May 2021 Slight Warming of Land and Sea


With apologies to Paul Revere, this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea.  While you will hear a lot about 2020 temperatures matching 2016 as the highest ever, that spin ignores how fast the cooling has set in.  The UAH data analyzed below shows that warming from the last El Nino is now fully dissipated after all regions headed down, now reversing slightly.

UAH has updated their tlt (temperatures in lower troposphere) dataset for May.  Previously I have done posts on their reading of ocean air temps as a prelude to updated records from HADSST3. This month also has a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years.

Note:  UAH has shifted their baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 beginning with January 2021.  In the charts below, the trends and fluctuations remain the same but the anomaly values change with the baseline reference shift.

Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system.  Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy.  Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements.  In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates.  Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.

Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST.  He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months.  This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?

HadSST3 belatedly reported March along with the April updates, so hopefully May will appear later in June.  For comparison we can look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6 which are now posted for May. The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above. Recently there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections, including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected. The graphs below are taken from the new and current dataset.

The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands (UHI).  The graph below shows monthly anomalies for ocean temps since January 2015.

UAH Oceans 202105

Note 2020 was warmed mainly by a spike in February in all regions, and secondarily by an October spike in NH alone. End of 2020 November and December ocean temps plummeted in NH and the Tropics. In January SH dropped sharply, pulling the Global anomaly down despite an upward bump in NH.  A further drop in March brought new lows for this period.  April stayed cool, and now in May SH and the Tropics warmed to converge on the same anomaly as NH, ~0.07  All regions are showing temps comparable to to 2015 prior to the 2016 El Nino event.

Land Air Temperatures Tracking Downward in Seesaw Pattern

We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records, while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs, land temps are measured only indirectly.  The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground.  UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately from ocean air temps.  The graph updated for May is below.

UAH Land 202105

Here we have fresh evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures, along with an extraordinary departure by SH land.  Land temps are dominated by NH with a 2020 spike in February, followed by cooling down to July.  Then NH land warmed with a second spike in November.  Note the mid-year spikes in SH winter months.  In December all of that was wiped out. Then January showed a sharp drop in SH, but a rise in NH more than offset, pulling the Global anomaly upward. Then in February to April NH and the Tropics cooled further, pulling down the Global anomaly, despite slight SH land warming.  In May all regions warmed pulling up the Global anomaly from its lowest value since 2015. All regions are roughly comparable to early 2015, prior to the 2016 El Nino.

The Bigger Picture UAH Global Since 1995

UAH Global 1995to202105

The chart shows monthly anomalies starting 01/1995 to present.  The average anomaly is 0.04, since this period is the same as the new baseline, lacking only the first 4 years.  1995 was chosen as an ENSO neutral year.  The graph shows the 1998 El Nino after which the mean resumed, and again after the smaller 2010 event. The 2016 El Nino matched 1998 peak and in addition NH after effects lasted longer, followed by the NH warming 2019-20, with temps now returning again to the mean.

TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps.  Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, more than 1C lower than the 2016 peak.  Since the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere, that cooling is a significant driving force.  TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST3, but are now showing the same pattern.  It seems obvious that despite the three El Ninos, their warming has not persisted, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995.  Of course, the future has not yet been written.

June Arctic Ice Returns to Mean



A previous post reported that Arctic Sea Ice has persisted this year despite a wavy Polar Vortex this spring, bringing cold down to mid-latitudes, and warming air into Arctic regions.  Now in June, after tracking in deficit the sea ice extent is matching the 14-year average on day 159.  Note that SII (Sea Ice Index) since mid-May has been showing 200 to 400k km2 more ice than MASIE, and currently the two datasets have converged on a value of ~11.25 M km2.

Note that on the 14-year average, during this period ~1.7M km2 of ice extent is lost, which 2021 is matching, as did 2007.  Both 2020 and 2019 were much lower than average at this date, by ~600k and ~700k respectively.  

Why is this important?  All the claims of global climate emergency depend on dangerously higher temperatures, lower sea ice, and rising sea levels.  The lack of additional warming is documented in a post Adios, Global Warming

The lack of acceleration in sea levels along coastlines has been discussed also.  See USCS Warnings of Coastal Floodings

Also, a longer term perspective is informative:

The table below shows the distribution of Sea Ice across the Arctic Regions, on average, this year and 2007.

Region 2021159 Day 159 Average 2021-Ave. 2007159 2021-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 11240999 11259536  -18538  11316498 -75500 
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1019264 964689  54575  1000434 18830 
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 849650 820007  29642  828275 21375 
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1018939 1060847  -41907  1065467 -46528 
 (4) Laptev_Sea 719152 797804  -78652  750975 -31824 
 (5) Kara_Sea 786077 768820  17257  805583 -19506 
 (6) Barents_Sea 253238 260182  -6944  312729 -59491 
 (7) Greenland_Sea 664297 581528  82769  579724 84573 
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 755645 803058  -47412  811860 -56215 
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 802846 802905  -60  783908 18938 
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1022997 1058859  -35862  1027039 -4042 
 (11) Central_Arctic 3233401 3215315  18085  3235047 -1646 
 (12) Bering_Sea 59415 70145  -10729  62751 -3336 
 (13) Baltic_Sea 0 8 -8  0
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 54471 53989  482  51031 3440 

The main deficits are in Laptev and East Siberian Seas, Baffin and Hudson Bays, offset by surpluses in Beaufort, Chukchi and Greenland Seas.


