Leading Alarmist John Cook Explains Why Trenberth Is Full Of It

It’s easy to confuse current weather events with long-term climate trends, and hard to understand the difference between weather and climate.

Does cold weather disprove global warming?

John Cook wrote this in 2010 when he was trying to explain the cold weather. No doubt a couple of weeks of hot weather over 1% of the planet is an entirely different matter though …..

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Leading Alarmist John Cook Explains Why Trenberth Is Full Of It

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    so his assertion that there are many more record hot days than record cold days is just fabrication. Or in the last two years that ratio has reversed itself?

    • Given the growth of population and the UHI effect, we would certainly expect to see fewer record lows. Concrete, asphalt, heating systems and air conditioners generally keep nighttime temperatures up several degrees.

    • suyts says:

      Tony, these are in unique and specific places on the earth. There is nothing special about the earth’s temps this year. Every year, somewhere on this earth we can expect some records of some sort to be set. As we always have.


      • Tony Duncan says:

        So they are hiding the global figures that show just as many record cold days as record hot days.
        and all of Steve posts that show how much hotter it was in the US in the past are meaningless, because it is such a tiny percentage of the planet?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Ah, so UHI is what is causing the arctic ice extent to be near record lows so fa this year. I mean average ice extent.
        so the UHI increases every year in order to keep the record highs higher than the record lows?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Happy to bet a record low if you will bet 79-2000 average as your were posting a couple of months ago. Since you are saying that temps are not increasing how about if we bet $100 to me if it goes below 7 million. $100 to you if over 7.5 million. $1,000 to me if it is a record low, and $1,000 to you if it is over 8 million. I actually put in my prediction at 4.9 million since the record low is dependent on more than global avg temps. I thought you knew that.
        I assume your supporters will encourage you to take such generous terms from someone who is blinded by warmist propaganda, when you just deal with the reality.

        • NSIDC reports record low extent. PIOMAS reports record low thickness. NOAA reports hottest June heatwave in history. Trenberth says it is all due to CO2.

          If your friends are correct, a record low is a done deal. . That is the bet.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I understand.
        you don’t believe what you write. I already told you what my prediction was, and it was before we got into this discussion. When we have a full on el Niño I will happily predict a record low, and if we get one this year without that, it will certainly depend on weather conditions as the 2007 record minimum did.
        I will tell you what, since you were crowing about normal ice extent in April, if it DOESN’T go to a record low extent I will pay you $10, but if it DOES go below you pay me $500. You have a pay pal account I can send the money to?
        Not sure how you can turn down this offer.

        • We are having an El Nino. Ice is record thin and record low extent. Hansen says that ocean heat content is the highest ever.

          If you actually believed your own bullshit, you would bet on a record low and give me odds.

      • Dear Tony Duncan,

        What do you use to get the blood out of your clownsuit?

      • rw says:

        So who unlatched the jack-in-the-box this time?

        Anyway … after nearly ten years of claims of an Arctic death spiral, it was reasonable – and a solid rhetorical point – to note that in April the measured extent was close to the 1979-2006 average. In this context, the fact that it’s now down in the 2007-11 cluster doesn’t detract from the force of the previous observation.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve I already told you what my official prediction was. it was one I made a month ago, and while I think there is a reasonable2123212221 possibility it might be high, I do not understand why you think I should change my prediction to suit your fantasies about what people who do not deny ACC should believe. In all your posts you implicitly are saying that a new record minimum is nearly impossible. I am offering to give you a free ten dollars, and all you have to do is take the chance of losing $500 on an outcome you are maintaining is nearly impossible. If you do not take my bet, the conclusion to my mind is that you do think it is indeed quite possible

      • suyts says:

        So they are hiding the global figures that show just as many record cold days as record hot days……
        Tony, you’re a sharp guy. Think about it for a second. If you clicked on my link, I demonstrated how this year has been significantly cooler than 2010…. globally. It is exceptionally warm in Kansas…… indeed the plains right now. So, what does this tell us about the rest of the globe? It is even cooler yet. I breathlessly await Uganda declaring an all time low specific to a 5 sq mile area. Or Uruguay. Or Thailand. Or some specific place on the ocean which has never been monitored for temps specific for such a unique plot of sea.

        Tony, think about it just for a minute. These “records” are senseless propaganda tools. I’ll set a thermometer out on my brother’s place tomorrow. It will record a record high and low every day for a year. If the next year is warmer, I’ll record a record every other day and then some. It is a sophist notion.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        What you are telling me sounds like there is no temp record that does not show increases in record highs compared to record lows globally. That does not invalidate your argument but it does nothing to support it.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I was surprised when you wrote we are having an El niño. I had not read anything about Enso for a few months, but my understanding was there was a possibility of El niño sometime after this summer. This is what NOAA says.
        “The extensive volume of above-average sub-surface water temperatures indicates that the tropical Pacific SST anomalies will likely warm further in the coming months. A majority of models predict ENSO-neutral to continue through the June-August (JJA) season (Fig. 6). Thereafter, most of the dynamical models predict El Niño to develop during JAS, while the statistical models tend to favor the continuation of ENSO-neutral. Thus, there remains uncertainty as to whether ENSO-neutral or El Niño will prevail during the second half of the year. The evolving conditions, combined with model forecasts (Fig. 6), suggest that ENSO-neutral and El Niño are roughly equally likely during the late northern summer and fall. The CPC/IRI forecast calls for ENSO-neutral conditions through JAS, followed by an approximately 50% likelihood for El Niño during the remainder of the year (see CPC/IRI consensus forecast).”
        this does not sound like a full on el Niño year to me. So I stand by my view that when we DO have one I will predict a SIE below 2007 even without ideal weather conditions.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Don’t forget the warmist 2% argument and apply it here next time you post.That way we can laugh at you all the harder when you do it.

