlight in your own link, because it shows warming over 35 years?

  27. egg_

    But rising for the last 5 years?

    Strange there is an elbow c. 1970 in the data set – (US) satellite measurements commenced in the late 1970s – wouldn’t be a way of stitching together two different data sets – the instrumental record (lower temps) to the satellite data – wanna be they don’t match up?

  28. egg_

    wanna bet they don’t match up?

  29. motherhubbard'sdog

    Flannery thinks with his amygdala. genitalia.

    That could be true, but I’ve never seen any evidence that he has any.

  30. blogstrop

    Unsurprising then that the public seem to have lost interest.

    They might become interested “with extreme prejudice” if any of the guardians of the public debate pointed out in no uncertain terms to them that the pain they are about to go through to fix the budget and debt situation is due to the ideological idiocy of the labor-green alliance.

  31. Kingsley

    Warmists want to talk about the “consensus”. Sceptics want to talk about the actual empirical data

    I note too how it seems beyond their comprehension that organisations made up of human beings might fail to resist the temptations of self interest and preservation

  32. Bruce of Newcastle

    But rising for the last 5 years?

    Its fun to play with. Less meaningful the fewer years you use, of course, since short term fluctuations start to drown out the real trend.

    It looks better when you use the full 150 years or so of HadCRUT 3v. Unfortunately the WFT guy says he can’t easily do non linear least squares regressions, but if he could you’d see a nice pattern.

    But 150 years isn’t enough to see the 208 year solar de Vries cycle which peaked in about 2005. You can see the cycle in other data though – like the first graphic in this post.

  33. egg_

    egg_
    #1203755, posted on February 25, 2014 at 9:25 pm

    h/t SDA

  34. jupes

    In addition, to reject climate science, you need to assert that major scientific institutions are inept and badly misinformed, including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and a wealth of American and international scientific bodies.

    Dunno what this is supposed to be misconstruing Sinc. The fact that these previously respected institutions have been captured by unscientific rent seekers means they have lost all credibility. Science will take a long time to recover from this scandal.

  35. Ed

    Environmentalism will always be around. Once the global warming hysteria has subsided there are any number of new things for them to bang on about. Ocean acidification, fish depletion, biodiversity (that one is always good for a run). Not to mention peak [insert random resource here]. The planet is a fragile baby and must be endlessly protected from mean capitalists.

    Never mind that environmentalism is a bankrupt ideology with quasi religious overtones. Never mind that capitalism doesn’t actually destroy the environment. They live perpetually in a world of 19th century Europe full of poor workers and sooty skies, and that’s where they plan to stay.

  36. johanna

    Heh. Michael Mann has offered a grudging apology to BoltA for his Twitter slur, under the threat of being sued.

    Mikey’s lawfare isn’t going too well. Between Steve McIntyre forensically demolishing his claims to have been “exonerated” by various inquiries, and Steyn’s broad-brush (and funny) strategic moves, he is in a world of pain.

    The chickens are finally coming home to roost.

  37. egg_

    Metrology in meteorology:

    “The performance of a Didcot-type thermometer screen on an Automatic Weather Station and a conventional Stevenson screen were compared, both with each other and against an aspirated Assmann psychrometer. Maximum temperature in the Didcot screen exceeded the conventional screen maximum by up to 1 K on calm, sunny days, and Didcot minimum temperatures were as much as 1.5 K less than the screen minima on still, clear nights; mean temperature discrepancies between screens were + 0.3 and − 0.4 K for maxima and minima, respectively. The apparent psychrometric constant for the Didcot screen was 1.0 mbar K−1 which increased to 1.2 mbar K−1 when u < 2 m s−1 in contrast to the value of 0.799 mbar K−1 frequently used for the Stevenson screen."

    Where a delta of 1K = 1C.

    That's simply the effect of changing screening on temperature sensors.

    Re chasing a delta of 0.15C/decade: "garbage in – garbage out".

  38. Squirrel

    Over the next few years, at least, the majority of voters will have their minds on other things. I wish the Government luck in unwinding the carbon tax and getting price reductions back into the pockets of voters.

  39. Demosthenes

    Less meaningful the fewer years you use, of course, since short term fluctuations start to drown out the real trend.

    So what is a good number of years to use?

  40. incoherent rambler

    Re chasing a delta of 0.15C/decade: “garbage in – garbage out”.

    They don’t seem argue that most of the 20th centuries temp measurements had error margins of at least +/- 0.5C. Consequently comparing two numbers means that the error is doubled.
    Nor do they deny that various stations have been re-sited and/or have changed equipment. The response I have received to any questions, is : “Look at my graph”.
    I was taught to never quote a number to a greater accuracy than the error margin.
    The more you dig around the data, the more laughable it becomes.

    And let us not comment on the “adjustments” of the historical record.

  41. Ripper

    including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and a wealth of American and international scientific bodies depend on the continuing deception.