Sweden Did It Right, No Doubt Now

Sweden fig 4

A reasonable, clearly explained analysis by Eyal Shahar   Not a shred of doubt: Sweden was right.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Counting the dead used to be the work of epidemiologists, statisticians and demographers. So was analyzing the numbers and drawing conclusions. In the past year many are counting deaths, but the numbers have no meaning without the context of a relevant time period, population and history. That is, epidemiology.

The most counted country is probably Sweden, a stubborn dissenter that refused lockdowns, mask mandates and contact tracing. By the time of this writing, 14,349 Swedes have reportedly died from the coronavirus.

Has the Swedish model failed?
Were the lockdowns justified?
Were the economic and social upheavals in most of the world an unavoidable necessity?

The answer to all is a resounding no. The first (and not the only) witness: Sweden.
To understand the testimony, we need to learn only two concepts: “flu year” and “excess mortality”.

“Flu year” versus calendar year

Many calculate mortality statistics according to the Gregorian calendar, but December 31st is not a meaningful end date for winter mortality in the northern hemisphere. The flu wave and the associated wave of mortality reach the peak at various dates, and sometimes secondary waves appear. Furthermore, the use of the Gregorian calendar combines the mortality in the first part of one winter (sometimes mild) with mortality in the second part of the previous winter (sometimes severe). There is no scientific justification for this grouping when analyzing historical trends.

The statistical alternative, which may be called “flu year”, contains a full winter season. Annual mortality is calculated from the beginning of the flu season, which is usually counted from week 40 (early October), till week 39 in the following year (end of September). Thus, the coronavirus waves in the spring and summer of 2020 belong to the 2019–2020 flu year, whereas the last winter wave belongs to the current flu year which will end in September.

Excess mortality

The concept of “excess mortality” is a little abstract. We need to compare actual mortality with “expected mortality”, but the latter is a theoretical idea that cannot be verified: what would the mortality in the 2019–2020 flu year have been, had there not been a pandemic? How do we calculate “expected mortality”?

One method uses a statistical model called linear regression. We fit a line to the mortality data from previous years, check its past performance, and use the continuation of the line to compute expected mortality. The distance between a data point of actual mortality and expected mortality on the line is excess mortality (or “mortality deficit”).

Sweden fig1

Mortality in Sweden by flu year

The graph shows the annual mortality in Sweden per million people in the last 22 flu years, where each flu year is labeled according to the calendar year in which it ends. For example, the last data point on the graph is mortality between October 2019 and September 2020: 9,234 per million people (95,365 deaths). To magnify, the vertical axis starts at 7,000.  Source: SCB.SE

It is easy to see that the points are located close to a straight line, until the flu year that ended in September 2018. The general downward trend reflects a consistent increase in life expectancy in Sweden for many years.

Experienced data analysts will attest that the fluctuations around the line are generally small and expected until 2018 (explained variation: 0.96). In contrast, both the flu year that preceded the pandemic (2018–2019) and the pandemic year (2019–2020) substantially deviate from the line: the former — in lower than expected mortality, and the latter — in higher than expected mortality.

Excess mortality in Sweden in flu year 2019–2020

Continuation of the line, which was fit by the statistical model, yields the following estimates: In 2018–2019 there was “mortality deficit” in Sweden of 300 per million people (-3.3%) whereas in 2019–2020, the pandemic year, there was excess mortality of 364 per million people (+4.1%). Excess mortality following mortality deficit, and vice versa, are well known and expected, as the main source of mortality is an elderly population with limited life expectancy. (The sequence “excess after deficit” is, of course, better than the reverse order.)

Assuming the excess mortality in 2019–2020 “fully balanced” the mortality deficit in the previous flu year, the true excess mortality in Sweden was less than 1% (about 700 deaths). And if we assume, absurdly, that the mortality in 2019–2020 was not affected at all by the mortality deficit in the previous flu year, then the excess mortality in Sweden did not exceed 4.1% (about 3,800 deaths). Excess mortality of a few percentage points, or more, has been calculated in many countries where life has been severely disrupted. Part of that excess has been attributed to lockdown and panic.

To remind us, the hysterical response to the pandemic was not due to fear of an excess annual mortality of 4% or even 10%. The apocalyptic forecasts, which caused the world to shut down, predicted about 90,000 deaths from the coronavirus in Sweden by the summer of 2020: 100% excess mortality! No wonder policy makers around the world prefer to forget those predictions.

Sweden fig 2

Mortality in Sweden in the current flu year

The final summary of the current flu year (October 2020 — September 2021) will be known in the fall, but the data accumulated more than halfway through allow for interim conclusions. As many know, the coronavirus replaced the flu viruses this year, and there was no flu in Sweden, either. Nor were there apocalyptic predictions; only warnings about the number of accumulated deaths.

I chose to compare the mortality in Sweden in the current flu year (week 40, 2020 till week 15, 2021) to the corresponding mortality in 2017–2018. Two reasons for this choice: First, Europe experienced a severe flu season in that winter, which makes it an appropriate comparison. Second, although the flu season was severe in Sweden compared to previous years, it was still substantially milder than in Europe as a whole.

The graph shows a low mortality wave at the end of 2017 and a noticeable wave in February-March 2018 (another example of why a December 31st cutoff might distort historical trends). This winter, the mortality wave coincided with the coronavirus wave and its peak in late December. (In 2020 there were 53 weeks, so the dates do not exactly match.) A secondary coronavirus wave, which appeared in mid-February, half way through the decline of the former, did not result in a secondary mortality wave.