  2. Eric Webb says:

    Typical alarmist to say when it’s warming it’s climate change and when it cools it’s weather……And this is the guy that Jeff Masters listens to?!! Now with him joining the weather channel this nutcase will have freedom to spread his propaganda and brainwash the public,……just great.

  3. hkorp says:

    What makes Cook leading alarmist? He is just a guy who failed in his studies and teamed up instead with a scientologist to make a pro-AGW-propaganda -site.

    But the site is a handy tool. When someone adds links to his site is usually the moment I win the argument. The reason is that they have almost always attacked me first for believing whatever is on the internet instead of peer reviewed science.

    “Christy Crocks”… seriously! 😀

  4. Andy DC says:

    The alarmists will pull their own chart out of their butt, which will show a record low regardless of the facts.

  5. gallopingcamel says:

    The only thing that made John Cook’s website interesting was debates with folks like “Berenyi Peter”. Since Cook turned the moderation over to his Hezbollah wing (Daniel Bailey, Dana1981, dikranmarsupial et al.), people with contrary opinions have been driven away. The site has become just another CAGW echo chamber like Joe Romm’s “Climate Progress”.

    That said, it puzzles me that a website rated “Unreliable” by Anthony Watts still gets more hits than this site.

    • MangoChutney says:

      You’re forgetting the faithful.

      I did once try to engage SkS, but gave up when it became clear they were trailing me around websites. One gentlemen called Albatross even said “his work at SkS” and listed comments I’d made at the BBC and WUWT

      Basically, anybody who posts sceptic views at SkS is wasting their time

  6. joe says:

    When it comes to Arctic ice,how much heating of the ocean are the countless underwater volcanoes doing?

  7. ganesha says:

    tony duncan returns???

  8. Peregrine says:

    Steven Goddard, the theory of games is quite clear on how odd should be calculated. Tony Duncan has informed you that his prediction is 4.9 million km^2. Given that, if you where to offer him an even odds bet that September Arctic sea ice extent will be >4.9 million km^2, and he declined, he would be inconsistent. Equally, if you offered him an even odds bet that it would be <4.9 million km^2 and he declined, he would also be inconsistent.

    Your insistence that only an even odds (or better for you) bet that sea ice will be less than 4.3 million km^2 is only consistent if you believe there is a fifty:fifty chance that it will be less than that. Given that Duncan's prediction is greater than that, it would be inconsistent for him to take that bet at even odds. Your bluster may impress the uninformed, but it reveals your claims to be without substance to anyone who knows anything about the theory of gambling.

  9. Tom Curtis says:

    Please note, the preceding post by Peregrine was made by me, accidentally using my daughter’s details.

  10. Tom Curtis says:

    So it is now your official position that there is at least a fifty:fifty chance of a new low sea ice extent record this year; and that talk of a recovery in sea ice extent over the last few years have been at best misinformed?

    I just want to be clear on this point – because it appears that your offer of a bet says that, your words say something else.

    • I think that it would be almost impossible to end the season lower than 2007.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:

        ‘impossible’? On what basis Steve? Impossible is a very big statement.

        Item. PIOMAS has ice volume substantially lower than at any other time for this point in the melt season.

        Item. Ice concentration across the Asian/Alaskan side of the arctic has been hovering around 60% over much of that area. Thats a huge area that has started fracturing and breaking up. Nothing like that was seen during 2007, not at this point of the year. And there were even periods over the past 2 weeks where concentration along the Ellesmere Island/North Greenland coast dropped to 60%.

        Item. Melt pools at the North Pole are larger than in previous years.

        Item. Large fissures have appeared in the ice north of Ellesmere Island. These are larger than anything seen before, larger than what has been seen even at the height of the melt season previously. And we are still over 2 months from the peak of the season.

        Ice that is at 60% now may recompact, even freeze over again. But any new ice will be thin, and the mechanical strength of that ice has been compromised. Later in the melt season, all this ice is now vulnerable to mechanical breakup, increased impact from wind and waves, and for that ice that is anywhere near Fram Strait, increased drift flow out of the Arctic.

        So far we have had a particularly warm start to the melt season, particularly from the Beaufort Sea around to the Laptev Sea. But those earlier warm conditions have abated, although they may return – that depends on the weather up there over the next 2 months.