    You only have to look at the Climategate email addresses and who they were CC’ed to to realise what a tight knit little group they were are.

  42. Bruce of Newcastle

    So what is a good number of years to use?

    As many as possible with non linear regression. That is why I used linear trends for shorter periods. If you are following a sinusoidal curve with linear trend lines you will get a flat trend if you draw the line across the “top” of the sine wave, and a falling trend if you draw the line down the slope, which is where we are at now. (Note there is also a underlying falling trend also from the drop in solar activity…that’s where multiple regression comes in).

    Unfortunately the climateers can’t or won’t do non linear regression. Not surprising since they have such a hard time even doing simple linear regression.

    I used to use Statistica for such duties, but it was owned by the company and I haven’t found a reason to stump up a grand for a copy for myself.

    The longest contiguous instrumental temperature dataset we have is the Central England Temperature series, also known as HadCET. Since 1659. I have a model of it which works pretty well, using the two significant variables I mentioned upthread: total solar forcing and the ~60 year cycle as well as an ECS of 0.6 C/doubling.

  43. Phil Fry

    Regardless of what the alarmists say or do, the fact is no one really cares

    Even the eco-whacko-media are half hearted about it these days

    Life goes on, we adapt and the EWMs are adapting as well

  44. Andrew

    Let’s assume that everybody believes the Scientist Consensus. That the earth had warmed by 0.7K but will magically warm 4-6K this century. And that the global cooling (13 years, -0.09K at a P-value 0.052) is nothing but short term noise and in NO way causes carbon sensitivity estimates of Dec 2000 to be amended downwards. And the ipcc’s -30% adjustment to models is just cyclical, not structural. And that there are positive feedback about to manifest that have never done so before. And that there is no corruption, moral hazard, self interest, big-taxing govt interference or other abuse in these conclusions.

    Further assume that the adverse consequences like drought, flood, cyclones, tornados, bleaching and plant stress are all real at +2K even though none have manifested at +0.7K (and indeed some science suggests LESS frequent events).

    And let’s work around that whole logarithmic thing, or the fact that fossil fuels are simply a Tony fraction of the carbon sequestered millions of years ago FROM the atmosphere.

    So assuming this: Why the fuck do we give them credibility about the economics? Monckton is a public policy expert. He says accommodation is 50x cheaper than abatement. Renewables (sic) policy is a catastrophic failure. Unilateral tax has been proven to shift emitting activity to non-Kyoto countries but have zero or negative abatement globally. Shouldn’t the same science guys be insisting that we listen to the Monk’s authority?

  45. Tel

    Andrew, the US Government’s own methodology for “Social Cost of Carbon” comes out neutral when you do it as per standard 7% discount rate.

    http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/02/heritage-confirms-my-intuition-on-social-cost-of-carbon-calcs.html

  46. Demosthenes

    As many as possible

    So what’s special about 17.5 years that makes it better than 5 years but also better than 20 years?

  47. james

    It needs to be pointed out (since the Guardian didn’t) that Ketan Joshi works for Infigen, a wind farm rent seeking firm.

    His entire future career depends on people being terrified of CO2.

    Kind of the definition of a vested interest there.

  48. Bruce of Newcastle

    So what’s special about 17.5 years that makes it better than 5 years but also better than 20 years?

    Its across the top of the sinusoidal ‘hump’. Twenty years includes part of the run up to the top, so you get an upwards trend which is an artefact since the actual relationship is not linear.

    The trouble with the sinusoidal relationship is that is responsible for a bit more than 1/3 of the temperature rise between 1906 and 2005 because the cycle was at bottom in 1906 and top in 2005. The IPCC ensemble modellers don’t want to know about it for this reason. You can see it clearly if you detrend HadCRUT, which is what has been done here. (1906-2005 is the century that the IPCC likes to use).

    The other reason why 17.5 years is better than 5 is that according to Ben Santer:

    In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

    We’re now beyond his magic 17 years.

  49. Demosthenes

    We’re now beyond his magic 17 years.

    OK, so 17 is the minimum. But earlier you said to use as many as possible. Why use the minimum? Is it really the trend when the addition of just a year or two changes it? It doesn’t seem very much to go on. And what would it mean if 2014 is warm enough that the 17.5 years to the end of that year show a positive trend?

    I’m just curious about the specificity and popularity of the 17 (or 17.5) number.

  50. Demosthenes

    I know warming’s occuring, but I’m not worried. Can’t stand fearmongers like the catastrophists. Does that count as a ‘warmist’?

  51. Bruce of Newcastle

    Demosthenes – I used 17.5 years of RSS because I knew that the linear least squares regression trend line for that dataset is flat as the Nullabor on a summer’s day. If you use 17 years the linear trend is slightly down.

    I also cannot use a sine curve of best fit, because the website doesn’t allow it and it tends to need a speciality stats package to do a regression calc like that. You cannot do it in Excel for example.