Sweden fig 3

The all-cause death toll in Sweden in the first 29 weeks of the current flu year is 56,452 (5,441 per million people) compared to 55,967 (5,544 per million people) in the same period in 2017–2018. In that winter, the excess mortality rate in Europe attributed to the flu was at least twice as high as in Sweden.

Sweden proved right in the retest.

A colossal mistake

The pandemic has taken its death toll, ranging from large to small in different countries and within countries, and mostly affected the frail elderly. But the lockdowns and panic were unsubstantiated, prevented nothing, and caused indescribable damage to society. Sweden’s statistics tell us, unequivocally, that in much of the world lives have been lost and livelihoods have been destroyed — in vain.

Will anyone, in any country, be held accountable?

Eyal Shahar,

Professor Emeritus of Public Health (University of Arizona);
MD (Tel-Aviv University, Israel);
MPH, Epidemiology (University of Minnesota)


2021 Best and Worst Commencement Orations


AMAC (Association of Mature American Citizens) published a list The Best & Worst Commencement Addresses of the Year.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Another school year has come to a close at colleges and universities across the country, but before the class of 2021 turned the tassel to begin their journey as new graduates, they were given some sage – and in some cases, pretty strange – advice by leading politicians, academics, diplomats, and captains of industry. You may have missed most of this year’s most notable commencement addresses, so AMAC Newsline has compiled the highlights–and the lowlights–of this year’s speeches.

“The Biggest Risk Of All Is That We Stop Taking Risks At All”

Former Republican Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels and current President of Purdue University gave perhaps the best commencement address of the season. Daniels discussed how, during the past year, America had witnessed not only a public health pandemic but also a pandemic of fear that had paralyzed America’s leaders and caused them to flinch in the face of making difficult decisions. Daniels challenged his Boilermakers to have “the courage to act on the conclusions you reach.” Here are some of the best parts of the speech:

“The risk of failure, of a hit to one’s reputation, or just that the gains don’t outweigh the costs, all these can deter or even paralyze a person out of fulfilling the responsibility someone has entrusted to them.”

“This last year, many of your elders failed this fundamental test of leadership. They let their understandable human fear of uncertainty overcome their duty to balance all the interests they were responsible for. They hid behind the advice of experts in one field but ignored the warnings of experts in other realms that they might do harm beyond the good they hoped to accomplish. Sometimes they let what might be termed the mad pursuit of zero, in this case, zero risks of anyone contracting the virus, block out other competing concerns, like the protection of mental health, the educational needs of small children, or the survival of small businesses. Pursuing one goal to the utter exclusion of all others is not to make a choice but to run from it. It’s not leadership; it’s abdication.”

“Maybe the great historian Jacques Barzun summed it up best: ‘The last degree of caution is cowardice.’ Certainty is an illusion. Perfect safety is a mirage. Zero is always unattainable, except in the case of absolute zero where, as you remember, all motion and life itself stop.”

“Your Most Important Titles Will Be Wife, Husband, Mother, Father, Follower Of Christ.”

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave an inspirational commencement address to students at Regent University in Virginia. What set Pompeo’s speech apart from others was the fact that it challenged the class of 2021 to put faith and family at the center of their career rather than just purely professional accolades and material accomplishments.

“You should all know that life will offer you lots of ways to use your talents, your education, industry, your intelligence to achieve personal success, how you define it, in your chosen life, in your chosen professions. And it will also offer you chances to know a far more lasting happiness by serving someone far greater than yourself or your self-interest – your God.”

“Our country must remember that no one can enjoy the pursuit of happiness if you cannot own the fruits of your own labor. And no society can retain its legitimacy or a virtuous character without religious freedom.”

“We must cherish our freedom, particularly this freedom to practice our faith, not just for the opportunities it provides to each of us, but for the goodness of living a life in accordance with God without oppression that it makes possible. And when government oppresses that freedom, we must stand up. Each of you have that responsibility. It is a big burden.”

“Our Goal Is An Independent Mind, In The Service Of Truth Instead Of Fads Or Groupthink.”

Joe Biden was originally supposed to speak at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. But Biden snubbed the Catholic school, apparently choosing to stay away from Notre Dame after more than 4,400 Notre Dame students and alumni wrote a letter noting that Mr. Biden had embraced “the most pro-abortion and anti-religious liberty public policy program in history.”

Instead, Jimmy Dunne gave the commencement address to Notre Dame graduates. Dunne works for an investment company that was once located on the 104th floor of 2 World Trade Center. Many of the company’s employees died on 9/11, but Dunne has worked tirelessly to help the sons and daughters of his former coworkers get the scholarships they need to attend colleges across the country, including Notre Dame.

In an emotional speech, Dunne showed the moral courage to say the things that every college student needs to hear, but no one would ever hear in a commencement address delivered by Mr. Biden. Dunne asserted that the real purpose of education is to teach about the “permanent things” to build “character, not just knowledge, moral aspiration, not just ambition.” Dunne appeared to call out cancel culture and woke college campuses as “fads” and “groupthink.” Dunne concluded his remarks with a memorable line calling out Joe Biden for not showing up. He said: “It almost makes me feel bad for the President, because he missed this wonderful sight of a graduating class as promising as any in America.”

“The mark of a great university is that you learn more than they’re teaching. Here, we talk about forming ‘the whole person,’ and it’s a true commitment grounded in real things, permanent things. The aim is character, not just knowledge, moral aspiration, not just ambition. You’ve all got degrees in different disciplines, but you have a single major in common – and that is leadership. The fashions that wash over higher education don’t get far at this university. Our goal is an independent mind, in the service of truth instead of fads or groupthink. The great problems and moral obligations of life are not suddenly discovered here. Those obligations have been the core purpose from the start.”