        2007 was an unusual year in terms of Arctic weather. This year’s weather may turn out to be the same, only time will tell. However, the starting point for 2007 vs 2012 is hugely different. Ice volume is lower. Ice Concentration is much worse much earlier. And we have seen concentration drops in regions we have never seen before. So even if we have just a ‘normal’ melt season, whatever that means these days, we most certainly could be looking at a comparable extent figure to 2007 with just average weather conditions.

        However, Extent (or area) isn’t the interesting measure. What is most telling for the future of the Arctic is volume. Extent may say there is X km^2, but if iit is all thin it doesn’t matter. In terms of the thermodynamics of it, it is the volume that counts. Because that tells us how much heat is needed to melt the remainder.

        On this basis the figures are stark. Compared to the beginning of the modern observation period, the mid-September peak melt season only has 25% as much ice left. And if the current melt season continues just on its current trends, this year we may be down below 20%.

        That is assuming that we don’t see an increased collapse of the ice due to mechanical failures leading to increased drift, larger polynyas etc.

        My gut feel is that the most likely outcome this season is a total volume in mid-September that is 3/4 of last year. With a reasonable possibility of that being significantly lower, depending on how the weather plays out over the next 2 moonths. Wild card possibility, not that extreme but it does need local weather patterns to contribute. A largely ice free North Pole briefly this year.

        And unless weather patterns drive a reversal, this year could set the Arctic up for a major collapse next year.

        Don’t focus on Extent. Follow the Volume and Concentration data; they are telling the real story now.

      • Tom Curtis says:

        For argument, let us assume that “almost impossible” means less than 0.001 probability. On that basis, if you really believe what you said, we could construct a fair bet, ie, a bet which you would be equally happy to take either side of. For the bet to be fair, the payouts should be such that 0.001*(pay out for a new record) = 0.999*(payout for new record not set). Let us set the payout for a new record as $1000. Then the payout for not setting the record would be $1.00 . If the payout for setting a record was $10,000, the payout for a fair bet on these odds would be $10.01, and so on.

        Now, you may not like the probability of 1/1000 as a gloss for “almost impossible”. You may prefer 1/100, or 1/1,000,000. Whatever it is, you set the probability of a new record according to your best estimate, state the odds, and offer to take either side of the bet. Your offer to take either side is the guarantee that you consider the bet fair. If you are only willing to take one side, you clearly consider the bet unfair, and weighted in favour of the side you are willing to take. If you are unwilling to offer odds based on your estimate of the probabilities, then clearly when your money is on the line you think your estimates are close to useless (and then so should we).

        We can analyze this in reverse. Tony Duncan has offered odds of 50:1 against a new record. You are unwilling to take that bet. Ergo you think that the probability of a new record * $500 is greater than the probability of no new record * $10. Ergo, in your opinion,
        R*500>(1-R)*10, where R is the probability of a new record. Therefore, you think the probability of a new record is greater than approx 0.02.

        We can take it even further. Apparently you will only bet on a record at even odds, and then only if you are allowed to take the high (no record) side. If follows that you think a new record is only just less likely than no new record. Hardly consistent with calling it “nearly impossible”.

        • All of the most respected data sources point towards a record low. Record low extent, record low thickness, unprecedented heatwaves, oceans warming …

          What odds are you giving me for betting against all the top experts?

  11. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    Also, a general point Steve.

    If you want to disagree with someone and attack what they have said, fine. Thats all part of the rough and tumble of the blogosphere. However, it is basic politeness to at least be accurate about WHO you are disagreing with.

    The particular post you link to says, reasonably prominently at the bottom, ‘last updated by Jim Meador’.

    In the past you have made various criticism’s of content at SkepticalScience, attributing them all to John Cook. In reality, SkepticalScience now consists of a large community of contributors, myself included, who write articles, contribute and critique the work of others and so on.

    If you wish to disagree with what someone has said, go for it. But please refrain from attacking the wrong person! In this case for example, Jim Meador hasn’t been active at SkS for some time.

    And his name isn’t John Cook..

  12. Don Gaddes says:

    That part of the Arctic (and Antarctic) that is covered by longitudes (120 degrees – 0 degrees -100 degrees) (Peking to San Francisco via Australia,) is currently affected by a One Solar/Earth Year ‘Dry’ Cycle influence, that will end around the 120 degree longitude (West of Australia) in early January 2013. The rest of the Arctic and Antarctic is currently in the subsequent Two Solar/Earth Year ‘Wet’/Normal Cycle, that started at 120 degrees of longitude (west of Australia) around seven months ago, and has just reached the North American West Coast. (so alleviating the Colorado fires.) Thus around two thirds of the Arctic and Antarctic are in an increasing Wet/Normal Period.
    Do you still accuse me of ‘hind-casting’ Tom?

  13. joe says:

    Who would have thunk Arctic ice melts in summer!It will freeze up again and then melt again.

  14. joe says:

    By the way,Arctic has been ice free pre 1900’s so what else is new.

  15. joe says:

    Sorry,i forgot to add this with the above.Shell saying sea ice is causing them problems so will have to postpone drilling.http://iceagenow.info/2012/07/sea-ice-delays-shell-alaska-drilling/

Leave a Reply