    I never said 17 years is necessary, Ben Santer did. He did so when climate sceptics said that global temperatures had been flat for 15 years. Dr Santer said IT MUST BE 17 YEARS. We are now past 17 years and Dr Santer is now saying it wuz the volcanoes, the volcanoes! There hasn’t been a decent sized volcanic eruption since Pinatubo (VEI 6). He is like the small chocolate covered kid saying it must have been someone else who put those streaks on the wall. (I happen to follow a number of volcano specialist blogs and sites like en.vedur.is and the last decade has been remarkably quiet, volcanically).

    The trend (linear least squares regression) in HadCRUT and in HadCET over the whole of each dataset is rising. Some of that may be due to CO2. I am prepared to accept that. But two other variables contribute to that rising trend – the sun and the oceans. The point about any observed trend is the scientific explanation. Why is it rising? The IPCC people say CO2 and almost nothing else.

    That is not consistent with the data which shows quite conclusively the Sun had a peak in activity last decade which corresponded to about half the temperature rise in the century leading up to it. The ~60 year cycle also contributed since the IPCC consensus like to start their analyses in 1906 or 1979, which happen to be troughs in the cycle. Remove these contributors and the statistical residual is worth about 0.15 C in a century. Which is roughly an ECS of 0.5 C/doubling. Quite harmless.

  52. Demosthenes

    I used 17.5 years of RSS because I knew that the linear least squares regression trend line for that dataset is flat as the Nullabor on a summer’s day.

    So you chose your starting point based on the result it would give? Isn’t that the opposite of what we should do?

    The ~60 year cycle also contributed since the IPCC consensus like to start their analyses in 1906 or 1979, which happen to be troughs in the cycle.

    Yes, I didn’t understand your reference to a 60-year cycle, so I left that for the moment because of the 17-year choice. But now that you bring it up, wouldn’t 17 years be irrelevant if you had to take into account a 60-year cycle? Anything less than whole units, as you have pointed out, would give a misleading trend. Or have I misunderstood?

  53. Bruce of Newcastle

    So you chose your starting point based on the result it would give?

    I also chose the starting date of 1/1/2002 to show that global temperatures have been declining.

    So what? The scientific explanation is the important thing. The explanation in this case is that a sine curve of best fit is the best approach, not linear. Unfortunately I can’t do that with that site. I then immediately showed what I meant with this graph.

    But now that you bring it up, wouldn’t 17 years be irrelevant if you had to take into account a 60-year cycle?

    Yes, quite so. But many people have not heard of the persistent ~60 year cycle, despite it being evident in temperature, rainfall records, ENSO, the PDO, the AMO and Arctic sea ice coverage.

    Again the point is the scientific explanation. The IPCC people propose a hypothesis that CO2 has caused almost all of the temperature rise in the last century. They do not factor in the ~60 year cycle in their models even though it is clearly responsible for about a third of the temperature rise since 1906 (because of the choice of start and end points). Their hypothesis requires that global temperature should have risen about 0.3 C in the last 17 years. It has stayed flat in that time. Which suggests that the IPCC hypothesis is wrong.

    The competing hypothesis is that CO2 had a minor contribution to the temperature rise since 1906 and the Sun and ocean cycles contributed most of that temperature rise. Because the Sun has entered a low activity period and the ocean cycles have peaked and are now going back down, this explains the “hiatus”.

    In technical terms the Sun is presently at its 11 year cycle peak which offsets some of the current weakness. The PDO turned down in about 1998 but the AMO, which is about a quarter wavelength out of synch, only turned down in the last year or two. Together that gives more of a plateau-like signal in the temperature record.

    It will be interesting to see if the global temperature drops sharply over the next few years as we reach the end of the solar cycle. My model, which I linked above, suggests we’re in for a drop of 0.5-1.0 C globally. If that happens there will be a lot of IPCC affiliated people looking for new jobs.

  54. Demosthenes

    I think I see your chain of reasoning now. Thanks for taking the time to explain, I wish I had better math skills so I could follow the discussion about cycles and Fourier transforms.

  55. Bruce of Newcastle

    Demosthenes – Here are a couple more links on the ~60 year cycle.

    The Sixty-Year Climate Cycle

    Knight et al 2005 GRL

    The latter shows it is a quasi-cycle which is persistent in the climate data over a period of 1,400 years and is linked to the thermohaline cycle. A sine wave is only an approximation, but better than a linear trend. The cause is not clear yet, but some say it is related to solar and or lunar orbital dynamics. I think seeing it appears to be an integer multiple of the solar cycle (10.66 years) that a forced resonance could be involved.

    Its worth noting the some of the IPCC associated climate people are starting to link the hiatus to the PDO and AMO, which is a good thing. They haven’t yet acknowledged that if the PDO/AMO are cyclically cooling now then they must have been cyclicly warming in the period 1970-2000.

Comments are closed.