“You are a quiet — you’re a really dull class. I mean, come on, man. Is the sun getting to you?”

Joe Biden gave what was easily the worst commencement address of any U.S. President in recent memory to cadets at the Coast Guard Academy. Biden started the speech by asserting: “[W]e’re going to speak for about four hours” and “I thought I was hot in a blue suit.” Biden mispronounced the name of a distinguished cadet, butchered a reference to a cadet handbook, and quoted a Chinese dictator.

On two occasions, Biden asked that the cadets clap for him. Early on, Biden tried to make a joke by chiding cadets for spending “a little too much time at the Slice,” a local pizza restaurant. But Biden did not get the laughs and applause he wanted, so he instructed the cadets: “You can clap. Come on, man.” On another occasion, Biden again demanded applause: “Congratulations the Bravo Company, by the way, on your victory. You can clap. It’s okay. Even if you’re lost, you gotta clap.”

The worst moment of the speech, though, occurred when Biden tried to tell a joke about the Navy that fell totally flat. Instead of just moving on, the man who is supposed to be America’s commander in chief directly insulted the very people who have pledged to fight and, if necessary, die to keep America safe. The actual White House transcript records Biden as saying: “You are a quiet — you’re a really dull class. I mean, come on, man. Is the sun getting to you? I would think you’d have an opportunity when I say that about the Navy to clap, but — but being here together.”

“Just Ask Any Marine Today, Would She Rather Carry 20 Pounds Of Batteries Or A Rolled Up Solar Panel, and I am positive she will tell you a solar panel, and so would he.”

Kamala Harris followed up Biden’s brutally bad commencement speech with a woke dud of her own. Harris, addressing graduates at the Naval Academy, showed where the Biden administration’s priorities truly are in terms of national defense when she asserted that “climate change” is a “very real threat to our national security.” Harris never once mentioned China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, or any of the other “real threats” to American national security during the course of her remarks. On the topic of climate change, Harris’s comments were laughable but not in the way Harris intended them to be. She told the Navy midshipmen and Marines:

“You are ocean engineers who will help navigate ships through thinning ice. You are mechanical engineers who will help reinforce sinking bases. You are electrical engineers who will soon help convert solar and wind energy into power, convert solar and wind energy into combat power. And just ask any Marine today, would she rather carry 20 pounds of batteries or a rolled up solar panel, and I am positive she will tell you a solar panel, and so would he.”

But, solar panels store energy in batteries. The Marine, regardless of gender, will still have to carry a battery along with the solar panel. That technicality aside, these bizarre remarks were delivered by Harris as part of a commencement address on Memorial Day weekend. The sacrifices that Navy midshipmen have made for this country throughout history were never mentioned during the course of the remarks. Rather, Harris sounded like she had shown up to give a speech at the National Resources Defense Council instead of the U.S. Naval Academy. She used her time to issue veiled threats like, “One country’s carbon emissions can threaten the sustainability of the whole earth.” The likelihood that Navy graduates can actually learn something from such statements that will help them as they defend this country is doubtful at best, which is why this commencement address earns last place for the 2021 season.



Why Climate Models Fail to Replicate the North Atlantic


A recent paper employed expert statistical analysis to prove that currently climate models fail to reproduce fluctuations of sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic, a key region affecting global weather and climate.  H/T to David Whitehouse at GWPF for posting a revew of the paper.  I agree with him that the analysis looks solid and the findings robust.  However, as I will show below, neither Whitehouse nor the paper explicitly drew the most important implication.

At GWPF, Whitehouse writes Climate models fail in key test region (in italics with my bolds):

A new paper by Timothy DelSole of George Mason University and Michael Tippett of Columbia University looks into this by attempting to quantify the consistency between climate models and observations using a novel statistical approach. It involves using a multivariate statistical framework whose usefulness has been demonstrated in other fields such as economics and statistics. Technically, they are asking if two time series such as observations and climate model output come from the same statistical source.

To do this they looked at the surface temperature of the North Atlantic which is variable over decadal timescales. The reason for this variability is disputed, it could be related to human-induced climate change or natural variability. If it is internal variability but falsely accredited to human influences then it could lead over estimates of climate sensitivity. There is also the view that the variability is due to anthropogenic aerosols with internal variability playing a weak role but it has been found that models that use external forcing produce inconsistencies in such things as the pattern of temperature and ocean salinity. These things considered it’s important to investigate if climate models are doing well in accounting for variability in the region as the North Atlantic is often used as a test of a climate model’s capability.

The researchers found that when compared to observations, almost every CMIP5 model fails, no matter whether the multidecadal variability is assumed to be forced or internal. They also found institutional bias in that output from the same model, or from models from the same institution, tended to be clustered together, and in many cases differ significantly from other clusters produced by other institutions. Overall only a few climate models out of three dozen considered were found to be consistent with the observations.

The paper is Comparing Climate Time Series. Part II: A Multivariate Test by DelSole and Tippett.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

We now apply our test to compare North Atlantic sea surface temperature (NASST) variability between models and observations. In particular, we focus on comparing multi-year internal variability. The question arises as to how to extract internal variability from observations. There is considerable debate about the magnitude of forced variability in this region, particularly the contribution due to anthropogenic aerosols (Booth et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2013). Accordingly, we consider two possibilities: that the forced response is well represented by (1) a second-order polynomial or (2) a ninth-order polynomial over 1854-2018. These two assumptions will be justified shortly.

If NASST were represented on a typical 1◦ × 1◦ grid, then the number of grid cells would far exceed the available sample size. Accordingly, some form of dimension reduction is necessary. Given our focus on multi-year predictability, we consider only large-scale patterns. Accordingly, we project annual-mean NASST onto the leading eigenvectors of the Laplacian over the Atlantic between 0 0 60◦N. These eigenvectors form an orthogonal set of patterns that can be ordered by a measure of length  scale from largest to smallest.

DelSole Tippett fig1

Figure 1. Laplacian eigenvectors 1,2,3,4,5,6 over the North Atlantic between the equator and 60◦N,  where dark red and dark blue indicate extreme positive and negative values, respectively

The first six Laplacian eigenvectors are shown in fig. 1 (these were computed by the method of DelSole and Tippett, 2015). The first eigenvector is spatially uniform. Projecting data onto the first Laplacian eigenvector is equivalent to taking the area-weighted average in the basin. In the case of SST, the time series for the first Laplacian eigenvector is merely an AMV index (AMV stands for “Atlantic Multidecadal Variability”). The second and third eigenvectors are dipoles that measure the large-scale gradient across the basin. Subsequent eigenvectors capture smaller scale patterns.  For model data, we use pre-industrial control simulations of SST from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 Taylor et al., 2012). Control simulations use forcings that repeat year after year. As a result, interannual variability in control simulations come from internal dynamical mechanisms, not from external forcing.

DelSole Tippett fig2Figure 2. AMV index from ERSSTv5 (thin grey), and polynomial fits to a second-order (thick black) and ninth-order (red) polynomial.

For observational data, we use version 5 of the Extended Reconstructed SST dataset (ERSSTv5 Huang et al., 2017). We consider only the 165-year period 1854-2018. We first focus on time series for the first Laplacian eigenvector, which we call the AMV index. The corresponding least squares fit to second- and ninth-order polynomials in time are shown in fig. 2. The second-order polynomial captures the secular trend toward warmer temperatures but otherwise has weak multidecadal variability. In contrast, the ninth-order polynomial captures both the secular trend and multidecadal variability. There is no consensus as to whether this multidecadal variability is internal or forced. 

DelSole Tippett fig4

Figure 4. Deviance between ERSSTv5 1854-1935 and 82-year segments from 36 CMIP5 pre-industrial control simulations. Also shown is the deviance between ERSSTv5 1854-1935 and ERSSTv5 1937-2018 (first item on x-axis). The black and red curves show, respectively, results after removing a second- and ninth-order polynomial in time over 1854-2018 before evaluating the deviance. The models have been ordered on the x-axis from smallest to largest deviance after removing a second-order polynomial in time.


The test was illustrated by using it to compare annual mean North Atlantic SST variability in models and observations. When compared to observations, almost every CMIP5 model differs significantly from ERSST. This conclusion holds regardless of whether a second- or ninth-order polynomial in time is regressed out. Thus, our conclusion does not depend on whether multidecadal NASST variability is assumed to be forced or internal. By applying a hierarchical clustering technique, we showed that time series from the same model, or from models from the same institution, tend to be clustered together, and in many cases differ significantly from other clusters. Our results are consistent with previous claims (Pennell and Reichler, 2011; Knutti et al., 2013) that the effective number of independent models is smaller than the actual number of models in a multi-model ensemble.

The Elephant in the Room

Now let’s consider the interpretation reached by model builders after failing to match observations of Atlantic Multidecadal Variability.  As an example consider INMCM4, whose results deviated greatly from the ERSST5 dataset.  In 2018, Evgeny Volodin and Andrey Gritsun published Simulation of observed climate changes in 1850–2014 with climate model INM-CM5.   Included in those simulations is a report of their attempts to replicate North Atlantic SSTs.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.


Figure 4 The 5-year mean AMO index (K) for ERSSTv4 data (thick solid black); model mean (thick solid red). Dashed thin lines represent data from individual model runs. Colors correspond to individual runs as in Fig. 1.

Keeping in mind the argument that the GMST slowdown in the beginning of the 21st century could be due to the internal variability of the climate system, let us look at the behavior of the AMO and PDO climate indices. Here we calculated the AMO index in the usual way, as the SST anomaly in the Atlantic at latitudinal band 0–60∘ N minus the anomaly of the GMST. The model and observed 5-year mean AMO index time series are presented in Fig. 4. The well-known oscillation with a period of 60–70 years can be clearly seen in the observations. Among the model runs, only one (dashed purple line) shows oscillation with a period of about 70 years, but without significant maximum near year 2000. In other model runs there is no distinct oscillation with a period of 60–70 years but a period of 20–40 years prevails. As a result none of the seven model trajectories reproduces the behavior of the observed AMO index after year 1950 (including its warm phase at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries).

One can conclude that anthropogenic forcing is unable to produce any significant impact on the AMO dynamics as its index averaged over seven realization stays around zero within one sigma interval (0.08). Consequently, the AMO dynamics are controlled by the internal variability of the climate system and cannot be predicted in historic experiments. On the other hand, the model can correctly predict GMST changes in 1980–2014 having the wrong phase of the AMO (blue, yellow, orange lines in Figs. 1 and 4).


Figure 1 The 5-year mean GMST (K) anomaly with respect to 1850–1899 for HadCRUTv4 (thick solid black); model mean (thick solid red). Dashed thin lines represent data from individual model runs: 1 – purple, 2 – dark blue, 3 – blue, 4 – green, 5 – yellow, 6 – orange, 7 – magenta. In this and the next figures numbers on the time axis indicate the first year of the 5-year mean.

The Bottom Line

Since the models incorporate AGW in the form of CO2 sensitivity, they are unable to replicate Atlantic Multidecadal Variability.  Thus, the logical conclusion is that variability of North Atlantic SSTs is an internal, natural climate factor.


OPEC Bullish on Oil Industry


Tyler Durden writes a zerohedge, Russia & OPEC Ministers Blast IEA’s ‘Net Zero By 2050’ Plan As “La-La-Land”  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

After in recent months crude oil prices have clearly recovered from their COVID-19 slump on steadily increasing demand, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak addressed the much anticipated decision-making at the upcoming OPEC+ conference set for August and the expectation that it will decide to raise output significantly beyond the current pandemic-induced strategy of gradually releasing more barrels into a strengthening oil market.

Novak said in his Thursday remarks at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum that while it remains “premature” to talk about output decisions for August, he affirmed “The current oil price is good enough for Russia,” adding: “Oil prices reflect the balance of supply and demand,” and noted it’s expected the seasonal oil demand will increase in the third quarter of the year. On Wednesday Brent crude futures touched their highest price since September 2019 at $71.99, with the international benchmark gaining 1.6%, following the day prior the benchmark seeing a rise of almost 3%.

Novak confirmed the upcoming OPEC+ conference will address and finalize oil output for August and other months, while stressing that oil prices shooting too high “may force users to switch to other energy sources.”

On that front in particular, he blasted current IEA proposals and a “road map” being pushed which in the end could lead to $200 a barrel oil(!):

If the world were to follow the International Energy Agency’s controversial road map, which said investment in new fields would have to stop immediately to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, “the price for oil will go to, what, $200? Gas prices will skyrocket,” Novak said.


Sheikhs vs. Shale

And naturally Qatar and Saudi Arabia seconded that dire assessment, vowing to continue expanding their oil and gas facilities while pointing the finger at the climate activists for seeking to starve industry cash. Bloomberg presents the Gulf statements Thursday as follows:

The “euphoria” around the transition to clean energy is “dangerous,” Qatar’s Energy Minister Saad Sherida Al Kaabi said at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia on Thursday.

“When you deprive the business from additional investments, you have big spikes” in prices, he stressed further.

As a reminder, IEA’s roadmap set out in the Paris Accords for achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 requires reducing emissions as much as possible then offsetting the rest with “carbon removal” plans financed by carbon credits.


However as we’ve detailed before, with economists expecting global growth to expand at even faster rates thanks to the infusion of stimulus inspired by the pandemic, it follows that energy demand will also increase more quickly. Despite this, many economists and scientists expect that improvements in energy efficiency and the shift to renewables means that global energy demand will be around 8% smaller than it is today in 2050, even though the global economy will be more than twice as large as it is today.

With this in mind, it was perhaps the recent Saudi comments from St. Petersburg which put it best, dismissing the “la-la-land” scenario in an earlier statement…

“Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman has already dismissed the IEA road map, which would limit the average increase in global temperatures to 1.5 Celsius, calling it a la-la-land scenario,” he said according to Bloomberg. “When asked on Thursday if oil is dead, he responded by saying the kingdom is increasing its production capacity.”


Energy Industry Fights Off Biden Hostile Takeover

Samuel Allegri explains in his Epoch Times article 15 State Treasurers Warn They Will Pull Assets From Banks That Obstruct the Fossil Fuel Industry.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.  H/T John Ray.

Fifteen Republican State Treasurers sent a warning that they will pull assets from financial institutions if they give in to Federal pressure to de-carbonize and “refuse to lend to or invest in” the fossil fuel and coal industry.

The letter (pdf), led by West Virginia Treasurer Riley Moore, is directed at Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry. It expresses concerns over reports that Kerry and other members of the Biden administration have been “privately pressuring” U.S. banks to stifle the fossil fuel industry.

“We are writing today to express our deep concern with recent reports that you, and other members of the Biden Administration, are privately pressuring U.S. banks and financial institutions to refuse to lend to or invest in coal, oil, and natural gas companies, as part of a misguided strategy to eliminate the fossil fuel industry in our country,” the letter reads.

The State Treasurers sent a plain message to financial institutions, telling them not to submit to the present administration’s coercion to deny investment and lending for the natural resources.

Furthermore, they assert that the approaches will “discriminate against law-abiding U.S. energy companies and their employees, impede economic growth, and drive up consumer costs,” adding that the strategy in question would make the free market submit to the will of politicians.

The signees of the letter are representing collectively more than $600 billion in assets, according to Axios.

They are backing some of the largest fossil fuel producers in the country.

“As a collective, we strongly oppose command-and-control economic policies that attempt to bend the free market to the political will of government officials,” they write. “It is simply antithetical to our nation’s position as a democracy and a capitalist economy for the Executive Branch to bully corporations into curtailing legal activities. The Biden Administration’s top-down tactics of picking economic winners and losers deprives the real determinate group in our society—the people—of essential choice and agency.

We refuse to allow the federal government to pick our critical industries as losers, based purely on President Biden’s own radical political preferences and ideologies.

The Obama administration’s previous conflict with American coal and natural gas industries is mentioned as an attack on jobs, tax revenue, and health insurance provided to families across the country, specifically hard-working middle-class families.

“As the chief financial officers of our respective states, we entrust banks and financial institutions with billions of our taxpayers’ dollars. It is only logical that we will give significant weight to the fact that an institution engaged in tactics that will harm the people whose money they are handling before entering into or extending any contract,” they warned.

The Epoch Times reached out to the White House for comment.

Heartland Wisdom from Iowa


Todd Blodgett writes at the Des Moines Register Biden paving the way for Trump to win again.  (Full disclosure:  My mother, Dagmar Henningsen was born near Des Moinres, and I am 1/2 Danish because of her.)  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Only a smidgeon of popular votes would flip the few states needed for Trump to net 270 electoral votes.

In 2020, had 23,000 votes, spread across Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia, flipped, the Electoral College would’ve been tied, at 269-269. And with Republicans holding a majority of the states’ congressional delegations, the U.S. House of Representatives would’ve chosen Donald Trump as president.

But after five months, Joe Biden’s agenda and actions on several critical issues are diminishing Democratic prospects for 2024, and even for 2022. If the GOP retakes the House next year, it will be disastrous for the Biden-Harris administration.

But even if that doesn’t happen, the border crisis that Biden singlehandedly created has already caused many of his voters to suffer a severe case of buyers’ remorse. Nixing the Keystone pipeline was stupid and killed tens of thousands of jobs and indicated to oil-producing nations that the United States is impeding domestic petroleum production — which, under Trump’s policies, made us net energy-independent.

Increasingly, many Americans now see that Trump was the kind of president that they always wanted — but they didn’t realize they had.

After all, most Americans appreciate straight talk from their elected officials and distrust career politicians, especially lawyers. Many voters prefer no-nonsense, business-style governance. Most Americans also favor “America First” policies and expect their president to prioritize their interests above those of foreign nationals — particularly lawbreakers. As well, most Americans despise clueless leftists who advocate defunding the police. Polls reveal that most likely voters want presidents to appoint judges who are pro-victim, not pro-perpetrator, and who favor taxpayers over indolent, able-bodied, welfare scammers.

Americans expect their leader to understand that China not only isn’t our friend, but represents a clear and present danger to us.

Trump, not Biden, was that president.

Most taxpayers also strongly oppose Biden’s unprecedented, irresponsible spending spree. Even some Democrats detest Biden’s planned tax hikes and his costly boondoggles, which includes fancy hotels for immigrants, bailouts that discourage employees from returning to work, and paying the disreputable World Health Organization $200 million to reinstate America’s membership. Biden’s absurd claim that Trump caused this border disaster only exacerbates the scorn which scores of millions of Americans have for this liar.

Biden even released Mexico from its agreement — negotiated by Trump — to post federales (troops) on Mexico’s side of the border, to block border-crashing immigrants. As the Washington Post reported on May 25: “Under new Biden administration rules curtailing immigration enforcement, ICE carried out 3,000 deportations last month, the lowest level on record. Biden has placed ICE deportation officers on a leash so tight that some say their work is being functionally abolished.”

As Biden and Kamala Harris foment this destructive insanity, many pro-USA citizens justifiably feel like horrified, handcuffed, blindfolded passengers in the back seat of a vehicle being driven by a drunkard at 100 mph. When Ronald Reagan visited Des Moines in the fall of 1980, he told me that his opponent, President Jimmy Carter, made it “easy” for him, “because of how badly he’s screwed things up.” Will Biden do the same?

Trump will be the same age (78) in 2024 that Biden is now. However, Trump moves, acts, and looks 15 years younger than Biden — who, in 2024, will be 82. By 2024, old Joe could easily look like Jimmy Carter. If so, his predecessor may well become his successor. Only a smidgeon of popular votes would flip the few states needed for Trump to net 270 electoral votes.

Biden is basically setting the stage for Trump’s comeback.



Ordinary Arctic Ice Extents in May


A previous post reported that Arctic Sea Ice has persisted this year despite a wavy Polar Vortex this spring, bringing cold down to mid-latitudes, and warming air into Arctic regions.  Now in May, the sea ice extent matched the 14-year average on day 144, tracking alongside until month end.  Surprisingly  SII (Sea Ice Index) is showing ~400k km2 more ice, which is also ~70k km2 higher than the 14-year average for SII on day 151 (not shown in chart).

Note that on the 14-year average, May loses ~2M km2 of ice extent, which 2021 matched, as did 2007.  Both 2020 and 2019 finished lower than average, by 300k and 400k respectively.  In contrast SII shows a May loss of only 1.3M km2.

Why is this important?  All the claims of global climate emergency depend on dangerously higher temperatures, lower sea ice, and rising sea levels.  The lack of additional warming is documented in a post Adios, Global Warming

The lack of acceleration in sea levels along coastlines has been discussed also.  See USCS Warnings of Coastal Floodings

Also, a longer term perspective is informative:

The table below shows the distribution of Sea Ice across the Arctic Regions, on average, this year and 2007.

Region 2021151 Day 151 Average 2021-Ave. 2007151 2021-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 11605537 11733260  -127723  11846659 -241122 
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1034779 992955  41825  1059461 -24682 
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 900868 861978  38891  894617 6251 
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1051959 1065828  -13869  1069198 -17239 
 (4) Laptev_Sea 738294 831217  -92923  754651 -16357 
 (5) Kara_Sea 824068 831440  -7373  895678 -71610 
 (6) Barents_Sea 325745 322981  2765  323801 1944 
 (7) Greenland_Sea 615174 567365  47810  591919 23255 
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 812548 908759  -96211  934257 -121709 
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 811040 811378  -338  818055 -7015 
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1084892 1098368  -13476  1077744 7148 
 (11) Central_Arctic 3232324 3219180  13144  3230109 2215 
 (12) Bering_Sea 89124 122512  -33388  112353 -23228 
 (13) Baltic_Sea 0 161 -161  0
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 83572 97612  -14040  83076 495 

The overall deficit to average happened yesterday, being an extent 1% lower, and two days earlier than average.  The largest deficits to average are in Baffin Bay and Laptev Sea, along with Bering and Okhotsk.  These are partly offset by surpluses elsewhere, mostly in Beaufort, Chukchi, and Greenland Seas.



Corona Cover Story

The sordid story is about big pharma aided and abetted by big media and tech protecting their pandemic payday by banishing mention or acknowledgement of ivermectin’s success fighting Covid19.  H/T Jo Nova article It’s the biggest medical scandal since 1850.  Excerpt in italics:

Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author , has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. … But unfortunately most reporters are not interested in telling the other side of the story. Even if they were, their publishers would probably refuse to publish it.

That may explain why Capuzzo, a six-time Pulitzer-nominated journalist best known for his New York Times-bestselling nonfiction books Close to Shore and Murder Room, ended up publishing his article on ivermectin in Mountain Home, a monthly local magazine for the people of the Pennsylvania mountains and New York Finger Lakes region, of which Capuzzo’s wife is the editor.

Michael Capuzzo writes at Mountain Home The Story of the Cover Story. Excerpts in italics with my bolds

When my daughter Grace, a vice president at a New York advertising agency, came down with COVID-19 recently, she was quarantined in a “COVID hotel” in Times Square with homeless people and quarantining travelers. The locks on her room door were removed. Nurses prowled the halls to keep her in her room and wake her up every night to check her vitals—not to treat her, because there is no approved treatment for COVID-19; only, if her oxygen plummeted, to move her to the hospital, where there is only a single effective approved treatment for COVID-19, steroids that may keep the lungs from failing.

The absence of treatments for COVID-19 is a global crisis, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said recently on 60 Minutes, for vaccines “are not enough.” Dangerous variants sweep the globe after mutating in the world’s poor and unvaccinated, lockdowns persist, and millions more are likely to die. The wondrous m-RNA vaccines need a cop buddy.

Fortunately, I knew of an early treatment for Grace. It’s a cheap generic drug, safer than Tylenol, FDA-approved to treat scabies and lice in children and the elderly, with many other uses that make Ivermectin a “wonder drug.” In fifty-five clinical trials with 445 scientists and 17,730 patients around the world, Ivermectin has been shown to be the most powerful drug to eradicate COVID-19 in all stages of the disease, including prevention and early treatment.

It’s what the world desperately needs now, according to Dr. Pierre Kory, a former professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison medical school, whose research group, the nonprofit Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, has developed the most effective non-vaccine treatments in the world from safe, FDA-approved generics. They have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, including eighty-year-old Judy Smentkiewicz of Buffalo, the star of this month’s cover story. Judy’s remarkable story is a “miracle,” her family says, thanks to Pierre Kory, science, and God.

Grace researched Ivermectin and was surprised that it is not FDA-approved as an anti-viral to treat COVID-19, although it is FDA-approved as an anti-parasitic agent. This would be an “off-label use,” a routine thing in medicine comprising some 20 percent of all prescriptions—aspirin to prevent heart attack or stroke, for instance, is “off label.” This is called doctoring. And it was routine until COVID-19, when a big pharma-dominated health system tried to eliminate all generic competition to protect its biggest payday of all time.

Judy had the choice to fight back or die. A worldwide revolution that will determine the future of medicine and who lives and dies from COVID-19—the battle of Ivermectin—is fighting back, fighting for life. Grace, I’m happy to say, was prescribed Ivermectin and got better fast.

If you are interested in Ivermectin, check out, and talk to your doctor. Here’s a help page on how to talk to your doctor:

I got onto this story on Mother’s Day, 2020, when my wife Teresa, who many know as the publisher and editor of Mountain Home, and I watched Dr. Kory testify to the U.S. Senate about his group’s first breakthrough, a steroid treatment that was saving 95 percent of COVID-19 patients when 80 percent were dying in New York City and the world was in panic. To our surprise, as longtime journalists—we met at The Philadelphia Inquirer—Dr. Kory was cancelled by a global news blackout. Was not a treatment that could save the world news?

While Teresa puts out the magazine, I’ve written two New York Times-bestselling books, Close to Shore and The Murder Room, featuring some of the world’s most brilliant scientists. Now I’ve spent months interviewing Kory and his colleagues, and I’ve seen unthinkable things. When professor Joe Varon, a top critical care doctor and Mexican-American hero recently honored with “Joseph Varon Day” in Houston for his COVID-19 treatments that are saving the city’s sickest poor, black, Mexican, and immigrants, invited journalists from CNN, The Associated Press, and Reuters to his COVID-19 ICU to get out the news of his life-saving treatment, all the journalists fictionalized the story to make it seem like most everyone was dying when in fact most everyone was living. The happy story, the truth, didn’t fit the official government science.

We live in a remarkable media age where a positive story on CNN, perhaps more so than a peer review in The New England Journal of Medicine, will instantly encourage doctors in two hundred countries to use a perfectly safe and legal drug and save humanity. I call on my fellow colleagues, including former colleagues and friends at The Washington Post and The New York Times, to open their hearts and minds to legitimate, unreported doctors and therapies and write about all sides of the Ivermectin story, like journalists always have. It is a historic opportunity.

For the first time in the long journey from Gutenberg to Google, journalists may be the ones to save the world.